B
basementLDARcel
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2022
- Posts
- 789
If you were to brag on this site about having sex with a 3-4//10 woman who wasnt a prostitute, you would get banned, but many of you may say "I would rather fuck hot hookers than have sex with a sub par wife." Which means you dont care about marriage obligations at all. you just see it a means to an end. the marriage obligations, for thousands of years, were that you would agree to sex ahead of time.
Professional sports players have to sign contracts ahead of time giving consent to be filmed and broadcasted to national TV. they dont consent every time they play a game. the consent was given due to the contract they originally signed which gave their consent months or years in advance.
if you sign a marital contract, for thousands of years by saying "for better or for worse", you were agreeing to your spouse they could have sex with you "til death do us part". most people in marriage ceremonies just go through the motions and said "I DO". but they didn't listen, they gave what could be argued as "unconfirmed consent". they never really listened, they just assumed marriage wasnt binding, and was "cute", and thus agreed to marriage. they then realized what they were tied into, and wanted out. in the past, they couldn't get out, in the present, they can. many incels here know a wife can weasle out of marriage and get a lopsised divorce settlement. but this wouldnt be hypocritical if incels were non willing to get marriage to any woman. the incels i am using in the context of this topic are ones who just want to have a hot woman they can have sex with for pleasure (and kids are an "ok" side effect), and they wont get too ugly when old. they would be "tolerable". but a 3-4 woman who may be somewhat tolerable when young, wouldn't be tolerable when older.
as marilyn monroe put it, "if you cant handle at my best, you cant handle me at my worst". this what "for better or for worse", means.
marriage has always been traditionally about a woman's exchange of her sexual resources for a man's financial resouces. if a man marries a woman, she is now guaranteed his financial resourse, but a man isnt guaranteed her sexual resources. if she leaves, she gets his sexual resources and he is strippoed of his financial resources. being open to divorce is supporting this lopsided exchange, and also not respecting the origins of marriage and trying to warp it into some perverted failure we see today
Professional sports players have to sign contracts ahead of time giving consent to be filmed and broadcasted to national TV. they dont consent every time they play a game. the consent was given due to the contract they originally signed which gave their consent months or years in advance.
if you sign a marital contract, for thousands of years by saying "for better or for worse", you were agreeing to your spouse they could have sex with you "til death do us part". most people in marriage ceremonies just go through the motions and said "I DO". but they didn't listen, they gave what could be argued as "unconfirmed consent". they never really listened, they just assumed marriage wasnt binding, and was "cute", and thus agreed to marriage. they then realized what they were tied into, and wanted out. in the past, they couldn't get out, in the present, they can. many incels here know a wife can weasle out of marriage and get a lopsised divorce settlement. but this wouldnt be hypocritical if incels were non willing to get marriage to any woman. the incels i am using in the context of this topic are ones who just want to have a hot woman they can have sex with for pleasure (and kids are an "ok" side effect), and they wont get too ugly when old. they would be "tolerable". but a 3-4 woman who may be somewhat tolerable when young, wouldn't be tolerable when older.
as marilyn monroe put it, "if you cant handle at my best, you cant handle me at my worst". this what "for better or for worse", means.
marriage has always been traditionally about a woman's exchange of her sexual resources for a man's financial resouces. if a man marries a woman, she is now guaranteed his financial resourse, but a man isnt guaranteed her sexual resources. if she leaves, she gets his sexual resources and he is strippoed of his financial resources. being open to divorce is supporting this lopsided exchange, and also not respecting the origins of marriage and trying to warp it into some perverted failure we see today