Post: #26

(03-15-2015 08:00 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

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?

Not to derail the thread, but your comments are unfair and simply not true. It is far from an "anti-RVF safe space". I close any RV/RVF hater thread I come across. I even have a rule against creating such threads. I know people hating on you is frustrating dude, but you need to cut me a little slack.

And to answer your question, I consider my forum a work in progress, not a finished product. I'm very casual about it. Yes, it's more of a jungle than a well-tended garden, and some may not like the wildness, but it's improving and gets more and active as the weeks go by. It's not RVF, nor will it be, but it will get there.

Post: #27

(03-15-2015 10:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  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.

You could go a stage further with the banking-system comparison, because it deviates from being a free market in the exact same way as the sexual marketplace - bailouts. Women have little incentive to "invest" sensibly because they will be bailed out no matter what they do, just like the banks.

Maybe humans in the distant future will be debating the causes of the great 2032 pussy crash?

Post: #28

Marriage is what makes us civilized, and in the ones that last, shows the importance of commitment to something just like anything in life. Unless someone never wants kids, marriage is just the formal way of showing loyalty. While I don't want to get married anytime soon, if I plan to have a kid I will.

(03-15-2015 12:48 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  And to answer your question, I consider my forum a work in progress, not a finished product. I'm very casual about it. Yes, it's more of a jungle than a well-tended garden, and some may not like the wildness, but it's improving and gets more and active as the weeks go by. It's not RVF, nor will it be, but it will get there.

You show no commitment to your forum which is why it will always be nothing. Your last sentence makes no sense, I guess you also believe you will win the lottery one day?

Post: #29

(03-15-2015 05:55 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

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

That is truth.

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.
[/quote]

VERY well said! That's exactly what I was thinking...that two-parent families AND sexual variety for men needn't be mutually exclusive...and in many cultures throughout history, they weren't. Some had formal polygamy. Some had "informal" polygamy, as they had in Europe for many years, with men having a wife but also a mistress on the side.

Post: #30

A family, especially a nuclear one, is an effective way to funnel societal pressure and expectations onto future generations.

Post: #31

Quote:I know people hating on you is frustrating dude

It's not at all, but I care where it's coming from. You have made likely thousands of dollars in book sales thanks to your ability to launch a publishing gig through RVF and my own promotions of your work on Twitter in the past. For several months you did not lock hate threads on your forum, and began doing so relatively recently. For over a year you have allowed your troll members to spread false rumors about me, leaving threads open for days before anything was done. So for you to tip toe back here today to get value from this forum after letting people trash me and RVF is hypocritical and phony.

I'll be more than happy to have you be a member on the forum, but if your "jungle" continues to act like RVF/Roosh Hate, you're no longer welcome here. You can't have it both ways.

Post: #32

(03-15-2015 02:00 PM)The Father Wrote:  VERY well said! That's exactly what I was thinking...that two-parent families AND sexual variety for men needn't be mutually exclusive...and in many cultures throughout history, they weren't. Some had formal polygamy. Some had "informal" polygamy, as they had in Europe for many years, with men having a wife but also a mistress on the side.

That is still a big part of French culture today, despite massive proliferation of feminist dogma.

Post: #33

*On the one hand, marriage and the family worked while it worked.*

It gave a somewhat reliable guarantee to the man that his children are indeed his (The Legitimacy Principle), which is the only thing that could possibly justify such a raw deal as:

- forfeiting your freedom
- living with a broad
- living with the *same* broad for a long ass time
- busting your ass for your entire natural life to keep them all well fed

It gave the man a reason to work. It gave a woman security. It gave kids the influence of a father, without which they are subject to the endless stupidity of female-only bringing, which has been studied and documented ad nauseum to produce all sorts of fucked up problems with the kids.

And although it's commonly thought that male sexuality must be restrained for a marriage to function, it's actually female sexuality that must be restrained in order for a marriage, indeed - all of society - to function.

In tribal cultures where women's sexuality is unrestrained, men can't be certain of the legitimacy of their offspring, so they have no incentive or obligation to toil themselves into an early grave (i.e. move society forward productively because they have to feed this never-ending black hole of needs that are wife & kids) over what could be another man's child. No thank you.

But marriage guarantees the man is working for posterity - his posterity. And that gives his slavery meaning. In fact, he might be proud of his slavery.

Some even argue that marriage and the family, and I use these terms loosely, is the construct responsible for bringing us out of the stone age. Its early rumblings can be found written in the code of Hammurabi.

So ok, let's say marriage and the two parent family lifted us out of savagery.

Does that make it necessarily good?

Once you've built a bridge to cross a river, you'll need a different kind of bridge to cross the next river. Marriage and the nuclear family might just be that first bridge.

*On The Other Hand*

Recognizing that marriage/family is unnatural to us, we have to remain open to the idea that nature is smarter than we are and that there could be a superior organization.

We started growing and eating grains to break the nomadic hunt and gather, feast and famine cycle. Surely that's a boon right? No more starvation!

Except...grains are poisonous, inflammatory, and disease-causing. So should we keep eating them now that we're aware of these issues just because they helped us from starving on the savanna for a little while?

Because let's face it, marriage and the family have a lot of serious issues.

The nuclear family is responsible for untold countless psychological problems with children. You only get two references about what a man and a woman are. And these two are constantly bickering, quarreling, arguing.

Hitting you, hitting each other, bitter about their state of affairs. And of course they're bitter, it's unnatural so of course you'll resent being trapped day after day in the same mundane situation all for the sake of moving the species along another inch.

I think a child would be tremendously enriched by being around all different kinds of adults.

He would be able to see that he doesn't have to become like his dad because he had many 'dads' to model his behavior on.

He doesn't have to, as Freud suggested, find a woman like his mom, because he knew many kinds of female personalities in his upbringing.

The nuclear family suffocates kids, pigeonholes them, and creates all sorts of perversions and illnesses that a more communal model could (and does) address.

As to marriage: it has lost its effectiveness as a means of controlling behavior for mutual benefit. We've effectively weakened all of the intangible (and thus strongest) nuts and bolts of marriage: shame, guilt, social pressure, fear of ostracism, etc.

Marriage has now transformed from a tool to ensure legitimacy of offspring to a means of extorting money from men without providing the reciprocal services which that money purchases.

The fact that a woman can receive any of a man's money or assets after divorce is the nail in the coffin on the institution of marriage.

Because marriage is a contract whereby both man and woman bring something to the table.

The man brings money, resources, unburdening of the woman and elevated social status.

The woman brings the promise of faithfulness, legitimate kids, dutiful mother/wife-hood, sexual openness, and various domestic duties.

Once a woman withdraws her end of the bargain, why should the man be forced to pay for services no longer rendered.

What's more, under current laws, custody is often granted to the woman on the basis of some vague notion of divine maternal right, even though it's clear as day that female headed homes produce a disproportionate number of delinquents, perverts, homos, and losers.

I don't know what the answer is for the future.

But what got us here won't necessarily get us there and I think we have to be mindful of the fallacy of "marriage was good THEN so it'll be good NOW".

The evidence all around us shows that this simply isn't the case.

Post: #34

Marriage would not be so bad if we returned to 19th century British law:

1. Female sexuality was highly restrained after marriage, cheating was ground for divorce without any alimony. She was to leave the house with her personal belongings. Children would remain with the father.

2. If the man cheated or had a mistress, then this was no reason for divorce, since any children he sired would illegitimate bastards anyway.

3. With current birth control that is even more the case, as women can end a pregnancy whenever they wish - if they want to have child without the man publicly declaring fatherhood and taking responsibility for the child, then he may or may not support the mother and his illegitimate child.

4. A woman is always free to leave and divorce, but she could only get alimony or child support, if the husband has been proven to be abusive - beating his wife and children or did not fulfill his marital obligations (did not fuck her). Also financial restriction and lacking financial care would be a reason for divorce (if he wasted all money on drinking or gambling and his family got nothing). If she frivorces him for any other reason, then she can leave with her personal belongings that she can carry and not a cent more, also children remaining with father.

5. Grounds for divorce for the man is not fulfilling of marital obligations - regardless whether she thinks once a year is enough. It is enough as much as the husband wants and not she desires. With sufficient proof he could divorce her ass and she would be penniless.

6. Husband is to be the legal head of the family deciding about the fate of his children - what school to choose, what other decisions he makes are his to make. There is no democracy in family.

Some of those laws have been in effect until the 1970s in some Western countries. I saw once old divorce documents from the 70s in Germany where a wife cited lacking fulfillment of marital duties of the husband as a reason for divorce - yes impotency could also get you divorced back then. But I could live with that.

Then the husband would have massive reasons to enter such a bond, where a woman would get financial and social security as long as she was within certain restraints. That is how marriages for most of history worked. The man sacrificed some freedom while the woman sacrificed future hypergamy for security and support.

Now any man going into marriage is a very brave Red Pill man who calculates divorce into his risk-assessment or he is a Blue Pill sheep ready for the slaughter.

Post: #35

Very interesting post, but I think you're making a mistake here:

(03-15-2015 02:58 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  Because let's face it, marriage and the family have a lot of serious issues.

The nuclear family is responsible for untold countless psychological problems with children. You only get two references about what a man and a woman are. And these two are constantly bickering, quarreling, arguing.

Hitting you, hitting each other, bitter about their state of affairs. And of course they're bitter, it's unnatural so of course you'll resent being trapped day after day in the same mundane situation all for the sake of moving the species along another inch.

I think a child would be tremendously enriched by being around all different kinds of adults.

I don't think that it was situation normal, except in short time periods in certain cultures. For children to only be around their mother and father, in a total vacuum, they had to be farmers or outside of townships. Except when isolated from other families by distance, there was usually extended family and neighbors around. "Tribes" extended much further than the nuclear family.

Post: #36

Before families, there were tribes. A nuclear family is the smallest representation of a tribe, man + woman + children + grand parents. If you look at a single mother household, man and grand parents have been replaced by institutionalized child care and the "welfare" state (food stamps, pension, insurance companies). The system may cover material needs, but can not provide emotional support and overall guidance ever. Humans need human interaction to live a good life.

Post: #37

I think nuclear family is blue-pill. What's Alpha is having multiple wives. That's what I'm going for. Well not wives obviously, but live-ins.

Post: #38

(03-15-2015 07:20 PM)void Wrote:  Before families, there were tribes. A nuclear family is the smallest representation of a tribe, man + woman + children + grand parents. If you look at a single mother household, man and grand parents have been replaced by institutionalized child care and the "welfare" state (food stamps, pension, insurance companies). The system may cover material needs, but can not provide emotional support and overall guidance ever. Humans need human interaction to live a good life.

Yeah, that's a huge flaw with his argument I was going to address.

My great grandfather was pretty much part of a 60+ person clan in his town, which had plenty of other families and types of people. He was also a prolific guy who had a bunch of bastard kids by women other than his wife that we didn't know existed until a couple years ago.

For my other ancestors it was pretty much the same. They didn't live on the moon.

The nuclear family is ideal and natural, but it's nearly impossible now because of the culture and the laws (divorce, domestic violence, etc.).

Those who can rely on family don't have to rely on government as much, so the forces in our society who wanted stronger government were eager to destroy it. And with that destruction came a feminized society. The unhappy malcontent womyn, many of whom were lesbians with penis envy or married manginas, got their way because the powers that be saw them as useful idiots. Democracy in action.

The recipe for a successful family requires an alpha male who treats his home like his castle, is willing to use appropriate levels of corrective violence to put the woman and children back in line, gives his bitch plenty of kids to keep her busy, and provides for his family and tries to be a somewhat decent father.

Post: #39

It's purple pill. It can be both depending on the people involved. Tony Soprano was pretty red pill, housewife, kids etc.
Junior Soprano was childless and alone at the end. Not exactly alpha. The dude with bastards all over town isnt exactly alpha neither.

Post: #40

(03-16-2015 12:20 PM)Pride male Wrote:  It's purple pill. It can be both depending on the people involved. Tony Soprano was pretty red pill, housewife, kids etc.
Junior Soprano was childless and alone at the end. Not exactly alpha. The dude with bastards all over town isnt exactly alpha neither.

Having kids you don't support/raise does nothing but burden the taxpayer, contribute to the nanny state, cause contempt for men, and fuel the fires of feminism. Spreading genes is a dud idea if you aren't there to perpetuate such in a masculine, nurturing. Instead the child will be misguided by a feminine household and never reach their potential. There's nothing alpha about putting offspring in that situation.

Post: #41

^^My point exactly. The nuclear family is healthy, depending on the wife/husband. Moreso, than being a deadbeat dad or being an old childless man. Although, I will admit I dont know what it being red or blue pill means.

Post: #42

(03-16-2015 01:53 PM)Pride male Wrote:  ^^My point exactly. The nuclear family is healthy, depending on the wife/husband. Moreso, than being a deadbeat dad or being an old childless man. Although, I will admit I dont know what it being red or blue pill means.

It's all so subjective depending on who you ask that it's basically meaningless. The concept is lifted from a overrated sci-fi movie, for Chrissake.

Red pill = good and whatever I agree with

Blue pill = bad and whatever I don't agree with

Post: #43

(03-15-2015 02:22 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:I know people hating on you is frustrating dude

It's not at all, but I care where it's coming from. You have made likely thousands of dollars in book sales thanks to your ability to launch a publishing gig through RVF and my own promotions of your work on Twitter in the past. For several months you did not lock hate threads on your forum, and began doing so relatively recently. For over a year you have allowed your troll members to spread false rumors about me, leaving threads open for days before anything was done. So for you to tip toe back here today to get value from this forum after letting people trash me and RVF is hypocritical and phony.

I'll be more than happy to have you be a member on the forum, but if your "jungle" continues to act like RVF/Roosh Hate, you're no longer welcome here. You can't have it both ways.

Does he win points for permabanning Deb?

Post: #44

(03-16-2015 01:57 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  It's all so subjective depending on who you ask that it's basically meaningless. The concept is lifted from a overrated sci-fi movie, for Chrissake.

Red pill = good and whatever I agree with

Blue pill = bad and whatever I don't agree with

Red Pill marriage: traditional separation of frame, husband is the head of the household, woman tries to be feminine even if she works or makes more money than him, man is masculine and strong, woman can relax and be submissive at home, children listen to the father as an authority figure, woman can be more lenient and soft with children, wife never questions husband publicly or with their kids, husband fucks wife regularly and she is his personal sex slave and enjoys it, if he is not Alpha he becomes more so over the years, husband only does household chores if he works much less, they cannot hire help and he never does it in front of her, generally both are more happy unless wife becomes a radical feminist along the way

Blue Pill marriage: woman thinks that "putting a man in his place" (Millionaire Matchmaker style) is a good thing, she wants "equality" - effectively supremacy, house is hers, husband is relegated to the man-cave (basement, garage, attic), man is humiliated and made fun of at every corner - sometimes even publicly, wife questions husband in front of children, husband is a pussy and lives in the frame of his wife, she hates sex with him, sex is at best transactional after a time, she is not turned on by him, husband helps with the chores and her pussy is even left drier, husband tries to please wife sexually, but to no avail - she is still not into him, husband becomes more Beta over the years and after first child or children she is again interested in Alphas choosing to terminate the marriage sooner or later, both are miserable throughout most of the marriage despite being more "equal"


Red Pill marriages can fall apart too if:

- husband cheats too much
- becomes an alcoholic, too Dark Triad, abusive
- falls tremendously in financial & social status for an extended period (short periods or even a year of joblessness is probably not enough in many cases)
- husband leaves wife for a younger hotter woman

Otherwise those marriages are actually quite stable and fulfilling. I have friends who had those marriages and usually they were happy. It ended only because of those reasons I mentioned above.

The Blue Pill marriages on the other hand fall apart under any and all pretenses - one month of joblessness can end it, because the women are toying with divorce for years anyway.

Post: #45

^^^I have a red pill marriage!

Post: #46

(03-16-2015 10:41 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:20 PM)void Wrote:  Before families, there were tribes. A nuclear family is the smallest representation of a tribe, man + woman + children + grand parents. If you look at a single mother household, man and grand parents have been replaced by institutionalized child care and the "welfare" state (food stamps, pension, insurance companies). The system may cover material needs, but can not provide emotional support and overall guidance ever. Humans need human interaction to live a good life.

Yeah, that's a huge flaw with his argument I was going to address.

My great grandfather was pretty much part of a 60+ person clan in his town, which had plenty of other families and types of people. He was also a prolific guy who had a bunch of bastard kids by women other than his wife that we didn't know existed until a couple years ago.

For my other ancestors it was pretty much the same. They didn't live on the moon.

The nuclear family is ideal and natural, but it's nearly impossible now because of the culture and the laws (divorce, domestic violence, etc.).

Those who can rely on family don't have to rely on government as much, so the forces in our society who wanted stronger government were eager to destroy it. And with that destruction came a feminized society. The unhappy malcontent womyn, many of whom were lesbians with penis envy or married manginas, got their way because the powers that be saw them as useful idiots. Democracy in action.

The recipe for a successful family requires an alpha male who treats his home like his castle, is willing to use appropriate levels of corrective violence to put the woman and children back in line, gives his bitch plenty of kids to keep her busy, and provides for his family and tries to be a somewhat decent father.

As for tribe, I guess it means extended family too? In Anglosphere countries nuclear families means mother, father and kids. In many other cultures the extended family is involved too. This is the Indian approach to family life:

• Your parents' house is yours, you're always welcome to visit.
• You treat your siblings’ kids like your own.
• Your house is always open to your siblings. If they are visiting from out of town, they can stay at your place. It’s unacceptable to ask them to stay in hotel if you have the space to accommodate them.
• You respect your parents and you take care of them when they’re old. They brought you into the world, so you owe them. Putting then in a care home is unacceptable, unless they are very ill. Grandparents have to be involved with grandchildren
• The extended family helps raise kids. You never hire babysitters, you get family members to look after your kids.
• Maintain your connections with your extended family, even if they’re on the other side of the world
  

I was born and raised in a small town in UK and most of my father’s side of the family lived within 500 yards of my house. I know all of my first cousins, even though they live across the world. I also know most of my second cousins and a lot of third cousins too.

I met a white American lady for a drink last week and she told me that she her own sister wouldn’t let her stay with her temporarily after she split up with her ex. She had to stay in a hotel. I wasn’t surprised when I heard this.

Post: #47

I believe the families of the future will be a mother and father that come together that have closely shared values on how they choose to raise their children. They may or may not live together.

I think many of these pairings will not be romantic. It will be like an amicable divorce happened directly after pregnancy. Both mother and father can date anyone.

Their bond is the children primarily and nothing further.

Post: #48

(03-16-2015 02:18 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Red Pill marriage: traditional separation of frame, husband is the head of the household, woman tries to be feminine even if she works or makes more money than him, man is masculine and strong, woman can relax and be submissive at home, children listen to the father as an authority figure, woman can be more lenient and soft with children, wife never questions husband publicly or with their kids, husband fucks wife regularly and she is his personal sex slave and enjoys it, if he is not Alpha he becomes more so over the years, husband only does household chores if he works much less, they cannot hire help and he never does it in front of her, generally both are more happy unless wife becomes a radical feminist along the way

You can still find western born and raised women who are prepared to live in households this way. Unfortunately you will have to convert to Ultra-orthodox Judaism, Mormonism or Islam to marry one of them.

Post: #49

(03-16-2015 06:31 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 02:18 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Red Pill marriage: traditional separation of frame, husband is the head of the household, woman tries to be feminine even if she works or makes more money than him, ...

You can still find western born and raised women who are prepared to live in households this way. Unfortunately you will have to convert to Ultra-orthodox Judaism, Mormonism or Islam to marry one of them.

Nah - no reason to become Muslim or orthodox. Plenty of marriages are like that - even outwardly liberal ones. You will find some married Red Pill having such marriages as well as female ones like Judgybitch. One of my friend had a marriage like that with her making 6 figures and being highly intelligent, while at home being the submissive wife. Women react to massive frame IF they have at least the potential for it. No fucking way do you need to become a Muslim to get there.

As a matter of fact such a willing Red Pill marriage is way better than one that only conforms to outward pressure by society or religion.

Post: #50

(03-16-2015 06:31 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  You can still find western born and raised women who are prepared to live in households this way. Unfortunately you will have to convert to Ultra-orthodox Judaism, Mormonism or Islam to marry one of them.

Having next level game is knowing this statement is false. With that also comes the knowledge that when you play the field too long, quality women become unavailable. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Don't become jaded in your pursuits for pleasure. We reap what we sew.