The simple decision to marry

Yes, it’s really simple.

If you apply the Prisoner’s Dilemma from Game Theory. Which nobody seems to have done so I had a go. You can use this with credit given.

The Prisoner's Dilemma as Applied to Marriage game theory original

For those scoffing and saying “what’s good” it means good – for marriage.
As in, K-type.

Don’t pretend you’re not impressed.

Notes

Like hiring for a job, it’s all in the selection. You control your contribution (what you are and always have been) but also the selection of your co-contributor. Cold feet isn’t about marriage per se, it’s about marrying the wrong person. You need a mix of good-good for it to work as intended. Marriage is a contractual exchange between K-types. Broken marriages are the product of at least one broken party to it (but sometimes both). You must be good yourself to expect a good deal (unless they wish to create a long-suffering situation, the other party should recognize before marriage). You must have something to offer. A bad prospect has no business in marriage and should, if the MMP is true, be left on the shelf.

STD-free blood tests before marriage kept it good

I was rather shocked to hear from an American that some states (increasingly few) require a blood test (historically from the man, but now both parties) and a physical examination (of the man, historically) prior to granting a marriage certificate. I was shocked because 1. it’s a brilliant idea and 2. they’re phasing it out and 3. we have no equivalent in Europe…

One of my most popular posts was “Which laws kept marriage intact?” – found here. This information feeds into that topic.

Historically, all women would be presumed virgins before marriage (and in a time without ready contraception, not being pregnant was a reliable sign). However, men were presumed cads until proven otherwise  (to the father of the bride too, the patriarch) and had to prove themselves – in a way they couldn’t lie. Sure beats a lie detector. It single-handedly eliminated public health risks before they began in the population. This kept women safe from the pain, suffering of what we now call STDs, miscarriage and probable death that VD could and continues to cause on a pregnancy, as well as checking Rh factors (when negative in a female but positive in the fetus, from the father, this incompatibility causes miscarriage). Rh factors were a latter addition in need of medical forewarning (all marriages being fertile) and the original reason was to check the man was as respectable as he claimed (illegal to deceive under False Light and Misrepresentation). I suppose it would make wicked court evidence. If he visited prostitutes or slept around, he would fail the test and the marriage would be cancelled. In this way, r-types were forbidden from tasting the benefits of K-partner marriage. Here here. It’s easy to speak of protecting women and a good woman’s place in a stable marriage – but hard for the all-talk crowd to come to the logical conclusion: this means protecting them from deceptive men. Which often includes themselves. #burn #partoftheproblem

In short, women weren’t the only ones expected to prove their virtue prior to marriage. That is a myth.

lolmaletears

The manosphere manwhores don’t seem intent on covering this sort of information for some strange reason.

bbc sherlock moriarty eyebrow flash closeup lol flirt really rlly

I did a little digging for UK information and all I could find in public domain was;

Click to access marriage.pdf

A few notes before I go on this paper.
Check this first line, the most vital point before we proceed.

1.1 To be valid, all marriages which take place in the United Kingdom must be: • Monogamous

I guess that upsets the human filth who plan on getting married and cheating too, with pathetic excuses that marriage has always been that way (clearly wrong) and they ‘can’t help it’ appeals to weakness covered in the final paragraph here: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/if-you-cheat-on-your-wife-you-deserve-to-be-divorce-raped/ Pardon me for believing that men have presumed agency and legal personhood. The American legal system is based on the English common law in case you didn’t know so this all counts.

Under section 14.3.1 Voidable marriage

Under s.12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a marriage celebrated on or after 31 July 1971 shall be voidable on the grounds that:…

at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form;

Bad news, sluts!

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

It’s almost like the marriage laws are defined (as is marriage altogether) by the K-types who enter it and specifically written by the K-Patriarchs who wanted to protect their daughters from the likes of you. It isn’t all bad however, because a similar provision is made for the protection of fiances, their sons.

or at the time of the marriage the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the petitioner

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

Nope, a bitch about how the system supposedly favours women doesn’t fly. It’s a K-law that eliminates the r-type genes from the high investment pool of options. You’re inferior, you chose it, you made your bed. Lie in it.

I shouldn't get this happy over old papers but I do

We should look toward more of the same legal protections if we want to fix the broken modern system of marriage.

Link: US Democrats want to strike husband and wife off law books

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/21241-democrats-move-to-strike-husband-and-wife-from-federal-law

We hate to say I told ya so because we wish it hadn’t happened.

staring angry glare really omfg no stop dorian gray

And the Celebrate Pride rainbow profile picture crap was a psychological experiment about friend’s conformity: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/21233-facebook-celebrate-pride-rainbow-filter-a-psychological-experiment

I say we retake the rainbow symbol. It doesn’t belong to anyone.

Link: Game Theory and the Marriage Market

http://www.staresattheworld.com/2015/06/game-theory-and-the-marriage-matrix/

Three considerations are missing;

  1. sleeping around used to be frowned upon, not encouraged by every medium of popular culture (easier to sell things to insecure single people), and blame was assigned correctly for the fault in a marriage, we had standards to aspire toward, the words of the very vow itself used to be legally binding
  2. adultery used to be a crime, this kept levels low and it was enforced, the concept of honour was legally binding and slandering a woman’s chastity was criminal (criminal libel and some bitchy specific forms) kept ugly girls from cutting pretty ones down with lies and gossip in the MMV/SMV
  3. obtaining divorce wasn’t the proviso of a family court “judge” but a criminal one, with a high standard of proof required to leave, divorce was rare

It is THESE things, which kept people in line and made them treat marriage seriously.

I would endorse a two-marriage cap for life (excepting widowhood). Fool me once… choose wrong twice….

Both sexes had legal protections when times were good.
Age limits to make a choice of marriage partner accounted for maturity, income, religion etc. Good matches.

From a female perspective (wait this isn’t vapid), I think women have displayed some new male-like traits in selection for good reason e.g. more emphasis on appearance, fitness and wit, because the excessive overpopulation has left us so many to choose from. We’ve always been as shallow as men (if you had to choose between two people equal in other ways but one is hotter everyone would choose the hot one come on), but now we have a lot more choice and men have to jump hoops but for dates instead of courtship and marriage. Women aren’t locked down into those choices and assume fertility is a given because of our sex. Most men nowadays are fat or not fit, so the healthy toned man is maximising his fitness signal, similar with symmetrical, masculine appearance in a world of antiandrogens, phyto and xenoestrogens. It’s like a nuclear bomb of a signal in that case:-

I’m normally totally level-headed around men but this level of genetic fitness has a profoundly distracting effect even upon me which I can only compare to Kate Upton’s bouncing tits in a wet t-shirt as an effect on men.

PC quashes genuine wit and makes it shine the brighter in bleak times and so on.
Lust is the desire to breed after all and we shouldn’t forget this, it can be a positive force. If you want to incentivize marriage, make a man invested in his children (and certain of paternity because he loves his wife) and a woman invested in her husband and his attentions (and her children because duh).

As for the warning at the end, the traditional women don’t live in that traditional society. The men are too poor to even consider marriage. Hardly a choice. A woman who waits around is going to be kept waiting forever because men think they can get the same quality of woman regardless of age.

There is now a UK gay marriage bakery case aka Fairy Cakes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10952494/Bert-and-Ernie-gay-marriage-cake-leaves-Christian-bakery-facing-court-threat.html

You can’t force a person to work for you, that’s called slavery.

“But the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has now written to the firm claiming that it is breaking the law.

A letter signed by the legal office orders the firm to “remedy your illegal discrimination” within seven days or be taken to court by the commission. [threat, they should sue]

The Christian institute, which is supporting the bakery, says it is not discriminatory for managers to refuse to endorse a political campaign.

Gay marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK in which it is not on the statute book.

Colin Hart, chief executive of the Christian Institute, said: “This is a sign of things to come exactly as we predicted.

The Government repeatedly failed to listen to members of the public, lawyers, constitutional experts even its own MPs when they called for safeguards to protect those who back traditional marriage, especially those who work in the public sector.

“Now this nonsense, more usually associated with the public sector, is being applied to the private sector.

“This means millions of ordinary people who do not agree with gay marriage, face intimidation and the real threat of legal action from the forces of political correctness if they, out of conscience, decline to provide good or services to campaign groups they do not agree with or support.

“It establishes a dangerous precedent about the power of the state over an individual, or business to force them to go against their deeply held beliefs.”

The customer was unable to comment.”

Of course he was.

Minor point of psychology: a fascist group forcing people to do everything it says become more unpopular. I hope the bakers take this to the ECHR and set a precedent. Minority sexuality isn’t a license to own people, their thoughts, opinions or their labour.