Post: #1

Quote:"A nuclear family or elementary family is a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children. This is in contrast to a single-parent family, to the larger extended family, and to a family with more than two parents. Nuclear families typically center on a married couple."

While I commend Roosh's post on neomasculinity, the inclusion of "the nuclear family" confused and vexed me.

I come from a very traditional family (parents happily married 30+ years), but despite a pleasant upbringing, I've tried to remain objective when it comes to human sexuality. Anybody who has studied either anthropology, primatology or evolution biology, usually comes to same conclusion: marriage and monogamy are deeply unnatural for humans, like other primates. It's a mere by-product of the agricultural revolution, many hypothesize.

Yes, when it comes to income and education two parent families produce superior offspring in comparison with single parents families (a perverted family structure in the primate word, anyway), but does that mean we should just accept this "nuclear family" structure as the sole alternative? As if it were gospel?

Hardly.

The meaning of family has more plasticity.

The Red Pill pill represents truth. And monogamy is not truth. It is a fantasy and a lie. So how can we support it?

It seems to me that the "nuclear family" is one of the most blue pill things in modern society.

Discuss.

Perhaps I am missing something?

Post: #2

Irrelevant.

The nuclear family emerged as a religiously acceptable means of social formation that allowed for individuals to band together for survival.

There's nothing red pill or blue pill about cashing in the insurance that comes with sharing a residence and lifestyle with blood relatives who will probably care for you if you are too sick to take care of yourself.

Post: #3

"The nuclear family emerged a religiously acceptable means of social formation that allowed for individuals to band together for survival."

Not a bad theory, but most experts would argue this family structure emerged with the concept of property in the early neolithic period. Religion merely adopted the custom.

You raise an interesting point though. Survival is the most natural thing of all. So is the optimal family structure dependent on environmental resources? In that case, the nuclear family is a viable solution based on relatively, not an absolute.

The nuclear family is a solution for resource scarcity. (I'm reminded of chimps versus bonobos).

In the case of resource abundance (the west), is "the nuclear family" a truly natural formation given the environmental stimulus?

I don't think so. It doesn't match reality. Is nostalgia warping our thinking as men?

Post: #4

(03-15-2015 05:17 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  "The nuclear family emerged a religiously acceptable means of social formation that allowed for individuals to band together for survival."

Not a bad theory, but most experts would argue this family structure emerged with the concept of property in the early neolithic period. Religion merely adopted the custom.

Family structure, yes, but families at that point were less "nuclear" than they became after the pressure for "traditional" (lol) one male, one female parent families.

One man, as many wives as he could afford, would have been the predominant family structure prior to Christianity.

Post: #5

I feel like NN is setting us up to be wacked or something. He's posting more here than on his own forum.

Somethings fishy.....

Post: #6

You are 100% correct.

I should have been more clear that I was referring to the concept or marriage and monogamy within the species. My point is that it is unnatural. It's origins aside. Let's talk about "NEOmasculinity".

Is the nuclear family structure truly "right" in today's society?

Given our primal nature, I don't know how one can condone it.

Post: #7

(03-15-2015 05:07 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  Yes, when it comes to income and education two parent families produce superior offspring in comparison with single parents families

That is truth.

[/quote]
The Red Pill pill represents truth. And monogamy is not truth. It is a fantasy and a lie. So how can we support it?[/quote]

You're assuming that the nuclear family and sexual monogamy go hand in hand. A man seeking sex beyond that with his wife is natural, however this does not apply to a woman.

The male act of cheating involves revoking resource provisions from his wife/family and giving it to another female.

The female act of cheating is simply her fornicating with another male.

Both of these definitions of cheating involve taking what is most valuable from their partner and giving it to another mate: ie the male's resources and the female's fidelity.

Sexual monogamy within the nuclear family applies only to the female whereas provisional monogamy apples only to the male.

Post: #8

@RioNomad:

RVF has 1,000s of more members than my forum. More men=better groupthink.
I set up my forum to deal to with inquires and emails. I don't consider it a rival forum. It's an extension. I know I get a lot of haters on there, but in my mind we're all on the same page. Just dudes talking to other dudes, fleshing out ideas and helping each other out.

Post: #9

dupe?(joke)

Monogamy has served as a cohesive force socially. As the so called 'nuclear family' becomes less common, it will be interesting to see how it affects society. It is prevention against our primal nature, because society in older times would have become violent due to alphas shagging all the betas wives, so monogamy and society's adherence to it allows some restraint of primal behaviour.

I think it is red-pill to be a patriarch of one's own domain. With woman and children under one's guidance and leadership. This idea of masculinity is seen as outdated, old-fashioned and misogynistic by blue-pill types and feminists.

Post: #10

Monogamy is neither red pill nor blue pill. The red pill is about understanding the potential benefits and pitfalls of whatever relationship dynamic you choose and acting accordingly. Knowing that a monogamous relationship has to be guarded in order to be enjoyed.

You can't judge something by it being natural because that itself is an artificial distinction. Culture is a biological phenomenon. Clothing, medicine and not shitting in the forrest are unnatural but, most would insist, desirable for a functional society.

Societies that became great did so at the great cost of restraining human behavior. Indulging on your most basic urges do not lead to long-term progress. Sometimes people need to do things they don't like. We used to teach this to kids, but adults don't accept this anymore. Anyone being against your short-sighted pleasure-seeking is oppressing you.

Beautiful things are difficult to create and easy to destroy. It takes self-control and sacrificing some things to obtain some others. Thinking about the greater good and not just what you yourself feel like at this moment. But it takes everyone to do so and without real religion to fill us with fear and honor we seem to not be willing anymore.

Post: #11

Damn, this forum has gotten smarter. Good answers and an interesting variety of paradigms.

Perhaps, everything is just... gray pill.

*floats in air in lotus position*

Post: #12

Nuclear family is red pill if you created it based on your wishes and urges.

You found a hot, good woman who is going to be an excellent mother and you married her and had children with her.

Nuclear family is blue pill if you married the first hoe that spread her legs for you just so your mom could brag that you are married and because everybody pressured you and told you "it's time".

Post: #13

Nice post sixsix.

In a traditional marriage, the husband sacrifices and a woman surrenders.

Marriage was once regarded as a transformative event that would propel people's inward development. This was done through the destruction and death of their individuality.

Before the marriage they were each an "I"'. He used his resources for his own purposes and pleasure. Her feminine energies were wild, untamed, and for all to have and and enjoy.

Marriage would destroy that individual egotism (the I) and out of it's death would be a re-birth of (the We). A union of the opposites (masculine/feminine)

When a man puts a ring on her finger he's symbolically reigning her feminine energies and binding them to him and him alone. Effectively saying, "Now only onto me".

She must surrender herself to his direction and her new relation to the masculine is through him, instead of her own Father, Career, Priest, or whatever masculine she served beforehand.

The man would "husband" all his resources for the good of the family. He would sacrifice his own desires and devote his time, energy, and wanderlust for for the family's benefit.

Modern day men and women don't subscribe to the idea of sacrifice and surrender. They believe marriage should never "change who we are".

The word "surrender" is an especially negative word, probably the most, for westernized women. Watch their reaction when you say it in this kind of context. She will recoil and loath you. You would've been better off calling her a slutty cunt.

It's amazing to see how much power the concept of one well-placed word (surrender) can have over someone.

Interestingly if you do this with a non-western woman who has been raised to serve her family and the masculine she will just nod in agreement.

All that said a marriage with a woman isn't the be-all answer. There are many paths to the Self. To waking up, seeing who we are, and gaining self-knowledge. Being a family man is just one of them and a more problematic one in western societies than it once was.

We all here know the reasons for that.

Post: #14

sixsix basically said what I was going to say.

The nuclear family may not be the most strictly "natural" thing in the world (serial monogamy seems to have been the go-to relationship type in the time before civilization), but neither is this computer I'm typing on or essentially anything else you see around you. These are all creations of civilization with some end-purpose in mind.

Throughout history the very top tier guys always tended to philander around even when married. Kings always had many mistresses, but the vast majority of the population was at least guaranteed a wife and the ability to start a family. This arrangement led to a relatively stable civilization that continuously managed to perpetuate itself and benefited everybody.

Victor Pride has a good article about this type of phenomenon.

Quote:In laymans terms, the love of a good woman is absolutely essential. You’ve heard the saying “Behind every great Man is a great Woman“. It’s true. With too much un-focused sexual energy a man has no purpose or direction. Civilization itself exists solely because of monogamous marriages and the directed focus of sexual energy. Take a look at your nearest ghetto for confirmation. You will notice that they (the underclass) indiscriminately have sex with each other, pop out babies at random while not in a nuclear, monogamous relationship, have no love between the sex partners, do not control their sexual urges, live like savages because their too focused on their sex obsession to do anything productive or creative, and have to be taken care of by Big Daddy Government otherwise they starve.

Quote:What we have here is a classic case of over-indulgence in sexual energy with no focus to harness that power into advancement. The American Indians lived in this land for thousands of years with no advancement. When the White Man came (with his sexual energy focused and directed) he found the Indian still living in Teepee’s, not wearing clothing, shitting in the forest, and living like savages. A un-focused, sexually open society is a society that cannot survive the long term. If you disagree maybe you can ask an American Indian what he thinks about the assertation that sexual degeneracy will lead to extinction. What’s that, can’t find an American Indian to ask?

It's no coincidence that the societal decay we've seen has correlated with the decline of the classic family.

Of course all of us here want to maximize our game to pull the best girls, but I think when it becomes about quality rather than quantity you're doing something more akin to what Victor talked about in the article.

Post: #15

I agree with guys here.

Marriage is neither Red Pill or Blue Pill - it can be both or a mixture of that.

Marriage is an institution which creates a stable environment for raising kids (99% of children will prefer to be raised within the male-female dichotomy and will not enjoy being raised by either a single mother or a single dad). You only have to talk with the men or women who lost one of their parent early and how much they missed them (of course if they were not lunatic assholes).

It also created a good basis for the Omegas and deep Betas to be motivated having women. Some primitive societies remained that way because the Alphas of the group just monopolized the mating world.

As far as "natural" is concerned - our natural state is to live naked in the bushes, 80% of women reproducing and only 40% of men like in the Stone Age. That's pure r-selection. We are of course still wired that way with women being Alpha hunting hypergamous creatures monkey-branching to the next-best thing and men wanting to bang every young woman in the tribe.

That however does not create civilization. If you destroy monogamy completely sooner or later you have only uncaring Brave New World individuals left at best even if you can cling onto technology. Communal raising of children has been tried by the communist and the 1960s Flower-power communities. It did not work - children prefer to bond with parents, not a huge group - it's their bio-firmware.

Nuclear family likely cannot be replaced for the human race. Whether strict monogamy can evolve is another matter and is up for debate. A country consisting of all swinging couples might work and we certainly move in that direction in some places. But that is another debating point and has not much to do with Red Pill itself. Alphas don't like to share their women though, but who knows - when she already has had all the children, some decadent Alpha may not mind if she lets him fuck teenagers in return.

Post: #16

Quote:I know I get a lot of haters on there, but in my mind we're all on the same page.

Really? Your forum has evolved into an the most unhinged anti-RVF safe space on par with PUA Hate, because of your refusal to moderate it. When a troll gets banned here, they run there because they know you don't care about what happens. Do you take pride in how your forum turned out?

Post: #17

(03-15-2015 06:05 AM)sixsix Wrote:  You can't judge something by it being natural because that itself is an artificial distinction. Culture is a biological phenomenon. Clothing, medicine and not shitting in the forrest are unnatural but, most would insist, desirable for a functional society.

Specifically, the argument of "because unnatural" is a well-recognised logical fallacy -- naturalistic fallacy, to be exact, for the reasons pretty much as stated. "Natural" is not only an artificial descriptor, it's also vague. Is use of fire natural? Is there any other animal on the Earth that uses it? Is consciousness natural, given as far as we know there is no other creature on this planet (or anywhere else) which also has the capacity to hear in its own head cogito, ergo sum?

Post: #18

Also I would like to add another point OP - while I understand your perception and desire to fuck all young women and you like that thing to be able to bestowed upon everyone, it simply won't happen in reality.

We have to take into account that Red PIll guys here advocating for complete destruction of monogamy are aligning themselves with feminists and this should give them food for thought:



http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/20...nobo-hype/

I cannot find the article here, because I read one published by a scientist who did decades-worth of research on the Bonobos. The Bonobo monkeys are always chosen as the perfect peaceful example of primates who spend their days in a joint community fucking and being peacful. That researcher said that most of the research that gets also cited by feminists is idiotic. He compared it to sexual studies done on humans in prison and how gay humans are.

The researcher said that Bonobos in the wild are completely different - violent, monogamous, partriarchal like most other primates. They only behave differently behind bars in a safe environment where nothing happens. Probably we humans might do so too if you put 20 attractive people behind bars and told them to live forever there. Many people might also start having orgies just to kill time.

So - never align yourself with the femnists in that regard.

Post: #19

(03-15-2015 05:27 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 05:17 AM)blockedurl Wrote:  "The nuclear family emerged a religiously acceptable means of social formation that allowed for individuals to band together for survival."

Not a bad theory, but most experts would argue this family structure emerged with the concept of property in the early neolithic period. Religion merely adopted the custom.

Family structure, yes, but families at that point were less "nuclear" than they became after the pressure for "traditional" (lol) one male, one female parent families.

One man, as many wives as he could afford, would have been the predominant family structure prior to Christianity.

The founders of Western Civilization, the Greeks and more importantly the Romans, were strictly monogamous. Indeed the highly practical Romans placed a very high value on honor and virtue, something highly unusual for a pagan state.

Post: #20

It's a completely natural social formation stemming from its superior reproductive success. A traditional nuclear family was basically the man keeping the women continuously pregnant and feeding the offspring. It's only competitor was the 'polygamous family', where higher men take more wives and lower men are left without. The latter offers theoretically higher reproduction of superior men, but also creates social discord.

In a polygamous society, it is a literal zero sum game. The wives one man has are wives others can't have, and there are already 105 men for 100 women. In such a society, the only way the many men at the bottom can reproduce is to gang up and kill men on the top, and men on the top must keep pushing those at the bottom into wars to avoid this. It is a source of violence. A nuclear family society is more stable.

Post: #21

The nuclear family is an ideal precisely because it is unnatural. In a traditionalist view, though we might well be more inclined to the mating strategies of the wild savannah, we have constructed these more stable arrangements through our capacity for reason, and we prize them because they are somewhat difficult and require some tamping down of our innate desires.

Post: #22

I've quoted this several times here, but it goes to the heart of the current situation in the West:

Quote:“It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
― Michel Houellebecq, Whatever

As was said before, the nuclear family (or the superior extended family) is neither Red nor Blue.

The nuclear family is best thought of as a regulatory structure for the sexual market. Adultery and fornication laws and strict divorce laws were strong incentives to marriage and staying together. Religious, cultural and social sanctions are other forces for the nuclear family, which are now weak. The economic system has turned against the nuclear family, since the one-income provider male is mostly a thing of the past.

To extend Houellebecq's analogy, the nuclear family was like Glass-Steagall for the banking system. That was removed, and now the sexual marketplace is a free-for-all with flash trading and exotic derivatives.

Post: #23

My red-pill family is a little bubble of sanity in an otherwise insane horrible world. I work like crazy to maintain the "skin" that encloses the bubble.

It also takes MONEY. Having a sane family is expensive because moderns social institutions (corporate, legal, and governmental) now are designed to destroy family harmony, not support it. They are openly parasitic in nature i.e., divorce courts and marriage counselors aggressively seek to break up more marriages. Schools aggressively try to get kids hooked on ADHD medicines, thus creating drug addicted teens.

My kids sometimes recognize they live in a bubble. "Dad, how come all the other kids at school have divorced parents? Yuck!"

Post: #24

I feel like worrying about whether things are red or blue pill can be self-defeating....

Like worrying about whether this or that is Alpha or Beta.

In either case - are you doing something because it's what you want to do, or because of societal/familial programming that might be contrary to what's best for you?

Post: #25

I agree with Sp5 and MrLemon - there are economic as well as cultural forces in the west that have essentially declared war on the nuclear family. Not only frivorce and the feminist courts, but the mass media that is gradually normalizing deviancy and declaring traditional values as "old fashioned". The best way to shame an idea is to call it outdated. The powers that be know this.

And like another poster mentioned, a de-regulated sexual market has a downside, and that's female hypergamy run amok. When marriage and nuclear families go out the window, it's great for the top 5% of males because women, without societal constraints, will trade up to the highest status male. That leaves normal dudes fighting for scraps with 4s having attitudes like 9s. I firmly believe our forefathers knew more about the nature of women than we give them credit for and put certain checks and balances in place as a way to limit the worst of female hypergamy.

There's plenty of research that shows traditional nuclear families work best for kids. Anecdotally, out of all of my extended family and friends, the ones that were raised by 2 parents (even if there were hard times) turned out pretty good. The ones that were raised in divorced or single parent households seem to be more unstable, unemployed, or have other issues. This is just my observation though.