New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
After the last [rice-post](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/19A1GoIRSn/never-chase-rice-/c) i've realized something very, very problematic in society

marriage nowadays isn't a sacred a union between a man and a woman, its a transaction

less and less marriages are based on trust and mutual love and mostly based on a woman's lust for the man's riches and the man's lust over a woman's well... you know

what is lacking in society is marriage that is based on trust, and the underlying issue of it all isn't just feminism or soy males, its people not marrying young

what do i mean by young? most people hold off marriage to either become financially stable or to "find the one" the latter end up with leftover rubbish and these relationships don't last

and i frankly think the ideal marriage is marriage that is based on struggle, what do i mean by struggle? [lets say two teenagers in love had a night of passion and got pregnant, and their parents are actual supportive Christians and not murderous jewish boomers](https://pomf2.lain.la/f/1htbqoa.mp4)

that is a marriage that is slated to last, because both the man and the woman are at the same age, same position and have mutual power-dynamic (one is not richer than the other, or more beautiful than the other) and both of them are determined and motivated to work hard and from a young age, not to mention young dudes with kids get preferential hiring priority (at least back in 2010's)

granted this kind of marriage was demonized to hell and back in the early 2000's, mostly because it happened due to lust and not genuine relationships, however i do genuinely see this as something plausible, the Germans literally had bride school for girls and boys went straight to military training, both of which married around the ages of 18-20 to encourage the birthrate

and i do genuinely think the early 20's are the ideal age to be a father/mother because after 30 your body starts to decay and deteriorate

but the big problem is really the economy, in this jewish economy its nigh impossible to raise a family proper, unless you forgo all non-essentials (TV, goyslop, vidya, social media, internet etc...)

but in an ideal world a family should have all the base comforts without having to sell their soul to jewish corporations, which is another factor why the birthrate is so damn low

because spics get free gibs and free housing, meanwhile joe and jane goyworker have to work 9 to 6 just to afford the bills (which includes mortgage) while their kids are subjected to the worst kind of abuse at the hands of marxists edjewcators

in an ideal situation, the parents can work and THEIR parents can HOMESCHOOL their kids 5-6 hours a day instead of burning their free time on watching TV or wageslaving in their late 60's, or the mother can work from home and still take care of the kids (good luck finding a modern woman who's willing to actually raise her kids instead of letting someone else do it but i digress)

in an event that jews are btfo'd from a certain state/country how would you encourage the birthrate in a more practical sense than what i've suggested?

You must log in or sign up to comment
20 comments:
WeedleTLiar on scored.co
1 year ago 4 points (+0 / -0 / +4Score on mirror ) 3 children
>lets say two teenagers in love had a night of passion and got pregnant, and their parents are actual supportive Christians and not murderous jewish boomers

This. Parents and extended families have been nearly completely removed from the marriage equation. There this Hollywood idea that two people just fall in love and get married. No. It has never worked that way and it's no surprise that these marriages tend to end in divorce.

Parents should be much more involved in picking a partner for their kids and the kids should be more receptive to it. Parents not only have decades more experience with human nature, but they'll be thinking about things like "what will Christmas be like with these in-laws?" and "are we all on the same page in terms of things like religion, politics, and how to raise children?"

I know many people whose in-laws will meet once or twice for the wedding and then never speak again. The meme of a half-dozen different holiday dinners for the different families instead of one big gathering. Total lack of support or interest towards grandkids, other than as fancy pets. Total lack of training on how to be a good husband/wife. How does a good marriage flower in a field like this?

My suggestion is, if we want more marriages, for the parents to make that a priority and take a leading role in securing a good partner for their kids.
removed 1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Amen.
Vulkanian on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Good post.
deleted 1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 2 children
GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
>The problem today is that women are financially incentivized to break that partnership without any negative consequences because they can legally force the men to keep providing his share (in the form of alimony) without her providing anything.

yep that's pretty much it.
removed 1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
deleted 1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
removed 1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
deleted 1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
XBX_X on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
> and the underlying issue of it all isn't just feminism or soy males, its people not marrying young

Absolutely! Orthodox Jews marry their children young. Men and women are set in their ways by 25, meaning if they're not pair-bonding and acclimating together, it becomes a real obstacle afterward. There isn't enough space to get into all of it here, but that's a fundamental issue. The Jews definitely have all that sorted, which is why they deny us the same by poisoning the minds (and economy) of so many generations. In my old age, I know for certain that "waiting for the right time" is almost always just a waste of time. If you find the right partner, it's more important to pair bond and nurture your relationship than worry about money or career.

You can always make a windfall winning the lottery, but you can never get back the time you lost.
WeedleTLiar on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
I never got the "waiting for the right time" argument. If you have a partner, you can work together to produce far more than either alone so why wait?
PolandCanIntoSpace on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
I would pitch the counter-argument that marriage for love is a fairly recent concept. In most civilizations, including white/european ones marriage was a transactional thing since forever. It was used for forging alliances, gaining resources and so forth. Monogomy as a concept came into being because having two parents present increases the chance of offspring successfully reaching adulthood.

GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
This is a genuine point, in medieval ages most marriages were house-alliances between nobles or landowners (only peasants married whom they wished for love, because status was not a concern)

but it is logical... because what is love? attraction? satisfaction? spiritual harmony? back then emotions did not matter and people married for the the honor of their houses, but is it ideal? maybe... maybe not but nothing is perfect in this life and frankly the medieval system kept the population stable which is a genuine approach to marriage

alas women would view arranged marriage as something that only non-whites do which it kinda is...
PolandCanIntoSpace on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
Love is basically a chemical reaction from what I've read. It comes down to

Even in more modern times then medieval, a parent would want to arrange a marriage of their daughter to someone of a wealthier family as this would insure that the offspring is in need of nothing. But as for medieval times peasants didn't marry only for love - people were few and far apart, they married who they could to avoid inbreeding.
WeedleTLiar on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
There is a sharp divide in terms of class. Yes, the upper classes would marry their kids for political reasons but the lower classes, who could not realistically advance, married for totally different reasons.

Love is a chemical reaction, yes, and it's powerful. The odds that someone seeing a woman they've had kids with sleeping with another man would murder one or the other are extremely high, which is bad for social cohesion if nothing else.

A big part of permanent marriage is stopping these feuds from breaking out. Upper class marriage is frought with divorce and infidelity because it exists against a backdrop of existing feuds and doesn't necessarily prevent conflict.

We should not confuse the two.
PolandCanIntoSpace on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
While in principle I agree with what you wrote, you are actually confusing two separate things. Monogomous relationships and marriage. "Mating pairs" can be see across many species . The concept of marriage itself is a social construct to "formalize" a relationship for various reasons such as religion.
removed 1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
deleted 1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Captain_Raamsley on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
It took you this long to realize?
Toast message