First, atheism is simply a personal position on one issue, and not a belief system, so there is nothing to rely on. — Nobeernolife

It is about what the secularists-atheists try to replace religious systems by. It is exactly because their views are not a legitimate system and just some kind of vague personal position that I am so opposed to their social "solutions".

Secondly, there are plenty of religions that do not come with a "religious law" — Nobeernolife

Well, that is not completely true either.

When push comes to shove, you will see that e.g. a Christian community suddenly also has a religious law. They certainly had one in the Ottoman empire, and they still have one in Lebanon today, where the fifteen religious communities happily administer their own marriage and divorce regulations.

Islam: Sunni, Shia, Alawi

Christianity: Maronite Catholicism, Greek Orthodox Church, Greek Catholicism, Armenian Orthodox Church, Armenian Catholicism, Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholicism, Protestantism, Chaldean Orthodox Church and Catholicism, Other Christian Denominations.

Druzism, Judaism — Fifteen communities administering their religious law in Lebanon

The same can be said of Hinduism. They did not have a religious law until they argued that they actually had one:

Dharmaśāstra became influential in modern colonial India history, when they were formulated by early British colonial administrators to be the law of the land for all non-Muslims (Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs) in South Asia, after Sharia i.e. Mughal Empire's Fatawa-e-Alamgiri[12][13] set by Emperor Muhammad Aurangzeb, was already accepted as the law for Muslims in colonial India.[14][15][16] — Wikipedia on Dharmaśhāstra

So, the antinomian idea that a religion has no religious law gets abandoned rather swiftly when they are asked to self-govern the personal and family law of their religious community. Then you will find that they suddenly re-discover their own religious law.

In fact, I find all fifteen codexes in Lebanon quite reasonable, much more so than the completely failed approach in secular western countries with imploding marriage -and fertility rates. The proof is always in the pudding.

It is about what the secularists-atheists try to replace religious systems by. — alcontali

You really should stop generalizing. Secularists-atheists by definition do not necessarily try to replace anyhing. I am am atheist, and I have nothing against religion, as long as it remains cultural/spiritual. I am very much against political movements using "religion" as a cover. I.e. I have no problem with Buddhism, Zoroastrism, or Bahaism (just to pick a few), but I am very much opposed to islam.

And stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different ones out there, from some that have no political ambitions (i.e. Buddhism) to others that de facto are radical political movements (islam). Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "books", i.e. meaningless.

When push comes to shove, you will see that e.g. a Christian community suddenly also has a religious law. — alcontali

Do you seriously want to go through all 3000 existing and countless extinct religions to "prove" to us they all have a religious law? I did not say that NONE has. I simply said NOT ALL have. And notice that I never mentioned Christianity.
So put your strawman back in the closet, thanks.

By the way, I am not the first one to point out that we should not generalize about "religions" ... which really should be obvious.

Here is Bertrand Russel:
"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of islam. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
BERTRAND RUSSEL

You really should stop generalizing. Secularists-atheists by definition do not necessarily try to replace anyhing. — Nobeernolife

Activists hold placards during a protest demanding civil marriage in Lebanon. There is currently no Lebanese civil personal status law.

Lebanon does not have a civil code regulating personal status matters. Instead, there are 15 separate personal status laws for the country’s different recognized religious communities including twelve Christian, four Muslim, the Druze, and Jewish confessions, which are administered by separate religious courts.

Religious authorities often promoted this judicial pluralism as being essential to protecting Lebanon’s religious diversity. In reality, the multiplicity of laws means that Lebanese citizens are treated differently when it comes to key aspects of their lives, including marriage, divorce, and custody of children.

This variation has prompted rights activists in Lebanon to advocate for civil personal status law that would guarantee that citizens are treated equally, while ensuring that their freedom of belief is respected. — Unequal and Unprotected. Women’s Rights under Lebanese Personal Status Laws

They do.

Atheists are hellbent on imposing their views onto others under the nomer of "human rights".

So, these "activists" want "to guarantee that citizens are treated equally".

Their idea is to replace religious law by their own secular inventions. Of course, that will just lead to a western-style divorce-rape system where men will no longer want to marry, and to a collapse in the fertility rate. It means the end of the nuclear family. The religious communities do not want their law to be replaced by something that is known not to work.

Marriage is meaningless anyway for atheists. So, why do they even bother?

The guarantors of the current system of religious marriage and divorce are the guns, cannons, and mortars of Hezbollah. If these "activists" try to push ahead with their plans, it will lead to violent combat. So, in a sense, I think that it is still a good idea that they try, because it will thoroughly weed out and decimate their demographic. There are just too many arrogant atheists in Lebanon, and violent conflict will duly solve that problem.

The situation isn't that simple; for one, no one has provided anything according to a working definition of "secularism" to begin with in theory, whatever that is or means, nor "religion", given that the Supreme Court has recognized non-traditional or non-thestic religions such as "Secular Humanism (which traces its leniage back to Auguste Comte and his cult or "religion of Humanity").

For that matter, many if not most definitions of "religion" are based on abstractions or nonsense, which no serious historical attempt at defining "religion" to begin with would take seriously, usually boiling down to childish conflations of "religion" with "mythology" or "children's stores", or rather some simplistic iconographic image allegedly depicting a "god", perhaps akin to one of Carl Jung's archetypes, even when religions(s) as far history as concerned, even dating back to the days of the Medieval Church, never claimed that silly graven images or 'idols" depicting god or a deity, most of which come more from popular culture or folklore than from any actual religious or theological text to begin with, were never said to be the "god", "goddess", or whatever, but rather just a simplistic image used in depiction of an abstract concept, akin to how a cartoonish drawing of "atom" is not a real atom, but merely used to depict one, or something which can't be seen with the naked eye.

One would think that this would be somewhat obvious and commonsensical, at least to moderate literate people, but sadly it isn't and is lost on so many of them, not reading or being able to read or write beyond a paltry 6th grade reading level to begin with.

Beyond that, and whatever arbitrary and childishly inaccurate definitions of "religion" or "secularism" are often and erroneously offered, seemingly simply meaning whatever one "wants" them to mean, or were incorrectly taught or told they mean, whether intentionally lied to, or simply misinformed.

Much as how the false dichotomy between "religious / secular" only exists in pure abstraction; the law (as in the Common) of the states as well as the UK, developed or evolved from older legal systems, including Exodus, Rome, and so on and so forth.

Obviously laws and morality, such as prohibition of murder, not only existed within the context of "religious" systems of law or government, but within "secular" ones, such as the Common Law system as well.

True, in terms of how people actually act or behave, in theory or practice, as is well documented by many experts, including ones which focus on the biological or evolutionary psychological aspects, such types of behaviors are by no means exclusive to "religion", or whatever incorrect or bad definition of "religion" one is using at any given time to begin with. To some extent, this should be common sense, as per Pinker and others, sadly on some serially stupid and/or dishonest individuals who lack even the basic social intelligence, self-awareness or intuition that would be expected of a more savvy child, this is sadly lost on them, in favor of ideological salesmanship and outright lies and misinformations...

They do.

Atheists are hellbent on imposing their views onto others under the nomer of "human rights".
[/quote]
I don't see any correlation between "human rights" and "atheism".

Much as the dichotomy between "religious / secular" is false, and doesn't exist that way except in pure childish abstractions; for example, in our modern Common Law systems, crimes such as murder were also sins and crimes within older, "religious" systems of law, such as Exodus, which modern law evolved out of.

So, these "activists" want "to guarantee that citizens are treated equally".

Says the guy talking about MRAs and whatnot, when historically, as far as ancient cultures go, MRAs and MGTOW wouldn't have any "rights" to begin with or petition for; do you think an ancient monarch would tolerate him, let alone incels thinking that his Queen is entitled to date them simply because they're "nice".

They've have been turned into eunuchs and forced to serve in his haram, rather than simply allowed to "exist" or subsist as they are today.

Their idea is to replace religious law by their own secular inventions. Of course, that will just lead to a western-style divorce-rape system where men will no longer want to marry

I don't think you understand what your talking about; most of the "divorce" court system has nothing to with recent political or identarian movements (e.x. "2nd or 3rd wave pop feminism", or whatnot").

It's, ironically more of a holdover from the 19th century, possibly even including "religious" moral sentiments; based presumptions such as women being inherently better nurtures of children, or men presumed being the sole or main providers of income (which of course, wasn't the case on the whole even in dated areas such as that, as Marie Curie, Queen Victoria, or other prominent women of any and every historical area prove, though generally it's presumed that more of a tendency toward "arbitrary" discrimination, primarily against women on the basis of "sex" alone existed).

So, the system is flawed in this reason, not because of "feminism" or whatever you're attributing it to, but rather because potentially outdated laws haven't been updated to reflect changing socioeconomic conditions, so the best bet as far as that goes, wouldn't be to mindless or ignorantly rail against "feminism", especially when what you're calling "feminism" is closer to archaic "traditionalism" than anything else, but rather work to change the laws yourself.

, and to a collapse in the fertility rate. It means the end of the nuclear family.

How much "fertility rate" does one need; monogamy itself "lowers fertility" rates in comparison to archaic practices such as polygamy; which even "religious" systems for most of recent history have accepted, as a cultural evolution above more primitive practices, and civilizing force which guarantees better rights for families, children, and so on and so forth.

The religious communities do not want their law to be replaced by something that is known not to work.

What do you mean by "work", and by what means to what ends?

Polygamy which is known to "work" has been replaced by monogamy both in "religious" and "secular" communities and systems for similar reasons.

Not everything, within any system is solely reducible to whether it "works" either by some means or ends which themselves are inherently problematic, but about higher quality, even at the natural expense of pure "stability" to the point of archaism, anti-intellectualism, cultural regression, and so on and so forth.

For that matter, the same could be said of archaic systems, whether "religious, secular" or otherwise, given that many if not most "systems" currently at work or at use date to centuries back to begin with, archaic as they might be, or as many of them ironically were even during the time period in which they originated, were trendy, were popular, and so on, in comparison to superior or more overarching systems or theories, the Common Law system and theories, such as their basis of morality, intentions, premeditations, and so on and so forth being product of human reason, as well as human "passions" or instincts, such as are documented by evolutionary psychologists playing a role in addictions, crimes of "passions" as opposed to more serious, calculated, premeditated and intentional ones, and so forth. (Making one wonder where archaic notions such as reductionistic "behaviorism" and similar and related anti-intellectual "legalistic" nonsense (not to be confused or conflated with the law itself, in moral or legal theory and in moral or legal practice, such as by Judge Holmes in his treatise on the Common Law system and philosophy by which it governs and is sustained and perpetuated), ever orginated or why they did to begin with, given that they were more or less known to be nonsense in as far as systems of the law and its legal and moral phllosophy are or were concerned, even in or during the day where archaic fads and trends like that were supposedly popular among less intellectual members of their various and interconnect societies and populations to begin with.

Says the guy talking about MRAs and whatnot, when historically, as far as ancient cultures go, MRAs and MGTOW wouldn't have any "rights" to begin with or petition for; do you think an ancient monarch would tolerate him — IvoryBlackBishop

MRAs are not the same as MGTOW.

Furthermore, rights are not something the monarch gives you but something that you extract at gunpoint. Hence, it is mostly a question of who defeats whom in battle.

MRAs are not the same as MGTOW.

I don't really care, to be honest.

Fact is those groups want "legal" rights.

Furthermore, rights are not something the monarch gives you but something that you extract at gunpoint. Hence, it is mostly a question of who defeats whom in battle.

And when, in your actual life (not in Cod), have you actually done that, or will you actually do that, tough guy?

Please, tell me how you're going to extract your "rights" to rape a woman at knife point, or single-handedly made like Tony Montana and shot up the entire gang of Sicilian Mafiosi who were trying to "extract" your rights at gunpoint - don't worry, the FBI isn't reading this, you can share with us.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'orienting' it to girls, some have made the opposite claim, that it's oriented to boys due to an emphasis on "math", so I take these claims with a grain of salt.

Much as I take claims about any legal educational system which is only oriented to a K-12, or entry level college or university level, given how low and ultimately relevant such an actual level of "education is", beyond those men and women who actively peruse high levels of learning and education on their own.

If mass media, which is primarily marketed to a 6th grade reading level, or average 100 IQ is any concern, then most of it, whether false dicthomies (e.x. public/private/home/etc), comparions or abstractions which only matter at that low, anti-intellectual level to begin with, call me arrogant in my own higher mathematical intelligence and literacy, but such things literally strike me as childs play, and aren't remotely worth the cost/benefit analysis from a pure learning, mathematically analytical perspective, like that of Rhodes Scholar Edward De Bono, assuming that inherently and demonstrably, mathematically, provable and inherently superior methods and more contemporary, and less archaic 19th century holdovers masquerading as methodologies to the 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level demographic it's marketed to and catered to, altogether are available to more ambitious, thinking men and think women in the 21st century, or Information Age, or even eras before, who didn't limit themselves to whatever archaic and anti-intellectual bare mimum were readily offered them via salesmanship as mere paltry table scraps.

Some people are simply too selfish, inept, lazy, or otherwise useless enough to even bother visiting their local library, their local law library, their Amazon or Kindle account, and thinking that reading one book a year marketed to the 6th grade reading level is a major accomplishment, as opposed to intellectually, intuitively, and creatively superior men and women, who read as much as one full, graduate or post-gradute school book a day all on their own volition, such as in the case male and female CEOs or executives on Ted Talks, and the like.

Fact is those groups want "legal" rights. — IvoryBlackBishop

Not true. MRA do, but MGTOW don't.

MGTOW are simply bailing out. They do not ask for anything to change. It just reflects the growing trend of men bailing out from the workforce and out of "relationshits". They just don't want to be someone else's plough horse on the "plantation".

It is not possible to change anything to society for MGTOW to change their mind. They have decided to move on, and they are simply not coming back.

Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.

I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever. — alcontali

Whereabouts? Went to Thailand recently. Loved it and want to move back there.

Whereabouts? Went to Thailand recently. Loved it and want to move back there. — Michael

1. Cambodia
2. Vietnam
3. Philippines

All three countries are fantastic in their own special way. I rarely hang out in Thailand, though. The last time was in 2018 for two weeks in Chiang Mai. Thailand is probably an ok country but it does not "madly" attract me. Maybe it lacks that little small bit of authenticity to make it addictive! ;-)

1. Cambodia — alcontali

Spent 2 months in Siem Reap a few years ago. Probably my favourite place.

Spent 2 months in Siem Reap a few years ago. Probably my favourite place. — Michael

Agreed. It is great!

Phnom Penh and Kampot are also superb. Fifteen minutes across the Vietnamese border from Kampot, you are in Ha Tien, Vietnam, which is a nifty provincial town with fantastic seafood restaurants, not to mention, dirt cheap. There's a ferry from there to Phu Quoc island, which lots of people say good things about, but I haven't crossed over yet. It is somewhere on the agenda, though!

Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.
— Possibility

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.
[/quote]
Bogus; you've never been in "violent" conflict; if you're a virgin, that's not why.

I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"; I've been with somewhere between 15-20 women, nor was I ever married.

If your argument is that there's an aesthetic element to "violence", such as in the context of arts, movies, contact sports, and so on, or a couple legally and consensually engaging in "rough sex" or "domination fantasies", or a romance novel, such as one by Loretta Chase depicting a "violent" sexual fantasy, I'd argue that is not remotely comparable to literal "violence" or "violent conflict".

Anymore than watching an action film or playing a "violent" video game, and whatever "fantasies" it might related to, is the same as literally engaging in violence or literally "wanting" to engage in violence

So no, what you're asserting isn't remotely applicable to a 1st world country. I fail to see what your point is.

The fact that biology and lack of basic impulse control pays a role in dysfunctional human behaviors is well-documented by the law, and it's philosophy (such as distinguishing between crimes of "passion", or impulsive ones, versus rational "crimes), as well as fair amount common sense, particularily during adolescence when male and female "hormones" are at their peak - but that's still a far cry from what it is you're saying or advocating, whether you want to invoke biology, or anything else.

Example - Justin Bieber is considered a "teen idol" or "sex symbol", Justin Bieber is not a "tough guy" stereotypically "macho" guy, he's a 'soft, sensitive, musician", yet he has many more female admirers than your average convicted murder or rapist does (regardless whether or not you want to point out that murders and rapists have had "admirers", who is bored or creepy enough to care, honestly?)

Even in the animal kindgom, your claim about "violent conflict" simply isn't true or without exception, in some cases, an "aesthetic" element, such as a male peacock impressing a potential mate with its beautiful feathers, or a mating dance, rather than "violent conflict" may actually be preferred, for example:

(And for what its worth, most historical "ladies men", whether fictional or exaggerated, were not known for being particularly "violent" or aggressive, in fact, ironically many of them may have seemed "effiminate", preferring to "woo" a woman with music, poetry, lyrics, and so on and so forth rather than "violence".)

Even the Bible has the "Song of Solomon".

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-13/12-animal-mating-rituals-prove-love-about-good-dance-moves

That depends on a social-political framework that may or may not exist, and that can easily stop existing from the one day to the other.

You've yet to substantiate that.

When the Roman legions inevitably abandoned the fortifications on the Rhine in 406 AD, it was game over for the existing societal framework. There were no debates any longer. There were only sword fights.

I don't think you know what you're talking about?

Why did the Catholic Church end up having a longer lifespan than Rome did, despite instituting monogamy and priesthood celbacy?

The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.

Not true. MRA do, but MGTOW don't.

MGTOW are simply bailing out. They do not ask for anything to change. It just reflects the growing trend of men bailing out from the workforce and out of "relationshits". They just don't want to be someone else's plough horse on the "plantation".

It is not possible to change anything to society for MGTOW to change their mind. They have decided to move on, and they are simply not coming back.

Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.
[/quote]
That's not their mentality, their mentality is something akin to "Radical feminist lesbian separatism", a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas, in which all sex or relationships are viewed as "inherently exploitative, or all sex is rape".

There is no depth, nor any sense of "higher" purpose, it is primarily just pop nihilism, consumerism, and claiming to not want women in their life, yet spend all of their free time obsessing over "women" and pornography as a whole

And who gives a fuck? Disaffected people being in bad relationships and blaming the other sex as a whole is as old and unoriginal as human nature, let alone something worthy of creating a creepy "subculture" on the basis of.

It's no open secret no matter what historical time period, archaic, or contemporary which one goes back that "marriage", on or as a legal institution first and foremost, was and is primarily pragmatic, and at worst merely a step above the "law of the Jungle" to help expeditate divorce proceedings and reduce the risk of them fighting or killing each other, the kind of nonsense one sees in Jerry Springer or other "trash TV shows'. Most marriages, if not outright miserable are certainly "less than ideal" rather than pop-RousseauIan deterministic notions of "love" and marriage with most couples not being happily married and can't be abstracted or differentiated from their pragmatic factors as well as their romantic ones.

This again, has nothing to do with arrested development and immaturity, so much as just a commonsensical thing as well, which people stuck in miserable marriages or situations deny either through sheer "naivete" or self-deception; much as many which might even be called "feminist" notions would be against the anti-intellectual idea of a person, especially a young person jumping or rushing into a marriage, childbirth, or a relationship, at the expense of personal maturation, or other life goals and pursuits, particularily those of an intellectual or creative variety, which again, "civilized" people already do and take it for granted, given that we aren't pre-literate 3rd world tribesmen getting "engaged" at the age of 10 and couplating with our "wives" at the age of 14 years old, at the expense of 1st world luxuries, such as literacy, mathematics, and so on.

Most people would likewise admire and consider a businessman, scientist, or other professional, whether Adam Smith, or Issac Newton, or Saint Paul in the Bible (who said himself that not every man should marry necessarily) both of whom may have never married, to be a better civilizational hallmark than a man or woman who has fathered 5 kids with 5 different partners by the age of 18, lacking any means of financial support or personal maturity in regards to raising the children they brought into the world.

Marriage is and has only been "sacred" in the context of a church, a couples' vows, or anything else, this again is common sense to anyone who's as so much as read a single book by a mature marriage or relationships author (whether or not they agree with the couple's premise), whether from a data era such as the 1800s, when overall standards of "modesty" were presumably "higher" (hence writings like Married Love), or in a more contemporary day and age in which books like "Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars", are or were popular.

The fact that something this basic, simple, and commonsensical has somehow morphed into silly and false "red pill/blue pill" dichotomies is probably more of a negative sign of the times than any of the exaggerations you are referring to.

Given the fact that I also believe that western society is beyond salvation, I agree with MGTOW and not with MRA, whose ambitions I consider to be pointless. I love it here in SE Asia. I am also not coming back. Ever.

Cool, who cares?

Most of them aren't motivated enough to "move" their left butt cheek away from their sticky keyboard and "waifu' collections".

Grown "men" acting like arrested development children who still think the other sex has cooties and masturbating to cheap anime porn ("marriage, relationships, or anything else having nothing to do with this) is more of a sign of the times than anything else.

There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.

Once the now disfunctional societal framework will have collapsed (the sooner the better) it will be impossible to resurrect it, because the men who will have fought in combat will simply not want it back.

We will probably have to contend with lots of marauding gangs but that is also not such a bad thing because these gangs will prefer to pick the easy targets and thus systematically eliminate the feminized pushovers. It would be a bad idea to put a stop to the cleansing chaos of the mating season too early

So why do the "cops" have the robbers in jail, and not the "robbers" having the cops in jail?

Quit playing CoD, it's not accurate, I would easily bet you have never thrown a punch, been in a fight, earned a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, or anything else. You're just aiming at the lowest hanging fruit imaginable.

I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict" — IvoryBlackBishop

For now.

I've been with somewhere between 15-20 women, nor was I ever married. — IvoryBlackBishop

In our species, mankind, that kind of behaviour is widely considered to be mostly a waste of time. It is understandable behaviour but it is nevertheless quite useless, because it is not particularly productive.

Our species' mating and breeding strategy is very similar to a good number of bird species, such as cockatoos, where the female stays in the nest, sitting on the eggs, and later, guarding the chicks, while the male flies out to find fruits and nuts to be regurgitated in the nest.

The cockatoos' incubation and brooding responsibilities may either be undertaken by the female alone in the case of the black cockatoos or shared amongst the sexes as happens in the other species. In the case of the black cockatoos, the female is provisioned by the male several times a day. — Wikipedia on Cockatoo breeding

Pretty much every religion insists on the idea that useful sex is part of the overall breeding strategy.

I look after my three children here. I bring "the fruits and the nuts", pretty much in accordance with the basic biology of humanity and in line with Islamic-law advisories.

I consider the proper breeding strategy not to be about merely sleeping with arbitrary females. It is not that "pumping and dumping" would be hard to do here in SE Asia. Especially in Vietnam, there is a specialized class of young women doing that in exchange for not much money. So, it is certainly possible to use that kind of services for convenient "tension relief" but on the whole this behaviour can be deemed biologically low-value or even worthless.

ago — IvoryBlackBishop

I've never been in anything which would amount to "violent conflict"
[/quote]
Please give me more specifics, obviously "violent" conflict such as crime is an occurance, but in day-to-day life, its' irrelevant.

1.3k — alcontali

In our species, mankind, that kind of behaviour is widely considered to be mostly a waste of time. It is understandable behaviour but it is nevertheless quite useless, because it is not particularly productive.

Our species' mating and breeding strategy is very similar to a good number of bird species, such as cockatoos, where the female stays in the nest, sitting on the eggs, and later, guarding the chicks, while the male flies out to find fruits and nuts to be regurgitated in the nest.
[/quote]
Your point being what? A lot of what you are saying simply "isn't" the case, in humans or in animals.

Justin Bieber is not a "macho man"; Justin Bieber does not engage in "violent conflict", Justin Bieber is considered more of a sex symbol than the average death row inmate.

Some animals use songs, beautiful feathers, mating dances to attract mates, not "violent conflict".

Tell me how that "violent conflict" has worked out for you, other than pwning noobz in CoD. You're not a macho man, not a Navy Seal, not an SAS, why don't you read an actual book by someone who has been there and done it, such as "Meditations on Violence" by Rory Miller?

---

Pretty much every religion insists on the idea that useful sex is part of the overall breeding strategy.

I look after my three children here. I bring "the fruits and the nuts", pretty much in accordance with the basic biology of humanity and in line with Islamic-law advisories.

I consider the proper breeding strategy not to be about merely sleeping with arbitrary females. It is not that "pumping and dumping" would be hard to do here in SE Asia. Especially in Vietnam, there is a specialized class of young women doing that in exchange for not much money. So, it is certainly possible to use that kind of services for convenient "tension relief" but on the whole this behaviour can be deemed biologically low-value or even worthless.

Cool. You're point is?

You can get lots of gold and lots of sex just by being a bit more "unfriendly" than usual. So, why on earth would you politely ask for anything if it obviously works much better by slamming that person with your bare fists? Give me what I want, or else !!!

You tell me...

Oh wait... you've never done that. Instead you just join a group of effeminized MRAs asking for "big daddy government" to give them handouts, rights, and childish and fictitious things of that nature, like a petulant little child begging for his daddy to patch up his wounds which neighborhood bully gave them.

Next, there are the external factors too. A society full of feminized pushovers attracts outsiders who would simply enjoy to push them over. Et cetera, et cetera. The current trends are unsustainable. I think that the implosion cannot be far away. Where is the popcorn? ;-)

The reality is that the "feminized" Catholic Church, requiring priesthood celebacy and monogamy outlived the "rapefugees"; countries like that, such as Sub-Saharan Africa are stuck in 3rd world status, you're a white kid typing on a philosophy forum, not Sub-Saharan African warlord raping, looting, plundering anything at all.

I've been with somewhere between 15-20 women, nor was I ever married. — IvoryBlackBishop

Cool. You're point is? — IvoryBlackBishop

In terms of biology, I consider that to be low-value and even possibly worthless behaviour, and certainly not something to brag about. I do understand why a man could discretely use female "tension-relief" services against a fee, or even for free (=more dangerous), because of his current circumstances, but why boast about that? It is very akin to going to the toilet with a view on producing some bowel movements. Does it make sense to brag about how many times you may have done that today?

I've never "payed" for it, unless a date counts, I've come closer to being "payed" for it (I've had a few lonely housewives preposition me and turned it down, I never intentionally slept with or stayed with a woman who I knew was in another relationship, and have no interest in an affair or any of that childish or adolescent drama anymore).

You contradict yourself, you're now saying men should be "civilized, effminiate, and monogamous" instead of "raw, virle" men who chase after any woman they want.

I've never "payed" for it — IvoryBlackBishop

"Free" is never really "free" when it is about sex. The other side usually has possibly hidden expectations. When these expectations are not fulfilled, the other side may very well try to get back at you. Just look at the Weinstein case. All these women slept with him hoping that he would land them an acting gig as an actress. I am sure some of them did get what they wanted, but the ones who didn't now scream "rape!". This problem rarely occurs if you finish such "casual sex" episode by paying a nominal fee.

I've had a few lonely housewives preposition me — IvoryBlackBishop

That can go even more badly wrong, because in that case, there is even a second party who could possibly take an interest in such episode. If he figures you out, he may detect a vulnerability to exploit, and in that way get even with you. In my opinion, it is just not worth it. With the large number of available service providers -- every non-attached non-virgin is basically for rent here -- I don't even see why the juice would even be worth the squeeze? Furthermore, islamic-law advisories utterly condemn that kind of behaviour, i.e. sleeping with someone else's wife.

You contradict yourself, you're now saying men should be "civilized, effminiate, and monogamous" — IvoryBlackBishop

Not at all.

First of all, it is about understanding that a man should not even want most women. I certainly don't. They are simply not fit for purpose in a more or less standard breeding strategy. They could possibly still be fit as "tension relief" service providers, paid or free, but if you organize your personal life properly, why would you even need those?

Furthermore, I have never excluded polygamy as as breeding strategy.

men who chase after any woman they want. — IvoryBlackBishop

In my opinion, if you are "chasing", you are probably doing it wrong.

Say that there are two cases.

Case one. You just want to get some "tension relief". In that case, it is a case of supply and demand. No need to chase. If you pay slightly more than the market price, the service providers, including the so-called "free" ones, will all be queuing to work on the gig for you.

You may only need to chase, if you want the "tension relief" service for free. Since I make way more money by working one hour than the amount that I would save by chasing free service for one hour, I think that such strategy is absurd. Middle class girls (and up) may only want to do "free" casual sex, but everybody else on lower income cannot really afford that. They will prefer monetary compensation. Note that virgins will never do "tension relief" gigs, because they can still get a much bigger bride gift ("mahar"). Again, I believe that it is better to organize your personal life in such a way that you do not even have any need for the occasional "tension relief".

Case two. You have detected a possible "keeper". Again, no need to chase. Tell her you are possibly interested in paying her bride gift ("mahar"). That is usually substantially more than just a nominal amount of money, and there are rarely many candidate suitors who are capable and willing to pay it. Therefore, you will often be the only option in town for the foreseeable future. Therefore, unless she has another interesting deal already in the making that is about to be closed, you can expect red-carpet treatment from there on. Whenever I talk about possibly "keeping" her, even just jokingly, the usual reaction is: "So, when are we beginning? It is taking way too long for you to finalize!"

airing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life. — Bitter Crank
Seen in a more financial context, it may actually be the other way around.

Men may easily hand over 70% of their income for dependents. So, if he makes $100,000 per year, for example, then (without interest), that could represents $70,000 x 40 = $2.8 million of household funding at stake. — alcontali

People who buy a Lamboghini easily hand over $500,000 for a 200 MPH car which they can only legally drive up to 65 MPH, what's your point?

The money's either going somewhere or it isn't, and if it isn't, it's just paper and metal, so whether it's going to marriage, a family, a car, a house, a drug dealer is ultimately up to the person and their own delegation as to what, why and where.

Sex is heavily intertwined with raw money.

Sure, for uglier people it is, if you're a rock star or a pro-athlete (or at least look kind of like one), some women probably give it up for free. (I'm sure it also helps if they have a husband or a boyfriend).

Per evolutionary biology or psychology, only men or members of the species at the lowest common denominator of the evolutionary hierarchy ever have to act "desperate" in regards to sex, or anything else, or possibly even resorting to rape, the "higher" members of the species have no natural want of male or female attention.

If the counterparty in the deal has routinely been giving away sexual favours for free to other men, then why would this man agree to erode away $2.8 million on that person?

Why not? Some people spend $2.8 million on a rare baseball card, how one uses their money or what they ultimately deem it "worth" is up to them.

Why shouldn't he be getting the sex for free too? If the other guys were more deserving of freebies for reasons of preference, then this counterparty in the deal should probably just go back to these other guys.

Maybe then he should start hitting the gym and become a male gigolo or escort, assuming he doesn't mind dating "MILFs" or "GILFs":

When money is at stake, the negotiations tend to become ruthless and merciless, while "feelings" do not matter in the least, because that is what capitalism is all about.

Money and "feelings" don't mix particularly well.

Blah blah blah, The majority of what you call "capitalism" is all about "feelings" and anti-thetical to anything rational, whether bare basic financial planning, accounting, time management and self-scheduling, or things even a better and more welly-adapted child could be expected to on their own.

It's primarily simply about satiating mindless, addictive short-term wants or 'needs', to the polar opposite of rationality, if the rampant obesity crisis and terrible eating habits of the slave class, which no reasonable doctor would consider "healthy" to begin with, let alone a good influence on the eating habits of children victimized by having parents prone to such an hideious illness, addiction, or quite visibly disgusting lifestyle choice is any indicator.

Very, little, if any of it deserves to be called "capitalism" in any more philosophical sense of the term, whether one is referencing Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or anyone else, it's really just the one of the ugliness and lowest common denominators of bestial human behavior, which has existed for most if not all of human history, even prior to "capitalism" being word, akin to a starving, rabid or feral dog licking up scraps of Filet Minion out of the dumpster of a fancy French Restraunt of well-fed and satiated patrons, knowing all to well that "more" is not necessarily more, expect in the inferior and childishly addicted minds of the weak and defective, much as how a few more drinks and a bar, or a few more bites of food, can turn another wise lovely and enjoyable drink or meal into a a pile of vomit, balance and moderation being superior, of course..

In other words, if someone has been giving sex away for free, this person may very well have to keep giving it away for free for the rest of their life. They can no longer become dependent on externally provided household funds, not even if they may at some point in their lives really need it.

How's that for an "impoverished" life?

I fail to see your point, as usual.

If a person is so socially inept or weak in bare basic personal boundaries, two-way communications and so on and so on and blames everything short of themselves for somehow being "unable" to do something even a more mature child or adolescent could and does, then I suppose whatever unbalanced living or marital relationship they acquire or accrue is their own fault, and elective choice so long as they choose to stay in it or perpetuate it. To some extent, people get what they deserve.

Sure, for uglier people it is, if you're a rock star or a pro-athlete (or at least look kind of like one), some women probably give it up for free. — IvoryBlackBishop

Well, according to the red-pill philosophy only 20% of the men are alphas, i.e. men with whom available women are happy to have sex for free. Most men, 80% of us, are not alphas. I do not consider myself to be an alpha either (in terms of handsome looks or celebrity status). Still, that does not matter, because a beta can trivially achieve the same results as an alpha by paying out relatively small nominal fees. Just make sure to really "exchange". Never give something for nothing. "So, ok, I will fix your car or your computer, or whatever, but what am I getting in exchange?" If she is giving it away for free to alphas, why even give her a slice of your pizza for free? "So, you urgently need $20? Then work for it. You can duly sweat on my next tension-relief gig!" "Beta orbiters" are guys who simply don't get that.

I fail to see your point, as usual. — IvoryBlackBishop

Well, you seem to have no experience with different kinds of society. That is undoubtedly why.

Get to know people who live in other areas of the world and you may understand how these things work in their environment. I have rapidly adjusted to SE Asia, hitting the ground running. I do understand the inter-gender dynamics here, if only, because I definitely manage to get the quality results that I want. The proof is always in the pudding. ;-)

"Free" is never really "free" when it is about sex. The other side usually has possibly hidden expectations. When these expectations are not fulfilled, the other side may very well try to get back at you. Just look at the Weinstein case. All these women slept with him hoping that he would land them an acting gig as an actress. I am sure some of them did get what they wanted, but the ones who didn't now scream "rape!". This problem rarely occurs if you finish such "casual sex" episode by paying a nominal fee. — alcontali

Get a life...

I never payed for it, and if any of the women I was with didn't fully enjoy my company, that's on them.

I've had some maladjusted freaks post defamatory nonsense about me and others before, I'm not bored enough to care, given that they're generally low IQ, 6th grade reading level idiots, who even know the basic laws of their on state, federal, or othersi, the bare basics of any legal court proceedings in theory and practice, and the sheer amount of time and energy spent and wasted on malicious effort to successfully "convict" something of a completely fraudulent and fabricated crime would be.

Most of these brainless idiots are too stupid or lazy to even so much as visit their local library, their local law library, or make use of their Kindles or E-readers and learn even the most basic laws of their own state, or how the legal system works and is designed to detect and prevent idiots or malicious individuals from using it in a "vexatious" way while technically trying to not actually run afoul of it, such idiots who think that if they change so much as one word in a statement which is otherwise potentially felonious extortion, that a savvy lawyer or judge wouldn't be able to spot that, or have designed and evolved the legal system to begin with to detect exactly that. Most of their "legal" advice coming from YouTube videos by randos, or inaccurate court or crime shows like CSI or Judge Judy, low level 'employees' a legal or law enforcement profession, who are too stupid, low-IQ, and otherwise socially and morally inept or maladjusted to ever have real job in the legal profession to begin with, such as an actual male or female Judge, Lawyer, or Attonery, as opposed to a dime-dozen 6th grade literate correctional officer who doesn't even know the most basic premises or legal and moral philosophy, let alone have the IQ or literacy level to even read it even if they wanted to, or low level law enforcement employee..

If you want to live in paranoia of absurdist scenarios like that, when the real life likelihood of dying in your own bathtub is more likely, be may guest, and stay addicted to whatever sensationalist, anti-intellectual, 6th grade reading level media nonsense of choice floats your hillbilly boat, I'm not losing sleep over it.

Well, according to the red-pill philosophy only 20% of the men are alphas
[/quote]
Glad to be in that 20% then as far as that philosophy goes, wish I could say the same for you, brah, lol

Still, that does not matter, because a beta can trivially achieve the same results as an alpha by paying out relatively small nominal fees. Just make sure to really "exchange". Never give something for nothing. "So, ok, I will fix your car or your computer, or whatever, but what am I getting in exchange?" If she is giving it away for free to alphas, why even give her a slice of your pizza for free? "So, you urgently need $20? Then work for it. You can duly sweat on my next tension-relief gig!" "Beta orbiters" are guys who simply don't get that.
[/quote]
Hardy har har…

Cool, I'm glad it worked out for you, even then a lot of what you're saying isn't consistent, or even necessarily true. I've had somewhat different or variable experiences.

You talk about "Asian cultures" as some ideal, despite the fact that they "family/education oriented, workaholic" cultural stereotypes of East Asian countries like Japan are quite bent on that "repressive, feminiized" male stereotype you seem to love; supposedly the "sexual repression" in cultures like that is one of the reasons why all of that weird, gross anime porn is such a "thing".

I never payed for it — IvoryBlackBishop

Well, the general case is that you pretty much always pay for it.

Case 1. A keeper. You will end up giving her money for household expenses. In the local culture here, you even start by paying for a substantial bride gift.

Case 2. A seemingly "free" tension-relief service provider. Watch out for Weinstein-style cases. You could end up at the receiving end of a "regret" rape accusation or other back stabbing. That could go badly wrong. There really seems to be a trend to put more and more alpha players in jail. (#metoo).

In my opinion, "free" sex is somewhat an illusion. Julian Assange was supposedly also getting the sex "for free" in Sweden, and where is he now?