Bertrand Russell on marriage and promiscuity.
Hi all,
I'm wondering what would you think of this piece ( https://www.utilitarian.org/texts/oursexethics.html ) written by Philosopher and Logician Bertrand Russel in 1936. It might be too long for some of you, so I'll write here the most interesting parts I happened to appreciate:
" In the fourth place, everything possible should be done to free sexual relations from the economic taint. At present, wives, just as much as prostitutes, live by the sale of their sexual charms; and even in temporary free relations the man is usually expected to bear all the joint expenses. The result is that there is a sordid entanglement of money with sex, and that women's motives not infrequently have a mercenary element. Sex, even when blessed by the Church, ought not to be a profession. It is right that a woman should be paid for housekeeping or cooking or the care of children, but not merely for having sexual relations with a man. Nor should a woman who has once loved and been loved by a man be able to live ever after on alimony when his love and hers have ceased. A woman, like a man, should work for her living, and an idle wife is no more intrinsically worthy of respect than a gigolo."
" Much ground remains to be covered by a complete sexual ethic, but I do not think we can say anything very positive until we have more experience, both of the effects of various systems and of the changes resulting from a rational education in matters of sex. It is clear that marriage, as an institution, should only interest the State because of children, and should be viewed as a purely private matter so long as it is childless. It is clear, also, that, even where there are children, the State is only interested through the duties of fathers, which are chiefly financial. Where divorce is easy, as in Scandinavia, the children usually go with the mother, so that the patriarchal family tends to disappear. If, as is increasingly happening where wage-earners are concerned, the State takes over the duties that have hitherto fallen upon fathers, marriage will cease to have any raison d'être, and will probably be no longer customary except among the rich and the religious."
Posted Dec 15, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC
He predicted it right but failed to realize marriage is the fundamental staple of civilization. Women opinions and wants shouldn’t matter. They’re never satisfied when given freedom. In fact, they’re happier in traditional cultures as they don’t fuck up their life, have a good family and are praised for it, are essentially having the same life as every other woman so they don’t feel they’re missing out, don’t live alone with cats or wine once they’re used up, organize community events, gatherings, and parties, don’t develop addictions, don’t get stds, etc.
I think you are idealizing the past a bit too much.
Women have always been known to cheat a lot, why do you think the bible, the Iliad and countless reports from the ancient times and middle ages are so full of situations where women cheat?
Men for most of our civilization have been sacrificable tools who've been used by the state or the wives. By the state as soldiers or slaves of the economy, by wives as providers for her and her children. Many, if not most men in history have been providers for children who weren't theirs, so to speak as redpills do, most men in history have been cucked.
Men are starting to be really independent and happy in the modern times. We are learning to take care of ourselves, our needs, our passions. We are learning to love ourselves. So I look forward to real egalitarian relationships with women: we stay together because we like each other's company. End of the story. No labels, no assets, no "lifelong projects"... it would be more similar to friendship, spending time with a person because you want to, with nothing else involved.
You’re so wrong. Marriage and patriarchy is absolutely essential to a thriving civilization and basic human rights and a high standard of living. We are only able to circumvent this due to globalization and mass communications, so the entire world is going through feminization of society all together. Women will only hang with those who provide resources or the limited pool they want to fuck. Most men will not tolerate this at all leading to collapse.
Marriage and patriarchal ownership of the family was the only deal men were willing to take to get them to build civilization. It’s also best for women as they lack foresight to build for retirement alone, lack the ability to even build for retirement, and can’t be alone once they’re too old for men to transact with. It will lead to a meltdown of civilization eventually.
Also men are more miserable than ever and there will never be egalitarian sexual relationships between the sexes. It’s all transactional or for genes. Furthermore, most kids were the fathers in a rigid patriarchal society. Even in today’s cuckold world, only 3-5% (possibly but unlikely upwards of 10%) of kids aren’t the husbands biological children. That 40% of men not reproducing is over the course of all of human history due to most young men dying, community polyamory where everyone got their turn but the best sperm won, or mad max warlord shit.
Stop being delusional oh ancient one lol. You’re just like those Charlatan humanity professors who think if we just change this or that women will freely love more men and you’ll get more sex which is how we got here in the first place. You think you’re so much smarter than thousands of years of history and your username is exactly what one expect of a pseudo intellectual such as yourself. You’re an idiot. They’ll all mate with a handful of dudes ideally no matter how much they abuse them or a beta like you. There’s no magic society where hypergamy doesn’t exist. It’s either restrained or let loose.
Wow, so you said I'm wrong, called me pseudo intellectual, delusional, idiot and beta.
Without even knowing me, this was your answer to my respectful message.
Your entire "argument" can be dismissed solely on this basis. You are clearly a repressed and insecure individual... what are you even doing here discussing Bertrand Russell? I'd be surprised if you managed to finish high school.
Sadly, people like you are the ones that give MGTOW most of its bad reputation. Your aggressive behaviour that hides a complete lack of content and constructive criticism is only going to turn away the young men looking for support and guidance. You are a threat to the whole community.
No my argument can’t be dismissed just on that basis. Nice use of Ad hominem. Nice try at ethos, too. all my insults were rational and sincere points and aimed at you due to your absurd conclusions. Your insults, on the other hand, were aimed at me specifically, rather than as a result of my conclusions. You didn’t address any of my points and just swept them under the rug on the basis of insults. Typical postmodern Who you can’t actually have any rational debate with as they can magically eradicate your entire argument for no sound logical reason. The same thinking and same kind of man who has caused the decline of the West.
Young men don’t need the sophistry and illusions of the postmodern Man who will only weaken their natural biological will and resolve. They as well as women need the conservative traditionalism and sense of masculine identity that has forged every civilization.
We, as men, are being aggressively indoctrinated and attacked. The time for being passive is over. Arguing against asinine and amoral philosophies isn’t even aggression but in today’s society I guess that’s violence and harassment for even disagreeing let alone name calling, both of which are normal in debate.
Not anymore.
My anymore what exactly, sorry?