Question to CuckTears: How can Anyone Think "Sexual Liberation" is a Good Thing?

[ItheIthe]

And to CuckTears people reading this, I'd ask you to actually read my reasoning here before automatically yelling "sour grapes", because I assure you it's not.

I'm simply incapable of seeing how fucking 10 people is superior to fucking 1. If you have a one and only, the bond you would share is IMMENSE.

But after 1 partner, pair-bonding ability is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to decrease. How is going through the emotional distress of a breakup good? How is having the ability o compare your spouse to others good? How is knowing you've given away what should exclusively belong to your spouse good?

I know a lot of girls complain about guys not caring about them. You know why? Guys get cynical, too, after their heart gets broken once. How is any of this good?

Divorce rates are close to 50%. 33% of Americans get an STD at some point (As per 2016 CDC report). Depression and anxiety are at all-time highs. I believe much of this would be cured if people just had stable love real young and didn't have to sift through so much shit just to end up with someone who can't even appreciate them like their one and only.

 

[Spidey]

facts but no one wants to listen

 

[BlackPillUNC]

Well if you are one of the men actually getting sex from all those liberated women, it might be ok.

 

[A Good Friend]

There's a difference between sexual liberation and weaponized sexuality.

Most of the problems the incel community has with modern modes is chalked up to a sexual viciousness, i.e. using sex for leverage or to gain power; to belittle others, a partner maybe.

People being comfortable with their biology is important, but it should be tempered with respect for others, and that's where women seem to lose. I don't think respect comes easily to them.

 

[prisoncel]

If you only ever watched one tv show in your life your bond with that tv show would be IMMENSE. If you watch a new show every night, then you are unable to get as engaged as you would if you watched the same one every night. It's more about distraction with new strong feelings than it is about "pair bonding" or being content.

 

[ItheIthe]

If you only ever watched one tv show in your life your bond with that tv show would be IMMENSE. If you watch a new show every night, then you are unable to get as engaged as you would if you watched the same one every night. It's more about distraction with new strong feelings than it is about "pair bonding" or being content.

Neck yourself, I'll happily link you to scientific research on this subject if you really think hat marriage, romance, and sex is comparable to TV.

 

[konthefox]

How is knowing you've given away what should exclusively belong to your spouse good?

Well, it's a human concept. Spouses. Not all mammals mate for life. And cheating isn't uncommon in Nature. Birds, for example.


The whole fidelity thing isn't a universal law. That's why we have countries and states where Polygamy is legal.

In return, I ask, why should you limit yourself to loving one woman? Why should you be denied the companionship of multiple partners if you so desire?

Naturally, this has nothing to do with us incels who can't even secure one date, let alone one partner. But it's fun to think about I guess.

 

[Diet_Choke]

Well if you're one of the 10 men she's fucking

And you have 10 other women you're fucking

And everyone's just experiencing all this good emotions with each other

I mean breakups after a while, they probably don't hurt if you're casual about it.

 

[ItheIthe]

Well, it's a human concept. Spouses. Not all mammals mate for life. And cheating isn't uncommon in Nature. Birds, for example.


The whole fidelity thing isn't a universal law. That's why we have countries and states where Polygamy is legal.

In return, I ask, why should you limit yourself to loving one woman? Why should you be denied the companionship of multiple partners if you so desire?

Naturally, this has nothing to do with us incels who can't even secure one date, let alone one partner. But it's fun to think about I guess.

Because it is scientifically proven that monogamy is better for emotional stability and home stability. It's really simple, an there are many animal species that practice strict monogamy, such as the magnificent wolf.

 

[ItheIthe]

Well if you're one of the 10 men she's fucking

And you have 10 other women you're fucking

And everyone's just experiencing all this good emotions with each other

I mean breakups after a while, they probably don't hurt if you're casual about it.

So you admit people have become so used to "breakups" that they are now numb inside? And you call this "good"? Again, it is far better for someone's spirit to be truly treasured than to be one of many.

 

[subsaharan]

I'll happily link you to scientific research on this subject

Please post these links.

 

[ItheIthe]

Please post these links.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382477/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ual-partners-ve-determine-likely-DIVORCE.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-mar...te-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269

 

[subsaharan]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382477/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ual-partners-ve-determine-likely-DIVORCE.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-mar...te-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269

Intredasting. But I don't know if these offer solid support for lifelong sexual monogamy. My cursory thoughts follow:

First link, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3382477/, which explores the origins of "pair-bonding" in humans, interestingly enough, actually does not explicitly define what is meant by pair-bond and monogamy. However, following up on a work by one of the cited authors (Chapais) shows that, within that field, monogamy refers to social monogamy rather than sexual monogamy. Excerpts from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23585378 in spoiler below.

Spoiler

"Monogamy - the term is used here as shorthand for social monogamy, a stable breeding bond between one male and one female, which, unlike sexual monogamy, does not exclude extra-pair sexual activity."

"TABLE 1. The Main Distinctive Features of Human Social Structure, the Federation of Multifamily Groups, From a Comparative (Interspecific) Perspective

• Multifamily group as modal group type
• Monogamy/polygyny mix as modal mating system
• Variable levels of premarital and postmarital sexual promiscuity

While interesting, since we're talking about sexual monogamy ITT, this bit of literature is not really relevant. But nevertheless, while we're on the topic of social monogamy, the more recent models suggest it evolved due to more males than females during human evolution, which forced a change in mating strategy (see https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32472 ).

Of note, widely practiced strict lifelong sexual monogamy is inconsistent with the well-known fact that we have 2x as many female ancestors as male (which necessitates some form/combination of widespread serial monogamy, sexual polygyny, rape or cuckoldry).

The second link, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages, is a good argument to never get married -- and that if you do happen to make the tragic mistake of getting married, don't do it again lmao. Relevant quote in spoiler below.

Spoiler

Past statistics have shown that in the U.S. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce.

The 3rd link, https://ifstudies.org/blog/counteri...between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability/ -- a non-peer reviewed blog post, nevertheless shows some interesting findings. This is probably the only one that truly lends credence to the abstinence argument for a lasting marriage, despite the fact expecting appreciable adherence is almost certainly unrealistic ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236611 ). The results are also fairly bizarre in that it suggests that that if you're going to have pre-marital sex, just don't have EXACTLY 2 or more than 10, lmao. The author explained, "Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry. The odds of divorce are lowest with zero or one premarital partners, but otherwise sowing one’s oats seems compatible with having a lasting marriage [...] But not too many oats" which pretty much undermines the message of this thread tbh.

It should also be kept in mind this is survey data and all the caveats that limit one's ability to make a causal inference applies. At best you can say # of pre-marital partners is associated, but that it might itself be a indicator variable of something else (e.g. impulsivity, pre-existing personality disorder, etc) not captured by the measures the U of Utah blog author put in his model (shown at the end).

Links 4-5 source back to the 3rd link.

Didn't see anything on happiness or psychological endpoints in the links. Wouldn't surprise me if they were associated with promiscuity though (as in more than a handful of partners).

tl;dr can probably make a good argument of low divorce risk with abstinence. data doesn't really support doomsday societal destruction and widespread social ills/degeneracy/"Depression and anxiety" from women simply fucking a low number that's >1 though tbh.

**** Note: this is NOT a defense of Degeneracy, I'm just too nihilistic to give a fuck about the moral argument and too robot to overlook misrepresented science lmao *****

 

[ItheIthe]

tl;dr can probably make a good argument of low divorce risk with abstinence. data doesn't really support doomsday societal destruction and widespread social ills/degeneracy/"Depression and anxiety" from women simply fucking a low number that's >1 though tbh.

Mental health poorly affected by "hookups": https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health.

It is human nature to want to be truly desired, love, and cherished by an SO. "Hookup" sex violates all of this by giving away your most intimate parts and experiencing the peak of physical attraction while being degraded as nothing more than flesh. You are not truly valued. That is why it is depressing.

In terms of "LTRs" ending in "breakups", I don't think I should have to point out how that can damage mental health, as it should be pretty obvious.

 

[newcel997]

good points, vut tgeres noone listening

 

[Diet_Choke]

So you admit people have become so used to "breakups" that they are now numb inside? And you call this "good"? Again, it is far better for someone's spirit to be truly treasured than to be one of many.

Not sure what there is to "admit," it seems self-evident that having many breakups would de-sensitize a person to breakups.

And the whole "spirit truly treasured" sounds like highly subjective, sentimental hurf-blurf.

I think people sluthate/puahate mainly because they weren't invited to the party.

If you were on a hotel roof in a hot tub getting your dick sucked by 3 sluts, you wouldn't be like "no, I have to go get my spirit fully treasured," you'd sit there and fucking enjoy it and want it again the next day.

Until you're in a position to turn down sex, you're in no position to comment on what you would or wouldn't do.

 

[ItheIthe]

Not sure what there is to "admit," it seems self-evident that having many breakups would de-sensitize a person to breakups.

And the whole "spirit truly treasured" sounds like highly subjective, sentimental hurf-blurf.

I think people sluthate/puahate mainly because they weren't invited to the party.

If you were on a hotel roof in a hot tub getting your dick sucked by 3 sluts, you wouldn't be like "no, I have to go get my spirit fully treasured," you'd sit there and fucking enjoy it and want it again the next day.

Until you're in a position to turn down sex, you're in no position to comment on what you would or wouldn't do.

I am in a position to turn down sex, I've done it already, and I'm a volcel. I can name at least 2 girls who I could easily fuck with a text or two, they're complete sluts. I have also been to parties. Stop projecting.

No, this spirituality is scientifically provable. Here's one study about how "hookup" culture results in depression: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health.

 

[Diet_Choke]

I am in a position to turn down sex, I've done it already, and I'm a volcel. I can name at least 2 girls who I could easily fuck with a text or two, they're complete sluts. I have also been to parties. Stop projecting.

No, this spirituality is scientifically provable. Here's one study about how "hookup" culture results in depression: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...3/how-casual-sex-can-affect-our-mental-health.

1. There's a far cry from "hookup culture" to "my relationship didn't work out, so I'll go be with someone else."

2. The level of internalized misandry is ridiculous, "ew penis" on steroids, the idea of your own gender "polluting" women, "polluting" their minds or somehow giving them psychic coodies is autistic and promotes self-hatred.

3. You say that a woman doesn't love her 2nd like her 1st. But she left her 1st, so she obviously doesn't "love" him at all.

4. What is a worse evil, staying married to someone you can't stand anymore and who can't stand you? Or accepting that some "penis pollution" is necessary in switching to a partner that you're more happy and compatible with? (I still think that idea is retarded, that women are "pure" until they get "polluted." They're not pure and you're not pollution.)

5. "Ending degeneracy today" would require a society and culture that functions like a sharia state with a "morality police" going around making sure that any male/female contact are proper. I don't see how it can be enforced otherwise.

 

[ItheIthe]

1. There's a far cry from "hookup culture" to "my relationship didn't work out, so I'll go be with someone else."

2. The level of internalized misandry is ridiculous, "ew penis" on steroids, the idea of your own gender "polluting" women, "polluting" their minds or somehow giving them psychic coodies is autistic and promotes self-hatred.

3. You say that a woman doesn't love her 2nd like her 1st. But she left her 1st, so she obviously doesn't "love" him at all.

4. What is a worse evil, staying married to someone you can't stand anymore and who can't stand you? Or accepting that some "penis pollution" is necessary in switching to a partner that you're more happy and compatible with? (I still think that idea is retarded, that women are "pure" until they get "polluted." They're not pure and you're not pollution.)

5. "Ending degeneracy today" would require a society and culture that functions like a sharia state with a "morality police" going around making sure that any male/female contact are proper. I don't see how it can be enforced otherwise.

1. There's really not much difference at all. Moving from "partner" to "partner" is, either way, detrimental for mental health, because in either case, you are not building something long-lasting and special.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Again, it is a scientific fact that pair-bonding ability goes down with "partner" count. It's male nature to want to be special to your girl not just a next guy in line. It has nothing to do with "misandry".

3. Okay, two things here. First of all, she may not have left her first, it could have been the other way around. And even if she did, she WAS at one point in love. And now she's become cynical to the point of being willing to "break up" that bond. Doesn't sound like wife material to me.

4. People inspired by Christ (And a handful of Atheists) don't get sick of their "partner" in the first place. A true lover treasures their "partner" until the end, and anyone not willing to do that (Except in cases of adultery or abuse) isn't marriage material anyway. Plus, as I've pointed out, "partner" count reduces ability to appreciate to the end IN THE FIRST PLACE. I absolutely believe people wouldn't get sick of each other so often if they were each other's first love to begin with.

5. Yes, you're right, and that is what I would like. Same idea as imprisoning thieves and murderers. Those who destroy the marriage pool and who destroy love are criminals. Love and marriage are essential for the happiness and longevity of human beings (Scientific fact), as well as a stable household to raise kids in.

 

[ropecel]

Because muh freedoms, people should be able to fuck whoever they want as long as consensual. Being a whore man or woman should be frowned upon socially though.

 

[ItheIthe]

Because muh freedoms, people should be able to fuck whoever they want as long as consensual. Being a whore man or woman should be frowned upon socially though.

I personally think being promiscuous should be a crime like in superior third world countries (Note their lower divorce rates, adultery rates, STD rates, broken home rates, etc)

 

[Total Imbecile]

Well the more sex girls have the greater the chance you will get laid as an incel? R-right?


REALITY:

 

[ropecel]

I personally think being promiscuous should be a crime like in superior third world countries (Note their lower divorce rates, adultery rates, STD rates, broken home rates, etc)

Meh. If retards want to get divorced, cheated on, or diseases, by all means. If they want to bring a child into that, then it should be considered a problem.

 

[Deleted member 279]

I don't get how you have the energy to debate these faggots. I just wanna bash their skulls in.

 

[ItheIthe]

Meh. If retards want to get divorced, cheated on, or diseases, by all means. If they want to bring a child into that, then it should be considered a problem.

The thing is it ruins ALL of society.

1. It ruins the marriage pool by inserting used up, cynical trash into there
2. Once women are able to use SLUTINESS to compete for men, all the decent girls start acting slutty in order to keep up. You see? Degeneracy is bad for ALL of society.

 

[ropecel]

The thing is it ruins ALL of society.

1. It ruins the marriage pool by inserting used up, cynical trash into there
2. Once women are able to use SLUTINESS to compete for men, all the decent girls start acting slutty in order to keep up. You see? Degeneracy is bad for ALL of society.

I don't care if society ends. So both of our arguments are correct.

 

[ItheIthe]

I don't get how you have the energy to debate these faggots. I just wanna bash their skulls in.

I just want to spread the truth. It is the only thing I have to live for at this point.

 

[grayjedi90]

And to CuckTears people reading this, I'd ask you to actually read my reasoning here before automatically yelling "sour grapes", because I assure you it's not.

I'm simply incapable of seeing how fucking 10 people is superior to fucking 1. If you have a one and only, the bond you would share is IMMENSE.

But after 1 partner, pair-bonding ability is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to decrease. How is going through the emotional distress of a breakup good? How is having the ability o compare your spouse to others good? How is knowing you've given away what should exclusively belong to your spouse good?

I know a lot of girls complain about guys not caring about them. You know why? Guys get cynical, too, after their heart gets broken once. How is any of this good?

Divorce rates are close to 50%. 33% of Americans get an STD at some point (As per 2016 CDC report). Depression and anxiety are at all-time highs. I believe much of this would be cured if people just had stable love real young and didn't have to sift through so much shit just to end up with someone who can't even appreciate them like their one and only.

But that would imply that everyone has to find the right partner the first time lol. That you find the right one on your first try is super rare, most people go through a few relationships before they find the right one.

The problem is not when people had about 10 relationships or so in the past. It becomes a problem when people become so slutty that they have 100 or even more that shit is just disgusting and shows that they just want to get their next sex kink and move on.

 

[ItheIthe]

But that would imply that everyone has to find the right partner the first time lol. That you find the right one on your first try is super rare, most people go through a few relationships before they find the right one.

The problem is not when people had about 10 relationships or so in the past. It becomes a problem when people become so slutty that they have 100 or even more that shit is just disgusting and shows that they just want to get their next sex kink and move on.

The "right one" is whoever you COMMIT to first. That is the strongest pair bond. Don't like them? Move on after a couple of "dates".

 

[Diet_Choke]

1. There's really not much difference at all. Moving from "partner" to "partner" is, either way, detrimental for mental health, because in either case, you are not building something long-lasting and special.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Again, it is a scientific fact that pair-bonding ability goes down with "partner" count. It's male nature to want to be special to your girl not just a next guy in line. It has nothing to do with "misandry".

3. Okay, two things here. First of all, she may not have left her first, it could have been the other way around. And even if she did, she WAS at one point in love. And now she's become cynical to the point of being willing to "break up" that bond. Doesn't sound like wife material to me.

4. People inspired by Christ (And a handful of Atheists) don't get sick of their "partner" in the first place. A true lover treasures their "partner" until the end, and anyone not willing to do that (Except in cases of adultery or abuse) isn't marriage material anyway. Plus, as I've pointed out, "partner" count reduces ability to appreciate to the end IN THE FIRST PLACE. I absolutely believe people wouldn't get sick of each other so often if they were each other's first love to begin with.

5. Yes, you're right, and that is what I would like. Same idea as imprisoning thieves and murderers. Those who destroy the marriage pool and who destroy love are criminals. Love and marriage are essential for the happiness and longevity of human beings (Scientific fact), as well as a stable household to raise kids in.

It's very easy to say things like, "if you're a real Chrstian/lover/real man/etc then you will never get sick of your partner."

Christian fundies, the type that get married right out of high school as virgins, have the highest divorce rates in the world.

You have some things that keep marriages together.

One is peer pressure, another thing is provision/support, another is legal hurdles.

Is that love? Is that empathy? Is that caring?

No, you might as well just be raping someone in the street.

 

[Diet_Choke]

The "right one" is whoever you COMMIT to first. That is the strongest pair bond. Don't like them? Move on after a couple of "dates".

Most ppl these days don't committ until they've had a few dozen partners.

Explain to me why this is wrong (if you're going to cite "pair bonding" show proof.)

 

[eurocel]

b-but women have to find someone they are sexually compatible with!!!!

 

[ItheIthe]

It's very easy to say things like, "if you're a real Chrstian/lover/real man/etc then you will never get sick of your partner."

Christian fundies, the type that get married right out of high school as virgins, have the highest divorce rates in the world.

You have some things that keep marriages together.

One is peer pressure, another thing is provision/support, another is legal hurdles.

Is that love? Is that empathy? Is that caring?

No, you might as well just be raping someone in the street.

Show me a link to this. And allow me to revise this. It's not about "religious Christians". It's about people TRULY INSPIRED by Christ.

Marriage should be held together by love. Why do we have so many people who can't love? Probably because they're desensitized from being with other people. Their hearts are hard.

And a link to pair bonding study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

 

[Diet_Choke]

Show me a link to this. And allow me to revise this. It's not about "religious Christians". It's about people TRULY INSPIRED by Christ.

Marriage should be held together by love. Why do we have so many people who can't love? Probably because they're desensitized from being with other people. Their hearts are hard.

And a link to pair bonding study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00444.x/abstract

According to you, the first time is "special pair bonding magic" so why do they move on to #2?

Did the pair bonding not work or what?

Why do people lose their virginity and then go..."um you know what? I'm just gonna...go date someone else now."

Because no pair-bonding occured.

Because "pair bonding" is something you heard in Terminator 3 and think it's a real thing. "You are male, she is female, there will be human pair bonding. I have detailed files." /arnie voice

If you don't believe me, go scrape together $200 and go fuck a hooker.

After that, come home and ask yourself if you have a craving to be with her for life. She was your first and no pair-bonding occurred, because she didn't have the right personality/values that would make you want to committ to her.

So it's not about being the first, it's about being compatible.

~~~~

By the way, here is what your pair bonding study says (see bold) ;

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage.


Relax, I'm not trying to play "gotcha."

We all know most of these studies can say whatever we want them to stay, it's based on interpretation of the data.

I found my study that I wanted to show you, but there were a bunch of other studies that contradicted it, so it became pointless.

 

[ItheIthe]

According to you, the first time is "special pair bonding magic" so why do they move on to #2?

Did the pair bonding not work or what?

Why do people lose their virginity and then go..."um you know what? I'm just gonna...go date someone else now."

Because no pair-bonding occured.

Because "pair bonding" is something you heard in Terminator 3 and think it's a real thing. "You are male, she is female, there will be human pair bonding. I have detailed files." /arnie voice

If you don't believe me, go scrape together $200 and go fuck a hooker.

After that, come home and ask yourself if you have a craving to be with her for life. She was your first and no pair-bonding occurred, because she didn't have the right personality/values that would make you want to committ to her.

So it's not about being the first, it's about being compatible.

~~~~

By the way, here is what your pair bonding study says (see bold) ;

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption. However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage.


Relax, I'm not trying to play "gotcha."

We all know most of these studies can say whatever we want them to stay, it's based on interpretation of the data.

I found my study that I wanted to show you, but there were a bunch of other studies that contradicted it, so it became pointless.

Why did they move? Because they are selfish and foolish. To say no pair-bonding occurred is to say thaat the two never even developed feelings for each other, which is just ridiculous.

Yes, I would agree that emotional attachment from fucking a hooker is minimal. However, the attachment you will now feel to your future spouse is lessened, because you have now achieved the peak of emotional pleasure with someone other than her, devaluing the marriage. See my links about partner count and divorce rate that I believe I posted earlier in the thread.

Great job ignoring my point in the study. It was never my intention to say that signing a piece of paper is what creates a bond. My point is that emotional fulfillment of being with exclusively one is greater than any emotional fulfillment of being with numerous people.

This study blatantly says "However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution." The part you highlighted has nothing to do with partner count, and everything to do with signing a piece of paper.

I think that the paper is important, however, as divorce should be illegal except for in extreme circumstances. Love unconditionally or else you are not fit for society.