Serial Marriage Isn’t

Over at Dalrock’s, there’s a wide-ranging discussion going on about the moral distinctions (if any) between hookup culture, serial LTRs, serial marriages, lifelong marriage, &c.

One particular comment caught my eye:

I see marriage as coming together for mainly two purposes – spiritual union and/or physical union – over a significant time-period. I don’t see why “until death parts us” is a necessary quantifier.

Because I am a lightworker, and desire only the edification of my fellow man, let me explain why “’till death do us part” is indeed a necessary part of the marriage bond.

Asset Division

Consider what happens when a marriage dissolves. Yes, there’s heartbreak, a storm of recriminations, anger, damage piled onto children, money handed over to lawyers, and, occasionally, a murder.

But, more importantly, there’s stuff to divide. Everything owned by either the man or his wife is now up for grabs, and everything that was once “theirs” must now become either “his” or “hers”. The fact that the marriage may end this way colors the entire enterprise.

Consider what happens if a marriage dissolves in which labor was divided along traditional lines: The man ventured forth into the world and earned money, and his wife tended to the home and children. There are only two real possibilities on dissolution: The man keeps everything (under the theory that he earned it) and the wife is left destitute, or half of everything he earned is turned over to his wife (under the theory of community property).

The problem is that neither outcome, in prospect, is compatible with the couple undertaking the traditional arrangement. If the wife is likely to be left with nothing (the rarely-realized feminist boogyman) she will be very unlikely to be willing to devote herself to home and hearth. On the other hand, if the man is at risk of losing half of everything he has earned to his ex (the “find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house” theory of marriage) he is unlikely to want his wife to stay home.

Division of Labor

In other words, once you redefine marriage as anything other than a lifetime bond, you create massive disincentives for couples to pursue the traditional arrangement. (Might this have been the feminist plan all along? Discuss amongst yourselves.)

Ok, you might say. So what? What’s so special about the model of the breadwinner man and the housewife? Well, what’s special about it is that it’s the only economic model of marriage that makes much sense.

Division of labor is a really, really big deal. It is vastly more efficient for men to specialize in their trades and then to combine their efforts to produce a final product, than it is for each man to attempt to make all things for himself. This applies at the micro level to the manufacture of a single product, and at the macro level to the organization of an economy. It also applies the family and the household.

When a man takes a wife and starts a family, a little enterprise is created. The only significant reason that this enterprise is more efficient and productive than its two members would be on their own is the division of labor. If the man and wife have a modern, feminist, equalist, “50/50” marriage, there’s (essentially) no gain in efficiency; each might as well be living alone.


So: If you remove permanence from the definition of marriage, you destroy the incentive structure that permits division of labor. Absent division of labor, marriage lacks any economic justification. Sooner or later, whether they realize it or not, people stop doing things that aren’t rewarded.

If it’s not forever, it’s not marriage.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Don’t Drop Out

A word to any men feeling demoralized by a society that clearly hates them: Don’t drop out. Stand in, work hard, accumulate capital, and then let the motherfucker burn.

The Beta: Backbone of Society

It’s a generally accepted truth in the manosphere that civilization was built by the Beta male, incentivized by novel social customs (monogamy) that granted him a wife and family of his very own in defiance of the natural order of male polygyny and female hypergamy. Absent those incentives, as in the distant past, and ever more so in the present, Betas throttle back their efforts to the bare minimum necessary for their own survival and amusement. Such a minimum level of output is not compatible with a functioning society.

Feminism Kills the Goose

With the advent of feminism, female hypergamy was once again unleashed through the normalization of serial monogamy, and the stealthy abolition of marriage via the introduction of unilateral no-fault divorce, community property, and de-facto default mother custody. As a “family” increasing came to be defined as “a mother and her children”, men became less and less interested in assuming the traditional burdens of adulthood. This latter phenomenon has been the subject of much recent caterwauling, as (many) women begin to bemoan the shortage of sexy, successful, single men for them to marry, and (a few) perceptive souls begin to wonder how a society that is already aging its way into a demographic crisis can cope with the additional problem of a generation of slackers.


The manosphere reactions to all this can be placed into three rough categories:

  1. Shake it off, and MAN UP! (Trad Cons)
  2. LOL! How you like it now, bitches?! (Vengeful balls of rage)
  3. Enjoy the decline! (Hedonists)

While I fully support the notion that a man owes nothing to a society that wishes to reduce him to a beast of burden, let me gently suggest that you still might want to consider forgoing the pussy, xbox, booze, and pot for a bit, and instead get your nose to the grindstone.


The reality is that money, to a great extent, is power and freedom. Money lets you travel the world, and live how and where you want. (For instance: Did you know the US basically sells green cards for $500K a pop? Other countries offer similar programs, usually at a considerable discount.) Money lets you solve problems that would otherwise cause you great inconvenience. And money lets you buy influence, and gives you the time to exploit it.

Roosh wrote the other day that:

There are organized movements in Western nations to eradicate gender, particularly masculinity. Losing this war will make it all but impossible for you to find a feminine woman who wants to serve your needs.

Don’t you want to hit these sons of bitches back? Well, to do that, you’ll need a weapon. Money is a very good (though hardly the only) weapon.

I don’t encourage you to work hard for the good of society, or out of any sense of responsibility. I encourage you to work hard, spend little, and pile up capital for your own good. Make hay while the sun shines.

Practical Advice

I recommend that you turn your attention to the STEM fields. These are the least feminized parts of our economy, and therefore the least repugnant to a man; they are also reasonably remunerative, relatively cheap to enter, and of practical value in any soon-to-come Mad Max future.

Medicine is practical, but expensive to enter, heavily regulated, and somewhat feminized. Law and banking are expensive to enter, heavily regulated, somewhat feminized, and not all that remunerative in the average case. The military sucks ass, but can give you a leg up on your career as an aspiring warlord.

The trades (e.g. electricians, plumbers) are not to be overlooked.

Try to spend only 40% of what you bring home. In 16 years (assuming 5% returns, and a 40% tax rate) you’ll earn enough interest to not have to work at all. 16 years might seem like a long time — and it sort of is — but it’s only a part of your life. And afterwards, you’ll be as free as any man can be.

Absent property, you’re at the mercy of people who hate you. Don’t drop out. Take what’s yours, then leave.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


One of the most mystifying feminist lies is that rape is “motivated by hostility and dislike for the opposite sex“. Just to puncture that in two little words: “prison rape“.

Root Causes

Rape is an aberration, and almost certainly triggered by a number of things. At bottom, however, we’ll find simple horniness, just as simple covetousness underlies robbery. Don’t believe me? Well, have a look at 2008 victimization rates for “rape/sexual assault” from the DOJ (Table 3):

12-15 1.6
16-19 2.2
20-24 2.1
25-34 0.7
35-49 0.8
50-64 0.2
65+ 0.2

It’s sort of eerie how that curve mirrors female sexual attractiveness, isn’t it?


Why, in defiance of Occam’s Razor, do feminists insist on peddling their absurd lie? I think that there are two reasons. The less interesting one is that feminists are wedded to the idea that no woman should ever be held accountable for the negative consequences of her actions. If rape is fundamentally triggered by sexual arousal, then a woman who behaves in a sexually provocative manner is contributing, practically if not morally, to her own victimization. In other words, there are negative consequences for dressing and acting like a slut, and such a reality is repugnant to the feminist mindset. So: deny, deny, deny.

The more interesting reason for the feminist lie is that they don’t realize that they’re lying. For women, male dominance, sexual arousal, and sexual intercourse really are all tangled up into one big moist ball. Consider this report, helpfully summarized by our friend Roissy thusly:

62%. That’s a majority, folks. A majority of women fantasize on average four times per year about being forcefully and nonconsensually penetrated. Nearly two out of ten women fantasize about rape at least once a week. If that doesn’t convince you of the animal nature of women’s sexuality and their deepest desire to submit to a more powerful lover, nothing will.

In other words, the reason that feminists say this particular stupid thing is that, from their perspective, it’s true. When they think about rape (and they do!), the appeal (and it’s there!) isn’t the sex, it’s the domination, hostility, and contempt.

Never underestimate the explanatory power of female solipsism.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment