Imagine a boy saying, "Will you supermarry me?" Supermarry and marry can coexist within the same legal code. People can still have the normal marriages we know and love today. The marriage is meaningless, you can cheat and there are no repercussions, you can divorce whenever you want for no reason, etc. But supermarriage is totally different. If you agree to supermarry a boy, then adultery carries with it the death penalty. Divorce and separation are banned, and only death will do you part. There could even be superdupermarriage. A superdupermarriage would require the woman have X number of kids by her man, and that she'll actually stay home and raise them. In this way, men could be legally protected. Instead of getting married, which could mean anything or nothing at all, they could say, "I'm willing to superdupermarry you, but I won't marry you, so it's your choice what you want to do." Or "I'll supermarry you, but I won't marry you, so it's your choice what you want to do."
Basically, let women have their watered down version of marriage. But let men have their fortified version of marriage. And then let men propose the marriage of their choice. If the woman wants said boy enough, she'll accede to even super-duper-marriage. And then the man will be legally protected and actually have a chance at a happy relationship. If the woman isn't willing to accept superdupermarriage, or supermarriage, a boy has fair warning that the girl is actually a wolf in disguise, and that he must escape her (Dump her) as soon as possible. Any girl who won't make serious promises upfront, but just wants an empty 'marriage' with no binding legal meaning, MUST be implying that she wants to cheat on you or divorce you in the future. You would finally learn her real intentions by not proposing marriage, but only supermarriage.
I don't see what anyone could have against two consenting adults writing up a contract with legally enforceable penalties for anyone who violates the contract. If women think this is too restrictive, just don't agree to it. Only agree to marriage -- but don't expect to get many proposals. Men, especially elite men, aren't going to bother with marriage if supermarriage is available. They will only propose supermarriage. In this way, we could steadily undermine marriage as a custom, and return 'marriage' to mean only 'supermarriage' and eventually only 'superdupermarriage.' Marriage would certainly always be an option, but no men would ever propose it. It would exist only in abstract, as men quickly realize how idiotic they would have to be to not insist on their legal protections codified in higher-order-marriages. If a man is sap enough to propose mere marriage to a woman, then he deserves whatever happens to him. But for men who are currently fooled into thinking marriage means one thing, whereas it actually means something quite else, it would save an awful lot of heartache.
We could do the same with dating. What if men didn't rely on the casual 'courtship' scene as a way to find dates? What if instead they wrote out formal contracts with a girl they were thinking of dating, for instance using an online matching site. Everyone who joins the online matching site has to follow the same contracted program: "We will meet for three weekends doing something mutually fun and getting to know each other. If agreed, we will then date for one month doing whatever we like together. At the end of the month, we will either get super-married or break up." In this way, men could save a lot of heartache dating a girl they intend to marry, only to find out that they were only ever a tool for a girl's momentary fling. There would be a put up or shut up dating world where things actually moved forward along some useful course. Then men who weren't interested in dating any other way would remove themselves from the marketplace -- except under their terms. Girls wouldn't be able to date good men in a non-legally-protected manner. They would have to accept real terms and obey them, that led to a definite and swift conclusion. They could no longer play a guy along by feigning interest for long-term commitment without actually having any.
In Japan this system already exists, it's called Omiai. Parents, generally, get together and exchange their children's resumes. They then encourage their selected children to meet for a series of getting to know each other dates. These dates are followed by a short dating period where the daters check to see if they're compatible. If everything goes as planned, in just a month or so, the two are married. Throughout the entire dating system marriage was the final goal, marriage was the intended goal, and everyone involved in the dates know that marriage is where this is headed. You either marry or you break up and try a new omiai partner. There's no such thing as living together, or five year 'boyfriends,' or any other nonsense that allows girls to break boy's hearts by feigning a commitment they never intend to actually keep.
If boys only date through omiai services, then girls will, perforce, have to accept the legally protected terms. The only boys they'll find outside of the system will be riffraff -- the real catches will realize they don't have to settle for less and will stay within the safe, effective omiai service that weeds out heartbreakers ahead of time. As the system catches on, even riffraff will realize that only heartbreakers avoid omiai dating and therefore no amount of desperation is worth trying their luck outside the structured, safe for men system. Men will go on a general strike against unstructured, indefinite dating periods -- just as they'll stop proposing marriage and stick with supermarriage -- the only marriage they want to be in.
If we want full personal freedom, we must also insist on the freedom to engage in legally enforced contracts of Any sort between two consenting adults. Men should have the freedom to only date in a certain way, and the freedom to only marry in a certain way, and to not have to deal with women who want anything else. If that means finding no women at all, so be it. There's no point finding a woman who won't seriously promise not to break your heart by accepting a legally binding contract. Better no one than the present game of russian heart roulette. But it could also mean finding the moral women who would love that system, wherever they are in time or space, who would immediately agree to said restrictions. Even better, it would also force some women who want to be immoral to instead be moral, thus saving millions of men from what would have been a horrible fate, and reforming a vast population of evil women into, perforce, good women who gradually become accustomed to their new, moral way of life for lack of any choice.
Even if the population of said society was decimated by such a move (Men only proposing supermarriage and refusing to accept marriage, men only dating in a carefully structured manner that is heading towards marriage and refusing to date for 'fun,') the population collapse would only be temporary. Once all the tares have been separated out and burnt, only the wholesome, healthy wheat would survive. Sons raised in the homes of suppermarriage families would naturally insist on supermarriage themselves. Daughters raised in the homes of supermarriage families would naturally accede to supermarriage themselves. And there wouldn't be any children outside of supermarriage families, because everyone else would stay single rather than hazard marriage with a clearly untrustworthy woman. Even if this means you're destined to die single, and so is 99% of the population, you can rest easy knowing that by insisting on this standard, the NEW civilization that will emerge after this great die off will live a fully moral and happy existence for every single member. It's a price worth paying for the glorious taste of victory over the feminists who currently rule the dating/marriage dystopia of the modern west.
This article by Roger F. Devlin is also a good rendition of what I'm talking about, and proposes a similar solution, a marriage strike until women accede to better marriage terms. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but there's a lot of truth in it that strikes like lightning: http://chechar.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/further-to-a-final-solution-to-the-feminist-problem/
Everyone should read the article in full. I can't get the link to directly work, but if you copy the link, past it into a new window, and press enter, you'll get to the desired location. But here are some of my favorite excerpts:
It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. . .
It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.
Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.
It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men.
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s humorous story “I Can’t Breathe”—the private journal of an eighteen-year-old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of “sex partners,” she would presumably respond “one”; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.
An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males. Women are naturally vain. They are inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day… etc.).
This cannot be objectively true, of course. An average man is by definition good enough for an average woman. If each woman were to mate with all men “worthy” of her, she would have no time to do anything else. Once again, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct; the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct.
The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own utopia, not that of men.
Modern woman wants the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities; she wants a man to marry her without her having to marry the man. It is the eternal dream of irresponsible freedom: In the feminist formulation, freedom for women, responsibility for men.
It was never the traditional view that a woman’s erotic power over men was anything she possessed unconditional personal rights over. Instead, the use to which she put this natural power was understood to be freighted with extensive responsibilities—to God, her family, the man to whom she gave herself, the children produced by the union, and her own long-term well being. In order to fulfill her obligations as creature, daughter, wife, and mother she required considerable powers of self-control. This cultivated and socially reinforced sexual self-control was known as modesty. It required chiefly the duty of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage; secondarily, it involved maintaining a certain demeanor toward men—polite but reserved.
Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breaking-up: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them.
a woman with a track record of abandoning her husband is hardly likely to be more faithful the second time around. And few men are eager to support another man’s children financially. Women frequently express indignation at their inability to find a replacement for the husband they walked out on: I call these women the angry adulteresses.
Vanity, parasitism, paranoia, and infidelity are only a few of the unpleasant characteristics of contemporary Western womanhood; one more is rudeness.
A good wife does not simply happen. Girls were once brought up from childhood with the idea that they were going to be wives and mothers. They were taught the skills necessary to that end. A young suitor could expect a girl to know a few things about cooking and homemaking. Today, many women seem unaware that they are supposed to have something to offer a husband besides a warm body.
The attempt to realize a sexual utopia for women was doomed to failure before it began. Women’s wishes aim at the impossible, conflict with one another, and change unpredictably. Hence, any program to force men (or “society”) to fulfill women’s wishes must fail, even if all men were willing to submit to it. Pile entitlement upon entitlement for women, heap punishment after punishment onto men: It cannot work, because women’s wishes will always outpace legislation and lead to new demands.
But while the revolution has not achieved its aims, it has certainly achieved something. It has destroyed monogamy and family stability. It has resulted in a polygamous mating pattern of immodest women aggressively pursuing a small number of men. It has decreased the number of children born, and insured that many who are born grow up without a father in their lives. And, least often mentioned, it has made it impossible for many decent men to find wives.
I suggest that today’s bachelors are hardly different from men who, before the sexual revolution, married young and raised families.
So far from being unwilling to commit, many men are only too happy to marry the first girl they meet who is nice to them. The modern bachelor is no different.
A more serious development, however, is what has come to be known as the marriage strike. The first occurrence of this term appears to have been in a Philadelphia Enquirer editorial of 2002. Two years later, a formal study gave substance to the idea: Fully 22 percent of American bachelors aged 25–34 have resolved never to marry. 53 percent more say they are not interested in marrying any time soon. That leaves just 25 percent looking for wives. This may be a situation unprecedented in the history of the world.
A male sex strike was probably beyond the imagination even of Aristophanes. But I wouldn’t underestimate men. We, and not women, have been the builders, sustainers, and defenders of civilization.
The latest word from college campuses is that women have begun to complain men are not asking them out. That’s right: Men at their hormonal peak are going to class side by side with nubile young women who now outnumber them, and are simply ignoring or shunning them. Some report being repeatedly asked “Are you gay?” by frustrated coeds. This is what happens when women complain for forty years about being “used as sex objects”: Eventually men stop using them as sex objects.
The only thing still propping up the present feminist-bureaucratic regime is the continued willingness of many of the hated “heterosexual white males” to live according to the old rules: not only to work, save, pay taxes, and obey the law, but also to sire and raise children. Once we stop doing these things, the whole system of patronage and parasitism collapses.
My greatest fear is that at the first female concessions, the male protective instinct will kick in once again and men will cheerfully shout “All is forgiven” in a stampede to the altar. This must not happen. Our first priority must be to put the divorce industry out of business. A man must insist on nothing less than a legally binding promise to love, honor, and obey him before “consenting” to give a woman a baby.
Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment. The overwhelming majority of women will be happier in the long run by marrying an ordinary man and having children than by seeking sexual thrills, ascending the corporate heights, or grinding out turgid tracts on gender theory. A woman develops an emotional bond with her mate through the sexual act itself; this is why arranged marriages (contrary to Western prejudice) are often reasonably happy. Romantic courtship has its charms, but is finally dispensable; marriage is not dispensable.
If the Occident does not restore marriage, we will be overwhelmed by those who continue to practice it.