Marriage is Illegal

An essay on modern sexuality in the United States

[Originally published September 24, 2023]

Marriage is illegal in the United States. Almost all sexual problems we complain about in modernity – promiscuity, lack of marriage, lower birthrates, loneliness, sexual assault, sexual diseases, divorce, etc. – are attributable in part to the abolition of marriage.

The basic terms of a marriage contract are as follows. The man agrees to treat his wife well, to accept her son as his own (i.e. not as a bastard), and to stay with and support the family. The woman agrees to be sexually loyal to her husband and to carry out motherly duties for their children. Cultures apply many other details to the institution of marriage, but these extras are not essential. In the Christian world, the man is also expected to be monogamous to his wife, and the woman is expected to obey her husband as a subordinate, but this is not necessary to the institution of marriage.

When marriage is legal, women will be allowed to force husbands who abandon them to support the family with alimony and child support. Equally, women who commit adultery have violated their end of the contract, and their husband should be allowed to have the marriage contract annulled. Since the 1960s, divorce courts have held that women can commit adultery and the husband will still be forced to hold up his end of the marriage contract. What this actually means is, it is illegal for a woman to promise chastity to a man because courts will not enforce this contract. So when women ask why men do not commit or why men are afraid to marry, the truth is that it is illegal for women to offer themselves in marriage to a man because this is conceived of by the courts as a form of sexual slavery. A woman’s right to sexual choice is inalienable, therefore, even if a woman signs a marriage contract, she still must be allowed to cheat on her husband. This is the logic of modern courts. This means that modern “marriage” is not really marriage. For a marriage contract to really be a marriage contract, both the husband and wife must be legally held to the terms of the marriage. Let me explain this in deeper detail.

Feminism is to sexuality what socialism is to economics. Patriarchy is to sexuality what capitalism is to economics. Patriarchy is the idea that men and women should have property rights in their relationship – and, by extension, their reproduction, children, and family – through the institution of marriage. Marriage is a contract which establishes property rights of a husband and wife in each others’ reproduction. Feminism is the belief in the destruction of patriarchy embodied by the traditional institution of marriage. In other words, feminism is the belief in the public ownership of the means of sexual reproduction. Under feminism, it is illegal for men to claim their children as their own or for private property in children (i.e. families) to exist.

Humanity is sexually dimorphic. We cannot reproduce as individuals, but only as pairs. This leaves property rights in children ambiguous, unless the creators of those children are legally (and morally) conceived of as one being. Under capitalism, property rights in a scarce resource are assigned to whoever produced the resource. Under patriarchy, property rights in children (i.e. legitimacy, parenthood) are assigned to the man and woman who conceived the children, to the couple who produced the children. Property rights in the capital goods which produced the children – the bodies of the father and mother – are assigned to each other, are owned jointly by the couple rather than the individuals who each own one worthless half of sexuality. Under socialism, the producer of a scarce resource has no greater right to the resource than anyone else. Under feminism, property rights in children are assigned only to the woman who produced the child, because it is impossible to know who the father of the child is without a marriage contract which ensures the sexual chastity of the mother. This means that one producer of the child – the father – is robbed of (or, in most cases, abdicates) his property right to the child he produced.

Let us assume only the fact from natural selection that both men and women, in general, want to reproduce, and that they want their children to be as successful as possible at reproducing themselves. The male sexual role in reproduction is short and requires relatively little investment from him. The female sexual role requires an extremely heavy investment from her (pregnancy). A male is capable of fathering hundreds of children with no investment such that there is no time or resource constraint whatsoever on his reproductivity, except for death and impotence. A female cannot have more than one child every year or so, and each child takes an extremely heavy toll on her physical and mental health. Women cannot produce many or high quality children without the assistance of a father in the home. Men cannot produce children without a woman or women to bear them. Maternity is never ambiguous. A woman can never deny property rights to her child. Paternity is highly ambiguous. There is no way to know who the father of the child is unless women are sexually chaste. Therefore, if men cannot secure chastity from a woman – through a marriage contract – then men will never commit to a relationship or to fatherhood because he cannot know if the kids are his. If women cannot secure commitment from a man – through a marriage contract – she has no reason to be chaste to him. A woman will only be chaste to a man if she knows he will commit to her, and a man will only commit to a woman if he knows she will be chaste to him. The only way for both men and women to get what they want is to establish rights in each other – the man’s right to his wife’s chastity and the woman’s right to her husband’s support – through marriage.

If we abolish private property in sexuality by either abolishing or effectively destroying marriage, we run into the same problem as socialism does when it abolishes private property in the means of production. If we are not allowed to own our relationships into the future, then there is no reason to invest in our relationships in the present. Furthermore, if it is effectively illegal to obtain property in relationships, there is less reason for men and women to take on those character traits which make them desirable as a long-term partner. This results in the same shift in incentives with regard to sexuality as socialism does with regard to production. The result is the utter Sovietization of sex and families. Parenthood is essentially capital investment where the children are the capital, and the profit of parenthood is the existence of higher quality people in the next generation who produce higher quality life, not to mention the provision of their parents’ retirement. If parenthood is socialized, meaning that ownership of the means of production of human capital is transferred from private owner-producers (married parents) to public non-owners and non-producers (nobody, unwed mothers, or the state), then we would expect fewer children to be produced, intergenerational decline in the quality of human capital (bad children, adult losers), an overutilization of capital goods (sexual indiscretion), a misallocation of capital goods (sexual frustration, involuntary celibacy, and romantic dissatisfaction), the drawing down of capital goods (people become less attractive), and poverty and immiseration (less and lower quality sex). If our sexuality is converted from private to public property, then the value of investment in our sexuality declines and the value of consumption in the present increases. The value of men and women to each other as sex-objects will increase, and the value of men and women to each other as love-objects will decrease. This will result in less marriage, less reproduction, less love, and more polygamy. Women will become sluttier and less lady-like. Men will become more womanizing, more misogynistic, and less fatherly. Let us observe the predictable effects of such a policy – the abolition of marriage – on men and women.

First, let us consider the effects on the types of character traits which patriarchy and feminism encourage in men. In a patriarchy, men have a reason to stick around and get married. If he knows that his wife’s children are his, then he can justify leaving property to his children to increase his genetic success. Therefore, he will invest heavily in his children. In a feminist society, men cannot know whether the children are his, and he will be reluctant to commit to his relationship or to invest in his children. In a feminist world, as in nature, a man’s children aren’t really “his.” He has invested nothing more than ten minutes of thrusting. The woman cannot be equal in this regard because nature drafts them – commands them – to invest at least a year, and really twenty years or so, in the creation of her children. The woman has no choice but to invest because her investment is biological. In a patriarchy, a man invests in his family by abstaining from sex and caring for his woman while she is pregnant, as well as providing for the child once the child is born. If a man discovers that one of “his” children is not his biologically, then his investment is lost and he has lost from the transaction. Therefore, the man must be ensured a right in his investment, that is, the right to leave his wife and take another if it turns out that she is cheating on him. Fatherhood and motherhood are essentially not equal in this regard. What makes a mother a mother is that she has invested in her children biologically. The father’s biological contribution to reproduction is comparably pathetic. What makes a father a father is that he voluntarily makes non-biological contributions and sacrifices for his child, like abstaining from sex with other women, protecting the pregnant mother, and providing his wife and child with resources. If a man reproduces with a woman who is not his wife, then those children are illegitimate, they are not “his,” they are bastards, they have no father, and they have no inheritance. The only way a man will make those investments is if he can be ensured that he will be legally regarded as the owner of those investments, that the children are his. This requires marriage. If marriage does not exist, then no man can make these investments unless he is prepared to pay charity and sacrifice himself raising other men’s children.

It may at first seem like men in nature will tend to engage in the sexual strategy of impregnating as many women as possible. By going for quantity over quality, he will maximize his chances of genetic success. This is fundamentally mistaken. First, while a polygamous man might have greater sexual success in one generation, a monogamous man can quickly catch up when exponential growth down the generations is considered. While a polygamous man may have more children than a monogamous man, the monogamous man will have practically the same number of great-great-great grandchildren, but the monogamous man (whose children are also monogamous) who invested in his children will have much higher quality grandchildren, and so will probably have more reproductive success in the long run.

The most effective reproductive strategy for a man is not independent of the culture and laws under which he lives. If he lives in a society where marriage is legal, his most effective reproductive strategy is monogamy. If he lives in a society without marriage, his most effective reproductive strategy is polygamy. This is exactly what happens under socialism. Under capitalism, man’s most effective means of obtaining wealth is by saving, investing, acquiring capital, and elongating production lines by delaying gratification as much as possible. However, if profit is illegal (or is socially owned rather than privately owned), this option is unavailable. In effect, the future does not exist for a socialist man, because he can never know if he will be able to own that which he produces in the future. All he owns is the bread that is in his hands today. It is illegal for him to think about tomorrow, illegal for him to take the future into consideration. This is the same for sex. If it is illegal for a man to own the benefits of marriage, to own the fruits of his sacrifices for his wife and children, then he is simply not allowed to consider the long-term consequences of his choices. The only consequence is the one he holds in his hands right now – the woman in his bed tonight. It is illegal for him to think beyond today, even though, if he were legally allowed to think beyond today, he might well choose to wait and marry her.

The reason that the institution of marriage comes into existence in the first place is a natural consequence of the fact that creatures endowed with reason realize that parental rights are ambiguous and must be assigned according to some method, and that the most efficient method in terms of overall profit – that is, maximum quality children and maximum romantic satisfaction – is reached when monogamy is legally enforced and the husband and wife are considered as one legal entity. In the absence of a legal mechanism for allowing a couple to think of themselves as one being, they are forced to think of themselves as individuals, and must make those decisions which are in their individual interest as a man or a woman rather than the decision which would be in both of their interest if considered as one being. Though a man knows that, for he and his woman as a couple, it would be best if he stayed with his wife and had children only with her, if he does not know whether the woman will sacrifice for him too, because marriage is illegal, he must make the poorer choice for the couple and the better choice for himself. Though a woman knows that it would be better for the couple that she not cheat on her husband, she is not allowed to ensure that her husband will not simply leave her for another woman because it is illegal to secure marriage rights from him, and she therefore must make that decision which is in her self-interest. This method of making decisions must lead to general poverty for each man-woman pair as a whole and to greater sexual poverty for everyone.

The monogamous man is really engaged in dynasty building. In a patriarchy, every man is the King of his own house, and he passes on his title of Kingship to his first-born son. A man establishes a household in which he raises three sons. Each of them will establish a household, and then all of their sons too. If the patriarchal authority is preserved through the generations, then each son remains loyal to his father, and through him to his heir. Each household is internally a household of households. After ten generations, the legitimate heir of the original father will be the King of a huge nation. This is the ideal of patriarchy. Any men who were engaged in polygamy at the beginning, whose children are fatherless and who are “illegitimate bastards” according to patriarchy, will not have this level of patriarchal cohesion and will be poor and fatherless. Surely, these descendants of the polygamist will be wiped out or enslaved like scattered rats under the tremendous power of the monogamous man’s dynasty. There is power in monogamy, which does not exist in polygamy. This is how the institution of government originated, and how the original castes of every society were formed.

All nations began in exactly this way. One man established a Kingdom. His sons each establish their own sub-kingdoms under the authority of the father, which become the nation’s clans or tribes. When the father dies, the title of “king” or “patriarch” passes to the first-born son, whose clan becomes the ruling clan. Now it is easy to see how patriarchy is in fact the fundamental institution of human civilization. Any nation which abolished patriarchy has abolished the legitimacy of fatherhood and has thereby destroyed the ability to produce capable children in large numbers. Such a civilization will be out-reproduced and conquered by others which retain the institution of patriarchy.

Every society ever discovered in history was a patriarchy. This is probably simply because feminist, matriarchal, or communal societies were conquered by patriarchal ones. Patriarchy gives rise to the institution of the family. The family is the strongest bond of organization that exists among mankind. Organization is the essence of power. Therefore, patriarchy gives rise naturally to the institution of government and is a civilizing force of order. Feminism gives rise to anarchy and is a decivilizing force of chaos; it dissolves the governing forces in society. A small group of men, organized as a government (i.e. family, nation), can conquer innumerable men who are disorganized in anarchy. This is why no anarchic or feminist society has ever been discovered, because as soon as one existed, it was conquered or exterminated by another people who were able to organize together under government.

The metaphysical root of power is fatherhood and patriarchy. Government cannot exist without patriarchy. Just as a child is illegitimate without a father, so is a government illegitimate without a King, a father of all fathers of the nation. And a King also is illegitimate without a father, who was a king, and who originally was God, who is the King of all kings, the Father of all fathers. Therefore, patriarchy also strongly implies religion, especially Christianity. Jesus Christ is a King of all kings whose father is God. God is not a man and is fatherless. God’s authority comes from Himself. Patriarchy gives rise to a natural order: husband over wife, father over son, king over father, God over king. The legitimacy of any of these cannot be undermined without undermining the legitimacy of all four. Therefore, patriarchy, monarchy, and religion are deeply interrelated as forces of government, as political formulas. 

Feminism, on the other hand, destroys the government. Feminism leads to illegitimate government, i.e. democracy, and is an outgrowth of democracy. Democracies cannot come into existence out of nothing. All republics and democracies are the bastard children of monarchies. Just as democracy deludes the people into thinking that they do not need a king and that they can be their own king, feminism deludes people into thinking that they do not need a husband or a father or that they can be their own husband and their own father. Democracy does not destroy the power of monarchy, it simply places the people, the children, on the throne of the king, in the position of the father. The result is a childish government and a broken family. There is no difference between the way a democratic government behaves towards its people and how a “father” would behave toward his children if his children got a vote in how he raised them. Therefore, those who oppose order and civilization also oppose monarchy and support democracy. Feminism also causes paganism or atheism. Feminism denies the authority of the husband over the wife, and therefore denies the authority of the father over the son, of the King over the father, and of God over the King. This is anarchy, the dissolution of government, and the dissolution of the natural order. Socialism, democracy, equality, paganism, atheism, anarchy and feminism are mutually implied and codependent on each other. Capitalism, monarchy, hierarchy, monotheism, social order, and patriarchy are codependent on each other. Any one of these cannot be denied without the denial of all of its codependents.

This is why, in historical art, literature, and religion, women and the feminine are portrayed as natural, wild, passionate, and dangerous, whereas men and the masculine are portrayed as civilization, discipline, stability, and restraint. Feminism naturally destroys civilization, gives rise to anarchy and the more natural impulses by destroying the institution of the family. Patriarchy naturally creates civilization by establishing a natural hierarchy upon which all civilized structures arise – the family.

In summary, by making marriage illegal, the incentives upon men are perverted, and men are incentivized to engage in activities which destroy civilization, and to abstain from activities which build civilization. The precise way these incentives play out are demonstrated in the following paragraphs.

If the institution of marriage is intact, men will see women sexually as potential wives and will seek to make themselves highly marriable. If the institution of marriage is not intact, men will see women sexually as sluts and will seek to make themselves highly sexable. The qualities a woman looks for in a husband are not the same qualities a woman looks for in a hook-up. A normal woman will prefer to have the husband plus commitment over the lay with or without commitment. However, if commitment is illegal because marriage does not exist, the husband cannot offer the benefit of commitment. The woman, denied the ability to have a committed partner, will prefer to have the partner who is more sexually thrilling in the moment, even if she prefers another man as a long-term partner.

Therefore, the effect of destroying the institution of marriage on men is to incentivize men to give up those qualities women desire in a husband and to take on those qualities women desire in a one-night stand. In short, men become cockier, more showy, more arrogant, more aggressive, more misogynistic, and more childish. Men’s time preference increases dramatically, almost to infinity. Having sex becomes a one-night, nightly, or perhaps weekly quest for men. Once one sexual act is complete, that is the end of it and the hunt begins again, even if it is with the same woman. There is no continuity to relationships for a man except through the institution of marriage, even if his girlfriend thinks they are in a long-term relationship. The woman believes she has been in a six-month relationship with a man. The man thinks he has been in a one-night relationship with her which they have so far decided to renew daily for six months. This is essentially an example of sexual maturity transformation. There is a difference between a six-month loan and a one-day loan rolled over for six months. The difference is that the six-month loan has a higher interest rate than the one day loan rolled over for six months. Therefore, the man in this relationship is stealing from the woman just as a banker steals from his depositors by loaning their money out. He is borrowing short (having premarital sex) and lending long (leading a woman on).

Women, in the absence of marriage, are forced to engage in polygyny. This means that many men will be unable to find any women who want to have sex with them at all. The existential sexual competition is obviously much fiercer between men than between women. In a fully polygamous society, about twenty percent of men receive eighty percent of sex, and roughly the bottom fifty percent of men receive no or almost no sex at all. The men at the bottom, who have been disabled from competing by having their one weapon – commitment – stripped of them by the destruction of the institution of marriage, have every reason to rebel against society. As such, feminism produces an increase in involuntary celibacy in men. These men are useless to society, and they feel useless. They will solve their incelibacy by rebelling from society through pornography, prostitution, crime, rape, war, drugs, or suicide. In other words, men will become creepier, more depressed, and more dangerous. Men will also be more likely to blame women for all of their problems. If only women did not have such high standards, and weren’t such sluts, the logic goes, none of my problems would exist. As such, men are more likely to hate women. Nobody likes incels, especially incels.

Similarly, the men who succeed in a hypergamous society are also made worse. The men at the top of the sexual hierarchy – womanizers – are not happy people. A man who has had sex with one hundred women is a sad thing. Though, in one moment, other men may be jealous of him, the reality is that by abstaining from sexual indiscretion and investing instead in one or a few women, the womanizer would have been much happier. The “sacrifice” of chastity only appears as a sacrifice in the moment. The fruit – a wife and family who love you – is much greater than anything a harem could offer. These men come to find sex as meaningless, dull, and unexciting. They also will resort to pornography, even though they have easy access to women, because they will find women to be easy and boring. They also come to look down upon women. These men will also become depressed and more suicidal.

This modern, shallow conception of masculinity forced upon us by the abolition of marriage is a roadblock to men achieving self-transcendence or spiritual meaning in life. It is essentially illegal in the modern world for a man to have children who are his in any meaningful sense. Therefore, he has no opportunity to consider civilization as something which will outlive him and to give himself up for a greater cause. The abolition of marriage is the literal disenfranchisement of men from society. Men would be much happier if they were married to good women, and women in turn would be much more marriable, but marriage is illegal.

Now, let us consider the effect of feminism – of the destruction of the institution of marriage – on women. To this end, we must consider the age-old question: what do women want? I think the answer is not so hard. What women want is men: the manlier, the better.

Women want high-value men. There are two ways to acquire high-value men. The woman can either go out on the sexual marketplace and attempt to “purchase” a high-value man or she can produce one herself. A high-value man can only exist by taking a low-value man, which all men start out as, and producing a high-value man. How are high-value men produced? Generally, they are produced by a combination of luck, good genes, good parents, a good wife, and self-improvement. If a boy becomes a man, he did it through one or a combination of these means. The cost of turning a boy into a man – or a low-value man into a high-value man – is not nothing and may be quite high. Therefore, the person who invests the resources into the production of high-value men will want to reap the rewards.

If a woman finds a high-value man who was already produced, she will have to pay a discount for “renting” this capital good, so to speak. This payment is necessarily sexual. If a woman herself invests in producing a high-value man, she will want to reap the profits of his manhood – by being his wife, by being a property owner of this capital. A woman will only make this investment if, from the outset, she can be secured as the future owner of the product. In other words, a woman will only invest in (date or procreate with) a low-value man if she can secure commitment from him first through the institution of marriage, and therefore sue if, after having taken her investment, he runs away with another woman who was not the original owner-producer of the man in question.

Women are born. Men are not. Women are produced by biology. Men are produced by society. Let us momentarily ignore genetics, luck, and parents as factors of production which turn boys into men, because these factors are out of the control of both a man and his potential wife. Men begin at 18 as boys. They have no skills, no body, no income, no wisdom, no character, no personality, no charisma, and no swagger. In other words, all men start out as losers (again, ignore genes and parental factors). In order to acquire women, which all men want, the boy must do something, learn something, at great cost to himself, which turns him from a boy into a man. He must go to college and become educated. He must start a job with low pay and begin climbing up the corporate ladder. He must learn how to dress, how to talk to women, and how to be kind and caring. He must go to the gym and become physically attractive. This process is voluntary and does not happen magically or costlessly. He must invest in himself to not be a loser.

A woman has two paths to attain a high-value man: 1) She can produce him herself, or 2) she can buy/rent one off the open dating market. In truth, women always use a combination of the two methods. Women do not want to date losers, and are more willing to date and give attention to higher-value men than to lower-value men at first sight. Yet, after beginning to date a man, a woman will also pressure him to become a better man and will sacrifice to some degree herself in order to turn him into a higher-value man.

We should also acknowledge that, as a biological and psychological fact, women are much more hard-wired for monogamy than men are. A woman tends to fall in love with a man more easily than a man falls in love with a woman, and having multiple partners is much more psychologically displeasing for her than for a man. Therefore, in general, a woman will prefer to have a man who commits to a relationship over the same man who does not commit. Women are more likely to abstain from sex with men other than their husband, even if they are sexually more attracted to the other men, because they love their husband. This means that commitment is very valuable to women. A lower-value man with commitment may be more desirable than a higher-value man without commitment.

Finally, let us recall that women are on more of a timeclock than men are. Men value youth, beauty, and fertility in women. A woman therefore must try to attain reproductive success by her mid to late twenties or maybe early thirties at the latest, but constantly losing time. On the dating market, men tend to go up in value over time, and women tend to decline in value over time. Having children also requires a long time of vulnerability when she is pregnant and then when she has small children to look after. Therefore, women do not have time to waste on men who are losers. She must get a man and she must get him relatively fast.

Now that we have laid some facts about men and women on the table, let us analyze the effect of abolishing the institution of marriage on women.

High-value men must be produced. Under patriarchy, where women can secure property rights in a man at an early stage in his development, it makes sense for her to marry a low-value man and invest in him to turn him into a high-value man. The woman will only do this if she can secure the benefits of her investment – the finally produced man – through the institution of marriage. If she does not marry the man, then he can eventually run off with a different, younger woman, and take the investments she made in him. A woman must secure commitment from a man before she can invest in him. A man who, even if he is a loser at 18, has a committed girlfriend and then wife from a young age, will become a high-value man far faster than a man who has no girlfriend to help him. If a woman is with a man, taking care of his sexual needs, helping to pay rent, keeping the house and social life in order, a man will more easily be able to become economically and socially successful in the first place. Moreover, a man is more likely to be grateful to a woman who dated him at a time when he was a low-value man and will see the value she has added to his life. Just think how much wealthier everyone would be if you had two incomes to pay rent at the age of twenty?

Under feminism, a woman cannot afford to produce a high-value man because the fruits of her investment are not secured to her. She has no choice but to find a high-value man on the open market because it is indirectly illegal for her to date low-value men because she legally cannot marry them. Therefore, women will not invest in the turning of low-value men into high-value men. In other words, because women cannot get commitment from low-value men, they cannot afford to date them and help them become high-value men. Before they can do that, they must be secured a property right in the eventual man – through marriage.

This means that, in a feminist society, every man is a high-value man because he himself produced his success personally. He did not have a girlfriend or wife when he was younger and a loser. He became high-value by his own hard work and graft, without the assistance of women. Therefore, as the full owner-producer of himself, why would he give himself away for free to women who have not earned it? If a woman had been his wife when he was a loser, and helped him to become a high-value man, she would have a claim to his loyalty. There is a big difference between a woman who appears in a man’s life when he is twenty and a loser, and a woman who appears in a man’s life when he is thirty and has already achieved success. A high-value man has no reason to settle down and get married, especially when it is highly likely that the woman will cheat on him anyways or run away with half of his money.

In order to purchase a man off of the open market, women must offer themselves at a sexual discount. In other words, women must become as slutty as possible and give themselves up to these men as easily as possible in order to have any hope of outcompeting the other women. This behavior is entirely rational from the perspective of women. If women got to choose between immediate sexual gratification and marriage, they would choose marriage. However, marriage is illegal, so this choice is simply not available to them. Women are not chaste because chastity no longer pays like it would under patriarchy. In other words, women mistreat their own bodies under feminism for the exact same reason that socialists mistreat capital goods under socialist legal systems. The capital value embodied in her own body is stolen from her by the abolition of marriage.

Naturally, when fewer women are investing in the production of high-value men, the number of high-value men will shrink. This will make the competition for the remaining men even fiercer and women will have to become even sluttier to compete. There is a downward spiral where an ever larger number of women chase an ever smaller number of men. Similarly, because one of the factors of production for high-value men are good fathers, as men abandon fatherhood because paternity rights cannot be secured without marriage, the general quality of manhood will fall even lower than before. Men without fathers are less likely to become high-value men, or at least become so at much greater cost to themselves. Even if a single woman’s child has the genes of a high-value man, the child will probably be a low-value man if there is no father in the home. Of course, there will not be a father in the home because it is illegal for a woman to marry a man.

All this is to say, the reproductive strategy followed by women is not independent of the laws and incentives of the society in which she lives. If women have the legal right to take a vow of chastity which is legally enforceable, they will do so because by this method they can secure commitment from a man. If it is illegal for a woman to take a vow of chastity, she has no ability to secure commitment from a man and therefore is forced to compete in the dating market for the existing short-term supply of high-value men. Women naturally want to be chaste in exchange for commitment. But in the modern world, it is illegal for this exchange to occur, because divorce courts will not enforce marriage contracts. Because commitment is illegal, women pursue the next-best option, which is to have the highest value man possible without commitment. Therefore, she will attempt to be the biggest slut possible, and rightfully so. This sexual promiscuity and infidelity also results in increased STDs and sexual shame and debauchery.

In a patriarchal society, women will tend to take on those qualities which make them desirable as wives and mothers. In a feminist society, women will tend to take on those qualities which make them desirable as one-night-stands. Women will focus more on developing their looks and sexual desirability and less on developing personalities and skills which would cause men to stick around.

Women, in a feminist society, will predictably complain about a lack of datable men and the lack of commitment from men. They will be displeased that no worthy men pay attention to them unless they sexually debase themselves. Among the men they are interested in, they will notice that men cheat and have easy access to sex from other women. This will breed hatred of men among women. Women will come to see men both as weak and effeminate – which most of them are – and as toxic and noncommittal – which the rest will be. They do not realize that it is illegal for men to be anything else.

Many women, disgusted with the nature of polygamy and degeneracy, will drop out of the dating market entirely because they cannot find worthy men and they refuse to debase themselves. This, combined with the hatred of men, will also cause an increase in lesbianism and bisexuality among women, who are naturally much more bisexual than men.

Moreover, because men cannot legally commit to women, the women who do decide to become mothers will increasingly be single mothers. This makes women more vulnerable, reduces their value on the sexual marketplace, and impoverishes them and eats away at their souls. It is very difficult for a woman to raise a child alone, and no matter how good she is, it is impossible for a single mother to provide as good an upbringing for her son and daughter as if there was a father in the home. More women will choose never to have children, those who do have children will have fewer children, the children they raise will be of lower quality, and they will be unlikely to have the other important parts of life that a married mother has access to through her husband, such as money, time, and friends. The costs of reproduction will increase, the profits of reproduction will decrease, the costs of sexual promiscuity, debauchery, and sterilization will decrease, and the profits of sexual promiscuity, debauchery, and sterilization will increase.

Another consequence of the destruction of marriage is that women will have to depend on themselves for income and self-defense. As such, women will tend to spend more time focusing on their careers and increasing their own incomes rather than investing (non-monetarily) in a boyfriend who will leave or mistreat her. As women are not attracted to men who make less money than them or who are physically weaker than them, this will reduce even further the pool of men who are datable to them. Also, female competition with men in the labor force will lower wages for men and will make it even harder for men to compete for women, which will cause more men to drop out entirely of the quest for women.

This modern, shallow conception of womanhood forced upon us by the abolition of marriage prevents women from achieving self-transcendence and spiritual meaning. The normal, meaningful path for women is to become lovers and mothers. Women want to marry men. However, it is harder for a woman to find a man and even harder to get that man to marry her than ever before. This is because it is illegal for her to offer that thing that men want – sexual loyalty – even if she wants to offer it to him. Women would be much happier if they were married to high-value men, and there would be many more high-value men and more men willing to commit to marriage if marriage were legal. 

Another way to conceptualize the problem is to consider the “value” of men and women individually vs. the value of men and women when considered as a married unit. Under patriarchy, women will invest in the production of high-value men and men will, in exchange for their wife’s sexual loyalty, stay loyal to her even as her sexual value declines. Women will safely have children at a young age because they are sure that they have a man who will stay with them. Moreover, because the man and woman are tied to each other legally, they will care about each other and invest in each other and help each other out.

Under feminism, neither the man nor the woman can be secured a property right in their long-term relationship. Therefore, they have no choice but to engage in selfish behavior, even if they don’t want to! Women will not invest in their man from a young age and will have to delay the age at which they reproduce. Men will have to struggle harder to achieve success and will not share that success with women who mean nothing to them but a one night stand. The total value of both of their lives will be lower than under patriarchy. 

The way that society is supposed to work – and the way it would work if marriage was legal – is that men and women are supposed to find spouses in their early twenties and start families young, and help each other to be successful in life, falling in love along the way. Men and women would both act monogamously because you would not have to wait until your late twenties or thirties to get married and lose your virginity on your wedding night. Housing and apartment prices would be lower because men and women would live together. Wages would be higher because women would not be expected to provide one hundred percent of their own income. Men would not experience sexual angst, and women would not experience sexual debasement or exploitation. Most importantly of all, fathers would have children who they had an incentive to stay around and raise, and the general quality of life and humanity would increase enormously.

Laws, though, are primarily unwritten. It does not so much matter what the laws are as what the people believe. Ideas precede laws. The laws, in time, adjust to the feelings of the era. As long as people believe in feminism and all the leftist corollaries which are mutually implied in the Hellish epoch in which we live – democracy, atheism, socialism, equality, etc. – the intellectual, ethical, and religious, and therefore the political, basis of the destruction of marriage (and the destruction of our entire civilization) will remain intact and continue marching ‘forward’ – is that an iceberg I see?

Progress! Progress! Progress! Whither? To Hell, it seems. And hail its coming, and call it Heaven! All hail the age of condoms and syphilis! All hail the age of whores and soy! All hail the age of bastards; the suicide of civilization! And sing an ode or two for Peter Pan, the patron saint of our era! The ancestors of the feminists and progressives of our age had the honesty to call this modern word ‘progress’ by its real meaning: Providence! Is there any distinction between the words “progress” and “providence” except veracity? They can pretend they have no religion if their religion embarasses them, but we are not fooled. God does have a sense of humor (or at least the Devil does!), for we have aimed at Heaven, and brought about Hell. Bring me the lamb, the scrolls, the horses, and the plagues, in exchange for this misery which we call happiness and freedom! Can’t you feel the liberty dripping down your leg? We are free if we enslave ourselves, and we are slaves if we obey God who made us free! Is this the general opinion of an age of wisdom, or of an age of folly? Men with discipline own themselves, and isn’t this the definition of freedom? Men and women who surrender to lust do not own themselves, but are slaves to lust. There is a demon and an angel inside of you, and the only question is: which is your master? Liberate yourself sexually – from chastity and virtue! Burst from that cage of oppression – that cage with smiling husbands and wives and children – into the open air of Hell! Cut all the bonds of virtue which tied you down, and find that those bonds had only constrained the demon that lived inside of you! But is it reassuring, dear reader, that all our peers inform us with great cheer that this sexual wasteland in which we wander is happiness, freedom, and progress? All the whores you could ever want, but not a woman in sight! No fathers, no mothers, no children, no civilization. But Freedom, Progress and lube!

The mind is its own place, and in itself

Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.

What matter where, if I be still the same, 

And what I should be, all but less then hee

Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least

We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built

Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:

Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce

To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: 

Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.¹

In conclusion, almost all sexual problems that people observe in the modern world can be understood as the rational reactions of both men and women to the abolition of the institution of marriage. The inability of men and women to find meaningful relationships with each other is a major cause of the unhappiness and spiritual death and decline of our civilization. Moreover, the abolition of marriage explains the declining birth rate, the later age of marriage and reproduction, the decline in the quality of masculinity, the increasing sexual degeneracy, the increasing frequency of STDs, increased fatherlessness, increased loneliness, lower quality sex, increased homosexuality, and on and on. The solution to this would simply be to reinstate the right of women to offer sexual chastity to their husbands, which is currently illegal. If a man and woman get married, and the woman commits adultery, the man should be released from the marriage contract. This would alleviate most sexual problems in the world.

Neither men nor women are behaving in the way they want to behave. Our sexual problems are not the result of women being dumb sluts, as the red pill community would have you believe, nor are they the result of toxic masculinity and fear of commitment by men as feminists would have you believe. Sexual promiscuity among women and shallow masculinity among men are unfortunately rational reactions to the destruction of the institution of marriage. If marriage were legalized again, women would become more feminine, chaste, and marriable, and men would become more masculine, chaste, and committed.

1. John Milton, Paradise Lost, (Project Gutenberg: 1991), Book I, Paragraph 8, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20/pg20-images.html#link2HCH0001.