What’s wrong with “transactional relationships?”

Most of our dealings in the world are “transactional.” We might spend 15 years at an employer, without much in the way of “romance.” We just benefit from cooperation. These can be happy times. Indeed, “romance” can be a problem with employers. They would rather praise you than pay you. Don’t fall for it.

“Transactional,” over an extended period of time, becomes “contractual.” We need to develop trust in what amounts to contract, or agreement.

Many marriages in the past were not really based on “feeeelings.” They were, in large part, contractual agreements of mutual benefit. In Pride and Prejudice (1813), an idealized representation of a time of perfect courtship manners, the not-very-attractive Charlotte Lucas marries the not-very-attractive Mr. Collins, and neither is very attractive to the other. Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth Darcy, and is rejected. He then moves quickly on to Charlotte Lucas, and is accepted. It is clear that he had no thoughts whatsover for Charlotte Lucas a few days earlier, while Charlotte was joking with Elizabeth about Mr. Collins’ repulsive conversation habits. But, he took what he could get, as did Charlotte Lucas.

But, Mr. Collins could perform the role of a Good Husband and a Good Father, and Charlotte Lucas could perform the role of the Good Wife and a Good Mother. And, we presume, they did so — both gaining much from their mutual cooperation. Their contract worked out.

Today, it is often said that the marriage contract is completely ridiculous, when observed as a contractual agreement. It rewards women for breaking the contract! Under such conditions, trust is hard to come by, so men, seeking safety, avoid such situations altogether. Beyond this, women today do not expect to be Good Wives and Good Mothers, and even laugh at the words if they are spoken. Men still expect to be Good Husbands and Good Fathers, since men still understand that, if you are going to be a husband and father, you should be a good one, or don’t bother even to start.

There is now a movement to end no-fault divorce across the US.

This naturally raises the question: What should the divorce laws be?

Should there be any divorce laws at all?

Historically, there always was a provision for “no-fault divorce,” under whatever terms both parties could agree upon. Probably, this should be kept.

I do not think the typical divorce laws of the 1960s, before no-fault divorce, are necessarily very good. Mostly, they also, like today, had an excess of favoritism toward the woman. It was very common in those days to falsely claim that a man was an “abusive alcoholic,” to get divorce benefits. Basically, no different than today, but more significant since such claims were required for an advantageous divorce settlement. Although the 25% divorce rates of that time were far less than the 50%-ish rates of today, nevertheless that is still very high, and due in part to the advantages women received in divorce, such as alimony. It was basically a reflection of 1960s Feminism. You have to go back before the Feminist era, before 1880, when divorce rates were below 5%, to find good examples of divorce law that actually functioned to produce beneficent outcomes.

I think there probably should be some sort of divorce law, but let’s think about what the situation would be if there were no laws at all — if divorce was, essentially, the same as a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend relationship today, something the State doesn’t really take any part in.

In that case, the man and woman would keep whatever assets were in their name, and have nothing else to do with each other. There would have to be some careful assessment of in whose names various assets belonged, during and before the marriage. This would be established by tradition and common practice. Mostly, houses and cars should be in the man’s name. He would keep them. Probably, he paid for them. A woman would keep any assets that she came into the marriage with; and perhaps, those that she acquired during the marriage, probably in the form of inheritance. A second car can be in her name. A woman would also keep any debts that she came into the marriage with. If a woman works during the marriage, her income should basically go to the man, to be disposed of, including paying mortgages. She can pay down her own debts. Retirement-type assets, arising from a woman’s income, stay with the woman. Other income issues can be decided during the marriage. But, in the end, if it is in your name, you keep it; otherwise you have no claim on the other’s assets or income.

Children are simple: whoever keeps them, pays for them. There is no child support or alimony. Mostly, the man would keep them, since he has the income to pay for them. Also, this tends to make men hesitant to divorce their wives, in favor of a younger woman, since someone needs to care for the children, and who better than their own mother? Most women do not want to take care of another woman’s children — thus the long tradition of “evil stepmothers” in fairy tales.

While I think it is not too uncommon for a man to wish to throw his wife out onto the streets — some wives are simply a daily torment — I also think it is uncommon for a man to throw his own children on the streets, just so he can whore around with younger women. The Romans, in the patriarchal tradition, required a man to keep custody of his children, even if he divorced his wife. In general, a man would prefer to whore around with younger women, while also keeping his wife and children. This is certainly uncomfortable for a wife, but she can also leave if she wants to. Anyway, Jackie Kennedy put up with it.

In all the various scenarios that come up, the fallback is basically family. What if a woman is abandoned by her man, along with the children, and all are kicked out of their own house? Basically, if she does not simply keep the household herself as a single mother, she goes to live with either her parents or her brother.

What if a man is abandoned by his wife? She just leaves one day to go be a whore. The man keeps the children; and his house. Most men are pretty content with this, and make good fathers. He keeps his assets, and basically not much changes except that he doesn’t have to take care of his trashy wife anymore.

What happens to the children? We assume that a man and a woman can come to some kind of agreement about the custody of children. They are not assets obviously held in the name of one party or another. Often this “agreement” comes about as the consequence of some other action. If a woman just leaves to be a whore, she leaves her children. We have the situations where children are desired by both parents; or perhaps, desired by neither. In general, the default where children are desired by both parents should be the father, it seems to me. Where children are desired by neither, typically relatives step in to take up the slack. This is already common today, where children are raised by their grandparents or aunts, since their own parents are apparently incapable of the task. Such has been the character of human society for a long time. In the past, these situations developed more commonly because one or the other parent would die young. A man would die young, perhaps with no significant assets, and in a rented house, leaving his wife and children alone. Or a woman would die young, commonly in childbirth. How is this different than if a man or woman abandons the family to go be whores? Except for a sense of injustice, the functional outcome is almost the same. In general, things are easier today than they used to be.

In general, there are two basic forms of contention: Where nobody wants a child, and where both parents want a child. Somehow this would need to be resolved. Also, there would have to be some establishment of legitimate custody — that one parent or the other couldn’t change their mind somewhere along the way, and contend either for custody of a child or abandonment of a child, in some open-ended fashion. Again I tend to think that the father should get first choice in all matters involving the custody of children. But, probably women would be a lot less interested in custody if they didn’t get any child support or alimony. Men just assume that if they have a child, they will pay for them.

A woman that just leaves her family one day to go be a whore — a very common scenario today — is still married, at least at first. Then what? In the past, this meant that she could not marry again, since she was already married; although not living in her husband’s house. I’m not sure this would be relevant in this situation. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

In short, the effect would be that the “terms of divorce” would be set in advance, in the form of ownership of assets. This being the case, some care should be taken on these points, and would be. Probably nothing should be held “jointly,” as this just invites legal trouble later on. Household fixtures are assumed to be part of the household in which they are located.

I do not want make an argument here about eliminating divorce laws altogether. Phyllis Schlafly, who certainly knows more about the laws than me, was opposed to the Libertarian argument that the State should basically be out of marriage; but she doesn’t say why, or what exactly her alternative is. Usually, as a general principle, we find that the Libertarian Argument is mostly correct, although perhaps not applied in 100% of all situations. It turns out that the State does a pretty good job of maintaining public roads, but that does not mean we have to accept the other 90% of its activities today, which were explicitly banned in the Constitution explicitly to avoid the consequences we have today. Perhaps we do not need the State to be 100% out of the marriage sphere altogether; but 90% would work well. I have to admit that this scenario, painted here, seems pretty functional. Certainly it allows for many injustices; mostly in the form of adultery. But, on balance, these injustices seem less than the injustices handed out today by the family courts every day of the week.

This was interesting:

The funny thing, of course, is that the American men are basically toeing the Feminist Line, which women don’t like so much; and the Russian men are traditionally Patriarchal, which women like.

Of course Traditionally Patriarchal is the correct choice. I suggest that young men should emulate their Russian brothers and express, clearly, that they expect their wives to Stay At Home and Raise The Children, possibly homeschooling.

For one thing, this will quickly weed out the Feminist types. If a woman doesn’t like the idea of staying at home and raising the children, then of course we can use her for a little fun time, but don’t marry her.

We might allow a short period of dual income/no kids basically to pay down debts, or possibly enable the purchase of a house. But, when a woman gets pregnant, she should quit her job permanently. Plan on breastfeeding. DINKing is easier when you marry young, since it is not such a big deal if you spend four years working to pay down debts, if a woman is 22. But, living on one income, with children, should be the goal, so don’t buy a house so big that you can’t afford the mortgage without two incomes.

Of course if women expect to get married, and live on one income, and also live a lifestyle that most two-income households can’t afford (they’re faking it), then they will be restricted to men of unusually high income. And, men of unusually high income are in their fifties, and already married. Or, maybe they were married, and have no intention of getting married again. Most of the women — 90%+ — who pursue this strategy will fail.

In other words, if women are actually going to marry young (18-24), and have children during peak childbearing years (18-32), instead of just fantasizing about it with their fantasy husband who makes a Top 5% income for his age group, you are going to have to live cheap. With children.

This is not actually that hard. A woman, and even one with two small children, doesn’t actually cost that much. They can live in the same place that a man might live alone, a one-bedroom apartment (babies don’t take up much space). I would say it is about $1000 or $1500 a month, but against that are some savings, such as no dating and no need for restaurants, since a wife at home should be learning to cook well.

I’ve come to conclude that men are good at cooperative enterprise. A group of men — three, ten, fifty, a hundred, a hundred thousand — organize themselves into a productive team of some sort. Some of the things they achieve are amazing.

And then we have women. A ship with too many women tends to sink, in good weather.

“New Zealand ship didn’t sink because its captain was a woman” riiiight.

“Norwegian warship accident raises questions on women in armed forces.”

Raises answers is more like it.

I think women are naturally suited for one-on-one leadership, with a man. Basically, a husband and wife, or a father and daughter. As soon as you get multiple women in a room, things tend to fall apart. This is especially true if the leader of such a group is also a woman.

In other words, Matriarchy Does Not Exist.

I think there are exceptional women who can discipline themselves to perform what is normally thought of as a man’s job, and do it well. There are a few Margaret Thatchers, although I can’t name a single one except for Maggie herself.

But, as soon as you have two or more women, and especially if you have five or six, the Law of Averages tends to take hold.

I’ve been following these issues for a while now, but even with all I’ve learned over the years, seeing all the obstacles to marriage and family, and all the difficulties that men face, laid out end to end is a daunting prospect.

Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative commentator and advocate, gained the nickname “Mrs. America.” After raising a family of six children in the 1950s, as a stay-at-home Mom, she took up political affairs (mostly still at home), and played an especially important role in blocking the horrible Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and early 1980s. She had a Master’s in Government from Harvard, and a JD from the Washington University School of Law.

A little before her death in 2016, she summed up all that she had seen happen during her lifetime, in Who Killed the American Family? (2014).

The fact of the matter is, someone is going to have to fix all this stuff, and it is obviously not going to be women, although there may be a few, the younger Schlaflys (although I can’t name one with her level of expertise), that take a role in the process. Basically it is going to be men. So, we need to know, at very least, what it is we are going to fix. This includes things like No Fault Divorce of course, but it goes way beyond that, even to such things as the United Nations Treaty on the Rights of the Child, or everything related to the family courts, or Child Protective Services, or Child Support in general, the welfare state that rewards single motherhood, or even the student debt scam that has rendered both women and men of prime childbearing age burdened by debt that not only prevents young couples from even considering a chid; but also, marriage to a heavily-indebted partner. In short, everything since 1960 which has gradually made marriage and family a bleak and risky prospect.

The Black family actually survived both slavery and the Great Depression; but welfare killed it.

Men need to stop complaining on YouTube, and basically do what Schlafly did in her time, which was to figure out what the problem is, figure out what the solution is, and then make it happen, mostly at the level of State government. This means political organization. You can start on the weekends and evenings; in time, you can get good enough at it to start asking others to help support you with a few donations.

By the way, I always associated this sort of hairstyle with elderly women in the 1980s. It turns out that women commonly settle on a hairstyle during their youth, and keep it through their lives. It is not an “old women’s hairstyle,” it is a young women’s hairstyle from the 1950s, often paired with a tweedy jacket and pearls.

For example, here’s Barbara Billingsley as June Cleaver, a young stay-at-home mother, from the 1950s TV series Leave It To Beaver.

Women can’t really make sense of politics. As in all things, they are easily deceived and misdirected. In this election, as in all the others, they have done their part for the destruction of the country.

Married women, and especially married white women, and especially married white women who are stay-at-home Moms, are the exception to this rule.

So I have to say that I recently found your content and I have been bingeing the past like 3 weeks or so, I have been following exactly what you say, what a man wants in a woman and I cannot thank you enough. For starters, I have met a really good man in a matter of a couple weeks. I have made a point to be nothing but pleasant and positive, having an optimistic attitude, I had made a point to say that one of my main goals in a relationship is to bring peace and he was so stoked because what he does for a career is hard labor and working 12 hour days at times. I am NEVER listening to any other women in my life ever again because the advice is literally a relationship KILLER and all it does is make me super unattractive. My mother is one of those women. I had said something about the passport bro stuff and how women are all pissed. No joke she said exactly what the girls are all crying about. That’s when I knew that I had been having a difficult time meeting a good dude because the advice was horrendous, what was worse was that it was from my own mother 😑 When you said to not take advice from people whose life isn’t what you want, it popped up so quick in my head. That’s when I realized that my mother was one of those women you are talking about. She’s been single for about 10 years or so, absolutely not someone I should get advice from at all

I can’t thank you enough. It’s not as complicated as every girl in my life says it is. I’m keeping all my drama to myself and if I need to vent I go to Reddit. Now when I’m out doing what I need to I make sure I’m smiling and have a carefree attitude. It took no time at all and I met this good man. It’s all thanks you and your content. I was one of those girls who took the advice of “not texting him first” so I have been going against my gut instinct. After we had talked when I texted him first, I was straight to the point and told him exactly what I was thinking. He actually thanked me and said that he was not used to meeting a girl who was laid back and positive, that I was rare. I AM NEVER LISTENING TO ANOTHER WOMAN EVER AGIN IN MY LIFE lol

You are awesome…. You should consider doing some sort of content geared towards women. I would absolutely add my testimonial. I have never ever been told by another man I was rare, and definitely never got a compliment from a quality man who deserves a woman who will completely be submissive. It is the best compliment I have ever gotten THANKS TO YOU.

I swear, me and my female brain blamed it on my weight, when in reality it was me and my personality. My perception of reality WAS WAY OFF. If it was about my looks, then I wouldn’t have met this guy as fast as I did.

I understand how I was able to catch him and now I know exactly what I need to do to keep him, I’m just so happy,! I had no idea it was as simple as it is.

YOU ARE THE BEST ❤

China seems like it is a little closer to resolving the problems preventing marriage. Many women in China, particularly the 32+ ones who are aging out, are admitting their error. This is very different than what we see in the West, where it is all denial all the time.

The talk out of China has been quite amazing these days.

But one positive development has been a change in divorce laws in 2021, and additional changes coming soon, which make divorce more difficult, and less dangerous for men.

Yes, you can change the laws.

Info on Chinese Divorce Laws: #1, #2, #3

In the US, we need people to lead the change in divorce laws. This happens at the State level, so it is about organizing to change State laws. This would be a nice weekend project for someone who cares about these laws — probably someone who was recently divorced.

China had a big falloff in marriages in 2024, but that still reflects the time before the gigantic marriage strike in China that took place over the past 12 months or so. Marriages commonly reflect couples that got together 2-6 years ago, or even agreed to marry a year ago. Marriage rates in about two years could fall a lot more.

We already know to avoid all “marriage licenses.” Here are two more legal hacks that might help.

Apparently a Rental Agreement, even of $100 a month or $1, that is actually paid, will serve to cancel claims of Common Law Marriage in States that have Common Law marriage. Of course we actually want to be married, not “cohabitating” without marriage which I do not recommend. A man and a woman are married when they decide to be married, and act like married people. But, in the eyes of the law, you are not married, which is good because then they can’t skin you alive in divorce court.

Here is commentary on a “cohabitation agreement,” which is similar, but I think an actual Rental Agreement would be even more effective.

The Romans used to assign custody of children to the Husbands, in the case of divorce. This accomplished a few things: First, we have seen that Fathers are actually better single parents than Mothers. It establishes Patriarchial ownership of the children. Men have to take care of the children, of course, but a woman that leaves has no child support claims upon the man. A man who has children is less likely to leave his wife, since the children need someone to care for them, and who better than their own mother? Also, another woman is not likely to want to take care of another woman’s children. (This is why there are so many fairy tales with evil stepmothers.)

The Case for Father Custody, by Daniel Amneus

To establish Father Custody, even in the case of divorce, you could use a Surrogacy Agreement.

Of course we want to actually be married, living together happily with our children. But, these are potential tools to bypass the horrible divorce law that we have today.