And, yes, she should be getting paid out pin money, every month, and that should be in an amount that is relative to his station, and she shouldn't be expected to cover any household expenses with that.
And that needs to get written down, in the prenup, as well.
This is what marriage has turned into mainstream society? No wonder people don't bother getting married anymore! Sounds like a bank contract or prostitution agreement lol
That’s because marriage contracts are a shitcoin. Why would anyone in their right mind assign the government as the arbiter of your relationship?
Enforcing private contracts (or backing their private mediation) is actually one of the few things a government arguably has any business doing.
I disagree. Governments are evil by nature. They fund themselves through violent extortion. They don’t have any business doing anything.
Well, okay, but that then negates all contract law and makes discussing it with you sort of pointless.
no, law pre-exists government, have a look at the bible, you will see "judges" precedes David
Contracts are an agreement between two parties. A breach of the contract does not necessitate the intervention of violent extortionists. In fact, most contract breaches don’t require the government at all. Most businesses ask their employees to sign arbitration agreements so that an arbitrator can help them resolve their disputes.
The arbitrator only has power to arbitrate because the threat of a messy, expensive court case looms over them.
The arbitrator has power because both parties agreed and assigned power to him. The expensive court case is a disincentive that pushed them to sign an arbitration agreement. You don’t have to agree to that. But it doesn’t give confidence to people that you’re someone that should be worked with.
Bitcoin can make prenups less important. Finding the right partner is the gold standard though. Ultimately I’m not sure why anyone cares what type of contract two people decide to consensually enter.
You still haven't said who enforces the contract if she wins the disagreement. Obviously, he can enforce his own clauses, but what does she do?
If there is no entity backing her side, then they have entered into a contract that only one of them has the power to enforce and that is an invalid contract.
You didn’t ask lol but you gotta stop thinking in terms of force and violence. The arbitrator makes a ruling based on the cases each person provides. If one of the parties disagrees, he or she can ignore the ruling but this looks bad on him or her. This is where the social contract is powerful. Who would marry that person who disregarded the ruling of their own arbitrator? Who would do business with that person? Would you marry someone that cheated in the past? Would you do business with someone accused of theft repeatedly? The solution isn’t going to always get you “justice,” but one individual’s loss in a partnership should not be subsidized by everyone in their community. If your partner turned out to be a scumbag that ripped you off, others shouldn’t be punished for it. The community will hear about these things and their reputation will suffer for it. This is how natural justice deters foul play without requiring violent extortion of other innocent people.
Natural Justice would be him being challenged to a duel by her brother or shot by her father. Patriarchs are the Justice of the Peace, if there are no official paths to enforce her contract.
The idea that a man can just leave her high and dry and walk away is based upon the error that other men have an interest in allowing him to leave, unscathed, leaving them to provide for an abandoned woman and not even giving them the satisfaction of exacting retribution.
Contracts with women are always de facto contracts with other men. Courts are a gentlemens' agreement, so eliminating courts just means men have to get the swords and pistols out, again.
Courts are not a gentlemen’s agreement. I never agreed to be ruled by a court. But yes men may get their swords and pistols and handle their own family disputes. Instead of the current socialist system that makes your loss everyone else’s problem. It’s not my fault Stephanie chose a bad husband. It’s not my fault Joseph’s wife committed adultery.
If there is abuse, adultery, or abandonment, most reasonable men would be happy to play by the rules and commit to marriage.
“No fault divorce” makes marriage a complete shitcoin because women can (and usually do) leave without any good reason outside of not feeling the vibe anymore… and the men foot the bill by default in the American court system.
Plainly, marriage is a scam in 🇺🇸
Thanks 🫶🏽
(No thanks 😅)
Women sometimes leave because of misbehavior from the husband. No-fault divorce can be a way for her to leave quicker and easier because it doesn't require a lengthy, costly legal battle or require her to collect evidence of his wrongdoing before leaving.
It can have a similar function to masking male misbehavior in marriage, as abortion does with rape.
Or you could’ve just not created a contract with the government and just leave when you are mistreated lol
You have clearly never been a woman in that situation.
Escape is hard even with "friends" who are abusing you. Especially if you live in their house. I had to steel myself hard to break away from a manipulator, and it only dawned on me a while later how vulnerable I was, that I ended up ghosting a psychotic landlady 2 months later after she brings her 7 foot tall blacksmith husband "I hope that's ok" on a second monthly inspection.
I have no idea what gender has to do with this?
Marriage has something to do with sex and reproduction.
the words "population" and "gender" (from generate) also inherently relate to sex and reproduction
(Natural) marriage is an inherently sexual contract and it is contracted between two parties, male and female, only one of which holds a monopoly on violence. The other party's contractual rights, and the rights of the children born into the contract, have to be defended by a separate male party.
That is why marriage isn't like a business contract, where it's two people making a deal at eye-level, that they can just walk away from and shrug. And this is why marriage is "the" contract, and not merely "a" contract.
It is a contract linking two societies or bloodlines.
yup, that's why it's so pivotal to so much history
Yeah, that's why women hardly feature in history, except as a "reason" why a feud broke out.
many stop having sex after marriage 😂
But a marriage contract is typically sealed by consummation, so there's something inherently sexual about it.
Most people consummate before marriage. These rules are all arbitrary. People do what they want. People have families and care for each other without a marriage contract.
We each have to choose the sort of environment we want to live in and I choose a better, more-married place than we have now, not a worse, more-ghetto one.
What you claim to be “better” is just your opinion. It’s what you think is better for you. You have not proven it to be factually better and it’s unlikely that anyone can. Some people would disagree with you that this society is better. There are ancient tribes that openly reproduced together and believed that all the children belonged to everyone. People didn’t kill each other for sleeping with women they liked because they didn’t view any single woman as their property. They raised the children together as a community. It worked for them. Do I think it’s “better?” No I don’t. I wouldn’t live in a community like that. But that’s my opinion and I have no right to enforce my opinions on what I think is better upon others.
You can't consumate a contract that doesn't exist.
It doesn’t have to physically exist. A verbal contract is fine: “I love you forever.” “I will only be with you.” “I want to be exclusive with you.”
You say they are consummating before marriage (which is illogical) and then claim they are consummating after marriage (which was my argument).
A marriage contract is generally sealed by sexual intercourse conducive to procreation, which makes it different from other contracts.
You can't accidentally get knocked up opening a bank account online or getting a car loan.
Im saying these things are arbitrary. Some people get married without the intention of procreating.
couples who wait til marriage tend to have significantly better sex lives
Evidence?
several studies have been done, however this is the first result from the google machine:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101222112102.htm
This doesn’t necessarily prove that waiting for marriage makes sex better. Delaying sex makes people value it more. This is just human nature. The longer and more difficult it is to earn something, the more we value it. Getting a car for free and working your ass off to buy one 6 months later are two completely different experiences.
right. i did say it makes for better "sex lives" anf not necessarily better sex. It would be difficult to scientifically rate something so subjective, but i guess I was specufically focusing on quantity, which is actually measurable.
Oh I know I’m just saying it’s not the marriage that makes it a better sex life but the delay of sex. If two people agreed not to have sex until they were ready to commit for life and move in together, their sex life wouldn’t be any worse than a couple that got a government approved piece of paper saying they’re married. If anything I’d argue the former couple would have a better sex life because both individuals don’t feel any compulsion to remain in the relationship. They are choosing to be with that person every day because it is genuinely what they want. It’s a much better feeling knowing that your partner can leave you but chooses to be with you than knowing your partner may leave you if it weren’t for this contract.
This is why abstinence before marriage is important. That way abstinence after marriage isn't such a shock.
It is also supposed to be a contract between the couple and society. This is why witnesses are required. Society needs children and marriage agrees to provide them in exchange for support and protection of the marriage.
The state gets involved because society is an interested party. (No state without replenishing the people) This is also why the state is traditionally uninterested in other types of infertile unions.
According to who?
When the majority of marriages (and the percentage is climbing) end in divorce… and women are usually the ones to initiate divorce, it’s not as clear-cut to just blame ‘misbehaving husbands’
There are, however, countless predatory women who marry + divorce whenever they want for any reason, even if there isn’t abuse, adultery, or abandonment.
Each relationship is different, and there is no simple explanation to why marriages fail, but the state has definitely worsened the success rate… because they have incentivized the misbehavior of women.
🎯
Natural marriage is a property and paternity contract, and always has been. That's why the parents got involved; it effects inheritance.
Sacramental marriage adds a layer on top of that, but it doesn't negate that.
This is a stereotype. There are matriarchal societies and lesbian marriages too.
Natural marriage is just that. Natural marriage.
I don’t think it should be relative to his station. I think it should be an amount that both agree on without any form of coercion. I also think that both people should be able to leave the union at any point in time. This allows both of them to always have a fair negotiating position. The problem with marriage contracts is that they take away your ability to easily leave. People treat their gf/bf better than their spouse because of that fact.
I think it should be relative to his station, as anything else goes against the principle that she is a member of his family and starts her off as the lesser partner or "poor relation".
A wealthy man who doesn't want to "lift a poor woman up" should marry a wealthy woman. That is why we assortatively mate, after all.
That’s something that should be negotiated and agreed upon beforehand. Some women would be glad to marry that wealthy man and be paid what she feels she is worth and not based on his relative position. Which is a silly thing to even try. There is no way to quantify that. Now you’re talking about her getting 50% of the money he makes and we’re back to the same problem we started with. Just let them negotiate and consensually agree beforehand. If either person doesn’t like it then they can be with someone else.
This whole conversation is exactly why marriage is in a nosedive. It was never about "love" or anything like that, it's status and money.
Why would I want to play into that fiat game?
Marriage was ruined once the state got involved.
I didn't say it need be 50%. The goal of pin money is that she can hang around the same class of people he's hanging around, without it being weird.
If she's a homemaker and he's earning 6 figures and giving her €100/month in pin money, she'll be too embarrassed to leave the house.
If he's barely scraping by, €100 will seem like a lot and he may hardly be able to pay it, and the other women will be like, Wow, she's so spoiled.
The purpose of having standard forms is to establish a norm. Any movement away from the norm should have to be justified, to signal an aberration to the negotiating partner who is in the weaker position. As in, "But all of your friends wives are getting €500 pin money, why do I only get €50?"
Those other men probably loved their brides more, and this is useful information for her to have when deciding to marry him.
There is no way to establish a norm fairly. Previous standards in which women had no rights, and were literally property, was the norm before. We don’t need norms. We don’t need standardization. We don’t need rulers and governing bodies. We just need free individuals peacefully cooperating and consenting to their partnerships. The rest will sort itself out.
Marriage itself is a religious institution. The church has no social power anymore so marriage has no meaning anymore. All the social power belongs to the state; so currently marriage is between you, your partner and the state. Yikes.
I would consider "marriage" currently more of a domestic partnership with the state overseeing your relationship.
I haven’t looked into the history enough to conclusively say this but it seems that marriage is inherently statist. It has all the qualities of control you’d expect from extortionists. Women became the property of her husband and took on his last name. Her father would get some type of payment. What other reason did anyone have for writing a marriage contract before? Taxes? It seems like it was just for record keeping. Whether it’s government, a monarch, or the church. It all seems to serve the same purpose.
Tax and insurance are some mild benefits. I think some sort of dowry system like in the East is much more constructive than the Wests system currently.
The first thing people do when they get married now is head to the DMV.
The first thing people do now when they get divorced is get a lawyer.
I don't see how the church is involved.
👀
There are two natural forms of contracts between the sexes: marriage and prostitution.
Both predate the church and the state. Those began mediating and standardizing the contracts, to prevent men from killing each other and to limit the amount of alms needed for abandoned women.
yes, before there was a physical church there was the spiritual one that is part of our nature, and that is the source of law, some call it "wisdom"
Right that mediating has totally messed the whole system up. There is no "marriage" in the West anymore, it's all performative.
I think the standard contracts have just worn out their usefulness and we need new contracts. Standards are important for establishing norms and defining vocabulary.
What is a wife? What can a wife reasonably expect? What can your friends, family, church elders, and neighbors expect from your marriage and when should they intervene because you have veered too far off the path?
What sacramental marriage adds, in a practical manner, is a dramatic decrease in the number of dissolved marriages.
I also think that, if the church wants to "reclaim" marriage from the state, they should be providing standard civil contracts and mediation, otherwise there will be discord in the church.
the Church, in all of its break-away sects, is all fully infiltrated by Satan, IMO, though not necessarily all the way to the edges at the parish level
that's why there literally has to be the return of the leader to restore its original function here in the physical universe (and according to several accounts that means migrating off planet for a thousand year period at least, due to the destruction that is coming very soon)
We have to make do, until He returns, tho. Otherwise, we're just another Armageddon cult.
well, i firmly believe that this is coming very soon and the impending collapse of the earth's magnetic field and the disasters that will ensue really is within our lifetime, and you can't get that information without reading apocrypha and other science including archaeology, geological and astrophysical scientific research, and even UFO contact accounts
if He isn't coming soon, we are all gone anyway, if we didn't do our research and position ourselves for surviving the ocean washing away the land all again, and you know that The Lord promised that there would never again befall His people such an event way back as Noah landed the ark on the first patch of dry land, you really should read The Book of Enoch for more detail on that story too, enoch appears in The Book of Jubilees as well and the provenance of the text dates it as at least as old as the rest of the Old Testhament
maybe i've got a bit of an odd, scientific version of christianity... the Mormons also have some funny stuff in there that hints at the idea of advanced technology and they make some interesting prescriptions that could not have been understood until the appearance of modern chemistry
anyway, as you well know, it says repeatedly all over the place that as the time nears the seals are opened
You sound like a statist lol we don’t need all these things predetermined. Let people create partnerships based on consent and everything will work itself out. Keep it simple lol anyway good talk everyone! I gotta get some sleep gn 🫂
And don't get me wrong I'm all for commitment, loyalty and marriage. Those are great things. But why would I involve the state or the church in that with a contract?
People should get married without there being a contract involved.
Yeah, nope. That just pushes the stress of dealing with potential messy split-ups onto the wider population and leads to societal chaos and decay.
Let's not make hookup culture the norm.
Marriage was always a social, ethical and moral contract. Those things are gone. I wish it was not the case.
These seemed more like social contracts. I’m not disagreeing but I see it a little different. When I watch weddings, especially eastern weddings, they are very clearly ritualistic traditions that have been passed down. They put these fancy dresses on and do these specific dances in front of the couple. It’s literally like the tribe is all coming together and acknowledging that only Peter gets to fuck Susan. We do this to keep peace in the tribe because all the men were killing each other over the women. So now instead of having one alpha get all the women, like in the animal kingdom, we have this marriage contract.
We're heading towards the "animal kingdom" type world. In the West at least.
And we can thank the money printer for that smh
Oh for sure.
I'm early 30s and 25% of my good guy friends have already been put through the divorce wringer. No other reason beyond "my feelings changed". Marriage is dead.
Because the underlying contract doesn't fit the nature of marriage and is skewing incentives.
Unpopular opinion:
Wives are a form of human property by Nature, (as are all legal dependents). They're the highest form of property, tho, because they aren't transferrable and they have rights specific to their station, including the right to renounce their station.
Men are expected to protect them and provide for them because they are "his". They can't be his unless he can lay claim to them, in some way, through legal title or Natural Law.
The feminists are actually right about this and pretending otherwise just makes us sound illogical. It says it, right in the Bible:
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”
-- Exodus 20:17
yes, employees are property also, within the terms of the contract and that absolute right to renounce
slavery is a violation of that important part of the deal
apprentices are also like this, , something in between a child and servant
Yes, German apprenticeship laws has them halfway between a child and an employee, leaning more toward child, the younger they are.
That's why employees are commonly called "human resources" or "human capital".
Have you seen my neighbour's ox though? I'm coveting that beast 24/7. I'm going to hell I know but I've come top terms with it.
I don’t believe in religion so for me, it’s easier to say that you are not property. I think if you can disagree with your master then you are unfit to be property. You can sugarcoat it however you want and call it the sanctity of the divine union. But if you are property then you don’t have the right to leave the marriage. You don’t have the right to refuse any commands he gives you. Property do not have rights. My car doesn’t have the right to stop serving me.
Also a lot of these words you are throwing out don’t mean anything. Like “legal” and “law.” These words don’t mean anything. They are mental conceptions. Legal and law are just opinions put forth by members of congress, senate, etc. These branches of government are made up of individual human beings. That means the words “law” and “legal” are just opinions of individual people. They are not facts. They are not objective. They are not moral. They are mental conceptions. People made them up, they mean nothing. They’re as real as Santa. But people with guns force you to believe in those words. They don’t force you to believe in Santa.
Late to the convo, but I thought the below excerpt from "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" by Will Durant fits in. Pretty interesting read. Note that in the paragraph above he does say that we must remind ourselves how little we really know of its origins.
I do agree that if a pre-nup is used both parties should retain they're own legal counsel.
I like the idea of the multi-sig. 
Yes, polygamy is described in the Old Testament, but Christ raised marriage to a sacrament linking the groom as "Christlike" and the bride as "Churchlike", and obviously Christ only has one Church and the Church only has one Christ, so it must remain monogamous.
indeed, i just got finished reading The Book of Jubilees, which is a much more detailed account of the contents of Genesis and Exodus, and more than a few times there is some strange things involving marrying cousins and multiple wives, not only that, several repeats of the same theme of story as cain and abel, but the one about the mother persuading the son to "steal the blessing" from the old man using pretend hairy strap-ons lol
i mean, seriously, the jews refusal to recognise the Messiah was truly the end of them, what remains now is just the synagogue of satan, at least in the formal, institutional sense, not necessarily the spirit of many of the practitioners
Jews have their own covenant.
They should all convert to Christianity, to be on the safe side, but I think that about everyone who isn't baptized.
well, supposedly the proportion of saved vs damned, according to what The Apocalypse of Yajnavalkya indicates (i forget now - have read it twice but can't remember the justification for this) is the same as it was during the War in Heaven, ie, 1/3 are fallen
so that actually suggests that it's not about which religion you follow, it's that you follow the Law that Christ brings, and Jesus and numerous other writers in the New Testament say this as well, even the Qur'an says that who follows the Law of Allah is a muslim (one who follows the way of peace)
Interesting perspective. I'm not religious, but I can see how the interpretation describes a monogamous partnership.
I know but any number you pick that isn’t 50% will be arbitrary. 50% means they are equal but anything other than that is arbitrary. How would you pick a numbers 40%? 30%? There is no objective way to quantify that. There is no mathematical formula. So let them negotiate instead.
And I said before that they should be able to leave the “marriage” any time if they feel mistreated. That also means they can renegotiate the terms of their agreement any time too. She can ask for more money or he can choose to give her less as his wealth grows. If they don’t agree then they can always go their separate ways.
If they agreed to do 40% for example, and he became a multimillionaire and said that he is only willing to give her 20% now, that is still a good deal for her. She is getting way more money than she was before without providing any additional value. But if she isn’t happy with 20% then she can leave the relationship. Your greatest negotiating power in a relationship comes from the ability to leave the relationship. Marriage basically castrates a man because it takes that away from him.
Or he can not marry at all.
Probably best.
Considering the situation with our society regarding compulsory state education and discord-inducing family law and an increasingly uncertain future, the option of reclusion has some benefits, and there is nothing other than "be fruitful and multiply" in the Book contradicting such a monastic option.
I have spent way too much of my life railing against the situation and poisoning myself to ignore it and time has slipped right away and I'm finally doing something I dreamed of as a small child.
I'm just gonna focus on what I can have as my freedom from being an instrument of evil and at least only defy the be fruitful command, or maybe deflect that to non-people things.
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 RSV)
prenups are pretty much useless these days in the corrupt anti-white, anti-male, anti-justice juridical system...
wen #nostr "contracts" app for nyms(newest legal status) to enter into at own discretion with unique terms to suit particular arrangements out of purview of State?
#asknostr
It used to be a better situation because the church was a community place where morals were constructed. There was a high social cost to separating. Now it's none of that.
Currently marriage is a contract between two people with the state being the arbiter.
The social contract is a huge element that is missing today. When you breach a contract and you don’t make the victim whole, the market penalizes you for that. People won’t do business with you or interact with you. It’s more costly to ostracized because of your mistreatment of a past partner or business associate.
Exactly, if you talk to anyone in their 80s and 90s they will tell you about how the church was where the community gathered and social contacts were formed. That was really how marriages stayed together because both parties would be ostracized if they split.
We essentially need a new church for the current generation, not sure if it exists.
Yeah the social contract I think is huge. If you’re a devout Christian then you don’t want to break that social contract. You wouldn’t need any violence from government to enforce that. The ostracism would be more than enough.
