How to “Sell” an Electric Car . . .

Eric just wrote an article on how just about every car has power everything and then some and we all get pulled along with the masses. It’s the same thing in the dating world. For every man who does a cost-benefit analysis there are ten who will put up with anything and do anything and pay anything. Even many who know better but think it is expected of them.

The marketing towards women creates expectations of men. How many stand up to it and say it is BS? And those that do, what happens to them?

This constant giving in, serving, on every level. That’s why marriage is now a contract of liabilities, obligations, and penalties for men with no responsibilities or obligations for women. That’s why the laws are the way they are.

It takes very strong character not to be corrupted by an environment set up to cater you and mitigate every risk and cover your ass. An environment set up to aid you at every turn while sparing you from as much hard/dirty/dangerous work as you desire to be spared from.

So is it any wonder there are relatively so few uncorrupted?

Hey Brent,
Which is why I never purchased a diamond for any of my exes. If its so meaningful and glamorous, they can get a job and buy their own. Prime example of this image bullshit…Liz Taylor. Quoted as saying that the discovered she only had to do one thing to get whatever she wanted, ask for it! (Bitch) I bet she never thought she would get a “sparring partner” when she married Michael Todd, of course, neither did he, lol!

Hi Graves!

The modern, manufactured conception of marriage is based on a no-longer-existing premise: That it is a morally binding unconditional commitment to each other until death do us part. Most people utter those exact words at the altar.

Marriage today is in fact a conditional partnership – so long as the woman (or man) is “happy,” or the situation is agreeable it remains operative. When it no longer suits one party, that party can just decide to rip up the fraudulently agreed-to unconditional commitment they made at the altar.

Most people get married thinking it is explicitly unconditional; that – at last! – you have found a person who will stick with you through good and bad, who will not decide they’re “unhappy” and check out, leaving the other person – who did commit, emotionally, financially – to try to pick up the pieces of their wrecked life. You trust them completely. You go into it thinking that whatever happens, you two will figure it out. Otherwise, why bother with it? Who would agree to it, if there was any doubt in their minds that it would not be forever?

I don’t say that people ought to commit to being miserable. I merely say that if people aren’t willing to commit unconditionally, then marriage doesn’t make much sense. Shack up, “partner” – until it is no longer agreeable.

And a contract that can be broken unilaterally and without major repercussions for the party who broke the contract is a pretty worthless contract.

I think there may be something at play where some / many / most women want to sort for men willing to risk it all for them. So they are making the entire dating and marriage system an all in gamble that never ends.

There’s also the power aspect of it. When one party to a contract holds all the responsibilities, liabilities, and penalties, he is essentially a slave to the other party.

I think people long ago understood this and that’s why it was ‘death till you part’ and why each had responsibilities and obligations.

But that division always favored women. Thus the rise of feminism to push for more. Until we get where we are now.

If this course doesn’t end what will happen is polygamy. Over half, perhaps even 90% or more of the women sharing the top (in their mind) 10% of men.

Back to pack animal living. Civilization ends. We’re already seeing male productivity that keeps society functioning falling off as the sexual reward for it is stripped away.

Eventually even the do anything men will just stop.

Of course the shaming language is still being used. “man up”, do what it takes, risk what it takes. Trouble is the math problem. No matter how much men man up, the top 10% remains only 10%.

Hi Brent,

Agreed on all counts.

And, men have the advantage in this scenario.

We are physically stronger, obviously – and that matters when it comes to basic survival. I had a chat the other day with a friend of mine about this. Pointed out that – if I need to, because of financial hardship – I can cut and split 3-4 cords of wood myself, for free – and have free heat all winter long. My ex wife will have to turn up the thermostat and pay $350/month for electric.

Women – most of them – need a soft, office-type of job because they cannot perform hard labor, especially over time. Most women also lack technical/mechanical understanding – even on a basic level – and so need to rely on a man (it is almost always a man) to fix whatever’s broken.

And men’s “clock” ticks slower. A man in his 40s or 50s can date and be appealing to women in their 20s and 30s. It is rarely the reverse. A woman in her 30s is rapidly losing her biological value. She will (on average) look obviously past-due by the time she is in her mid-40s and be less and less appealing to men, who by nature are attracted to nubile women, not menopausal ones. A man will stick with his wife – and mother of his children – as she ages, if she doesn’t turn into a cold/sexless old frau (which many do). He has invested in her – and she in him.

But why on earth would a man in his 40s or 50s who is single and looking for a woman date an old one if he has the option to date a young, nubile one?

The 40-something women who divorce their husbands expecting to change up to a better model are mostly in for a very rude awakening. They are probably going to trade down, or end up alone.

And the nubile but bitchy ones?

When they perfect the Japanese Sex Robot, feminism is done.

Well-said, Brent!!

I love it when they say “Man-up”. That is exactly what many of us MGTOWers are doing.

We are being men, by not putting ourselves in positions where we stand a very good chance of becoming slaves for the rest of our lives.

Foregoing the pleasures(?) of sex, companionship and family, so as not to fall into the traps of alimony, child-support, divorce decrees, “domestic abuse” laws, etc. which can literally enslave us for the rest of life due to the unpredictable whims of stupid enabled twat…THAT is manning-up!

A weak man would say “Oh well, what are you going to do> That’s the way it is, so take a chance and see how it works out”.

Putting oneself in a position where he will be stripped of his dominion, or at least be prevented from exercising it, is just the opposite of being a man.

>”When one party to a contract holds all the responsibilities, liabilities, and penalties, he is essentially a slave to the other party.”<

Same deal with "domestic rape" laws- where a wife can charge her husband with "rape". It puts the woman in charge, of ultimately, everything. The woman is given ultimate power.

I love how they are putting the blame for the inevitable collapse of society on MGTOWers, when we are only reacting to the real causes of the problem, which are feminism and big government.

Heya Nunz!

It’s natural to want a woman, not just for sex but also for the female companionship – which can be wonderful. But the culture has interceded between men and women, creating almost hopeless expectations for both. There is a schlock TV show, The Bachelor (and Bachelorette) which paints the picture for all to see, but few see it.

The premise is: The woman will be constantly entertained by the man, who will pay for elaborate and expensive things to demonstrate his love. The man must be a kind of stud horse, with six pack abs and great hair who will never go gray or put on a few pounds. Neither will have to deal with serious things; they will take helicopter rides (paid for by … ?) to remote private islands where a gourmet meal will magically appear.

The moment it’s no longer glamorous, when the woman dries up or the man suffers a downturn in status/affluence – the other party begins looking across the fence. There’s no real commitment, hence no real trust and no sense of permanence.

Women, ironically, end up with the shorter end of the stick – which most of them don’t grok but will when they find themselves pushing 50, divorced and dealing with the dawning realization that they are well on the way to being Cat Ladies in pantsuits, like Hillary but without the resources.

That’s a thing too, Eric. Even without the feminism and big government interference, I have long been leery of marriage, simply because women do not age well.

What do you do when the girl whom you salivated over, and to whom you’ve been married for 20 years, turns into an androgynous beast at 40? For a couple of good decades (if you were extremely lucky) you have to then spend the next 30 years or more being repulsed in quiet desperation?

That is not a pleasant prospect- and since I honor my vows, divorce is not an option…. I’m just thankful that I never met anyone remotely compatible when I was 16-20ish, when I was under the impression that “Maybe by the time you’re 40, you think a 40 year-old woman is attractive. I mean, it has to be, because I see so many middle-aged men married to these *things*…”.

So here I am in my mid 50’s, and I probably look better than I ever have, and am in as-good or better shape than I was at 20. (And I don’t think that that is just my opinion, ’cause in the recent past, I had an opportunity to go out with a NICE 23 year-old- so nice, I actually was considering it…but ultimately decided against it.)

Meanwhile, someone I’ve long known, who, physically speaking was my “dream girl”- who was GORGEOUS from the time she was 13 to 30- started going downhill in her 30’s- until today, in her mid 40’s, is literally unrecognizable.

What would life be like if I were married to her? She’s DISGUSTING now! And no amount of love could change that fact.

From everything I see, I always think “Thank God I never married!”. It was a GREAT blessing to have never met Miss Right.

Eric, as always, you not only perfectly graps[sic 🙂 ] the entirety of the situation and all of it’s ramifications, but you verbalize it so eloquently and concisely!

Re: The Bachelor TV show you describe: THAT is why I have always had an aversion to modern dating culture. Instead of two people getting together in an attempt to get to know each other and assess each other’s character, modern dating is more like the mating ritual of insects- i.e. a contest to see who can put on the best show for the queen, in order to be allowed to boink her, and maybe reproduce and commit self-sacrifice for her.

Since I am not an insect, I’ve always abstained from the ritual.

Re: Female companionship: Ya know? When I was younger, I always had female friends, and they were always my favorite friends.

I haven’t been friends with a female in decades now. Women changed. They became stupid and entitled, and ceased being “regular people”. It seems like now, everything they do is a calculated move to elicit a desired response, or to try and establish some kind of “equality” or superiority. Everything now is politically or agenda driven; an expression of some aspect of feminism, rather than just being themselves and interacting as a person.

They’re all part of the “women’s team” now, rather than the “you and I friendship team”.

Even older, once humble, conservative women are now that way.

And, re: The 50 year old Hilary pants suit [great allusion!] cat ladies:

So true! And those were the ones who were viable when they were younger. The rest- like the 20’s and 30’s single mothers with one, two or three kids and/or canklesaurus-wrecks’s, are pretty much done and forever alone even in their 20’s.

My mother used to live in apartment complex in the 00’s- and the place was full of the above-described.

These washed-up wastes could have sex with various men any time they wanted….pop out a new kid or two if they want more benefits- but they’ll never be married, and never have a man who loves them, or even a good male companion.

It’s a shame. Some of ’em were even decent looking….but they’re done. No real man wants to raise someone else’s kids, or be the odd man out in a pre-made family, where 3 different men are still attached in one way or another because of the kids.

Yeah, a few of ’em may find “A husband”- like this one land whale I knew, who was married to this little pipsqueak who was half her size, and no bargain in any way- but that’s having a husband like having a $300 beat-up Geo Metro is “having a car”.

Even one of my relatives: She lived with a guy for years, and they got married when she started losing her looks and he lost any semblance of his balls. She’s the boss of the house. They had kids, who are all delinquents- on drugs; in prison; pregnant by married knee-grows. She’ll never know what it is to have a MAN, or security or real love.

They did it to themselves. They bought the lies that this was somehow freedom, and independence and a better way.

Hey Guys, I saw the title of a video on Youtube last night- just the TITLE pretty much said it all- I didn’t even watch the vidoe….

The title:

“Most Middle Class Men Who Are Married Are Broke”.

I wonder if that subject would include all of us Eunuchs?

Eric, it makes me so sad when ever I read your recounting of “how she just left and the vows meant nothing to her”.

It just so perfectly illustrates the deceptive and selfish nature of what has come to be the culture of modern women- and even more, how Uncle’s interference even into our famblies and interpersonal relationships enables and exacerbates this problem, and perverts justice by destroying innocent men for the benefit of vow-breaking women.

Now, I know that you’re one’a them godless heathens 🙂 but your plight is a perfect illustration Biblical principles:

In God’s economy, the husband (or father, if she’s unmarried) has ultimate say over the woman- and any contracts that the married woman enters into can be negated by her husband [etc.] – the same as even Uncle’s legal system does with minors….

Years ago, I used to think that this was just because it was the way God wanted it to be- but over the years, I’ve come to see that it is so because of the nature of women- They are like children in many respects- They were never meant to be just smaller softer higher-pitched versions of men. Imagine if we treated 10 year-olds as “fully equal”, and Uncle artificially enabled them to have full autonomy and legal powers…..

But that is exactly what Uncle has done with women- only, since they can not elevate the character of nor change the nature of women, they can not in reality elevate women, so in order to make them “equal” they must demote men- just as they do when they “help” the poor by destroying the middle-class/rich, or make certain minorority groups “equal” by giving them special rights, while denying the rights of those in the majority, etc.

And the above is yet another reason why we will never see a mass movement towards liberty- because women depend on the state for their “equality”, and in many cases to play husband and daddy.

Once women are given political power- such as being able to vote….it is a death-knell to any society which allows it- and look: Pretty much everything that has happened to make this country into the oppressive police state that it now is, has come about just since the time women were given the vote- the election of FDR being a glaring example of how quickly and predictably women selfishly and childishly reacted to the power that was given them.

Shoes, man, I’m tellin’ ya it was the damn shoes.

Brando, you got that right. It’s too bad that most so-called Christians who are steeped in 501c3 gov’t churches can not see what is now so blatantly obvious, and what has long been in the Scriptures:

That state is God’s main competitor. They want to usurp God’s position and authority. It is a false god of destruction and death and tyranny, who seeks to destroy all of rights and dominion the true God gave to every man over his own life, family and property.

The false god of “state” is at war with the principles of the true God and with those who obey His precepts, be their obedience by overt worship and conscious adherence, or just coincidental (as is the case with many Libertarians) because some men have figured out on their own that such actions are good.

Just consider a few of the contrasts:
God demands:
An unchanging form of money which has intrinsic value; That parents teach and diswcipline their children; That marriage is sacrosanct and permanent, unless it was predicated upon deception, in which case divorce was only permitted when that deception is discovered; that the penalty for property crimes is restitution and punitive damages; that kidnapping, robbery, assault,breaking into people’s houses, and murder are serious crimes- murder and kidnapping being punishable by death- and there are no exception for men who do so in the name of the state against those who transgress some law which the state made-up, which are not crimes in God’s eyes.

Those are just a few examples. Now think of how the state is total opposition to those things, and in-fact makes slaves and criminals out of those who would obey them!

Our “freedom of religion” is just like that of Ancient Rome: Worship any and every god you want….just so long as you obey Caesar above all and pay your taxes to him. As long as one’s servitude is to the state, they care not what rituals and names you use in your devotions- but if you have no gods before the true God, and obey Him (or just happen to be in agreement with some of His precepts, even without knowing the source of such) and one quickly realizes the degree of their slavery and servitude to the state- and it is no different oday than it was 3500 years ago in Egypt; 2500 years ago in Babylon; 2000 years ago in Rome, or 1000 years ago in Catholic Europe.

The state has always drawn it’s line in the sand. Most people don’t see it, because they just go along and do not pay much heed to God nor to His precepts.

Many Libertarians have discovered many of God’s precepts unwittingly, without realizing it. Ironically, they don’t know that God is the author of much of what they subscribe to- something which a tleast some of the Founders of this country understood, because they admitted that it is evident that our true rights are inalienable and God-given.