This marriage thing...

Sunday, 18 November, Year 4 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Marriage was originally introduced as a legal device by which a man took possession of a woman, along with her property and issue. She became by the means of this contracti his owned property, just as if he had bought a head of cattle. It's important to note that the taking posession is something that happened anyway, marriage simply built a formalised representation of reality.

Because of the relative importance of the cattle-woman in human society (seeing how men can live without cattle, but the race will become extinct without women), the marriage contract was held at the time as one of the most important writs, the nascent church getting as heavily involved as it could not for any other reason than because its will to power demanded imperatively that it shall be as involved as possible in anything of import.

The importance of marriage drew heavy scrutiny, and consequently it was heavily limited. For one, the man could not leave it. A nice heifer or an old scrawny cow could be sold on, but a wife could not. Furthermore no man could buy more than one woman-cow. The interplay of these two caused a bit of lock-down in the case of infertile women, so an exception was added to the first rule : men could get rid of women incapable of offspring, but only in certain conditions provided this that and the other and so on and so forth.

The limitations on the other side mostly never existed, a slave's a slave and the master's will and word rule supreme. So, the woman had not the right to represent herself, or to give testimony that'd contradict her husband's, or vote, or anything else. It was eventually agreed that she won't be beaten with anything thicker than a thumb, but this towards the later stages, close to the dissolution of the institution. In general, her education, her welfare, her thoughts and ideas and her everything was in the hands of the husband.

This sort of arrangement obviously has its advantages and its disadvantages. In general, looking at the history of the thing, women mostly liked the safety of it while loathing the imposition. Men conversely liked the imposition while loathing the safety. It was, as Paul Graham puts it, one of those "slightly bad deals"ii when you know the overall result is probably fairiii. Obviously hormone-driven teenagers aren't the best agents to evaluate the relative value of property, and since one can get married but once the arrangement naturally fell upon the parents of the young couple.

Unfortunately, beating your fellow man into shape is a very difficult burden, time consuming and intellectually demanding. Sometime in the middle ages it became unfashionable to beat women at all, first in the upper classes (the perpetually lazy) and eventually all through.

Thus, a new sort of marriage emerged about at the time of the Industrial revolution : an arrangement in which the man is still stuck, but the woman is no longer a slave. This not being a stable situation, it slid slowly but surely to the situation where both "partners" - as if the notion of partners is even possible in a marriage! - agree to... welll.... it's not clear exactly what. It would seem through practice in the past fifty years that both partners agree that after an unspecified period the man will give all his property over to the woman and fade into the background.

Predictably, such arrangements aren't particularly interesting to men, and as a result statistically speaking only idiots still get marriediv today. Considering the tax burdens on married suckers, the bleak outlook in terms both of property and issue, it's a wonder the thing even still exists.

If the wife sleeps around, for instance, the natural father if eventually found acquires rights to the offspring, thus obliterating the absolute last nail in which this venerable but now defunct institution was hanging. It's not a transfer of ownership anymore, not over a woman, not over her property, not over her issue. What is it then ? A means to pay more in tax ? That can be easily accomplished with a donation. A little party novelty item ? An excuse for a joint vacation ? What's it supposed to do for anyone ?

In this general context of complete irrelevance of marriage, the irrelevant but vocal gay communityv came up with the bright idea that the one way to troll moar and possibly get more undeserved attention would be to campaign for "gay marriage". Seriously, fuck it, why not ? Makes about as much sense as marriage in general.

To which some really retarded people masquerading as "conservatives" thought proper to raise the objection that marriage is "traditional" and penis-in-asshole is "not traditional". I'm not even going to bother with the obvious "in what parallel universe ?" line of inquiry, seeing how marriage is certainly ulterior in this dispute. All I want to know is... what exactly is "traditional" supposed to mean ? Are these people owners of their wives and thus adhering to a traditional view of marriage ?

No, they're not. They're just idiots who happened to be born in 1950, have no idea that a world existed for quite a few years before the 1950s, and have no representation of the simple fact that what they hold as "values" and possibly "sacred" are little bits of reused chewing-gum that have been chewed by so many sets of teeth and dentures, have been glued to so many underchairs and pavements, have been re-used, re-drawn and re-defined so many times it simply makes no sense to go "O, I am against gay marriage because I want to protect the pseudo-traditional marriage which includes women that talk back and own property jure uxoris from adulteration".


  1. A contract not between him and her, but between him and the general public, often represented by her father. []
  2. In How to start a start-up,

    When everyone feels they're getting a slightly bad deal, that they're doing more than they should for the amount of stock they have, the stock is optimally apportioned.


  3. Bear in mind that the discussion is not about whether it seems fair to you today, or whether it is "generally" fair (the later because such a thing as "generally" fair in nonsense in the first place). The discussion is simply about those women and those men at those times. []
  4. Obviously anecdotally speaking everyone has the subjective impression that it is different for him personally, because he and the woman in question "love each other" or whatever along those lines. It is, after all, in the nature of man to swarm to Las Vegas on the subjectively held belief that unlike everyone else... []
  5. It recently came to my attention that the current generation of ignorant teenagers believes gays of all types are a significant portion of the population. This is false : gays are about as prevalent as natural tits D or larger : something in the "few percents" range. []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

42 Responses

  1. What is it then ? A means to pay more in tax ?

    Now, my knowledge is mostly hearsay, but in the US (and many other western countries) you actually get lower taxes all around. And it makes sense in my head for it to be this way, society wants you to encourage you reproduce.

    Moar hearsay :

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 18 November 2012

    Teh font of all hearsay begs to differ :

  3. I guess as slaves were liberated so was with women, you fucking fascist oppresive hitlerian stalinist colonialist burgeois white patriarch cunt.

    She became by the means of this contracti his owned property

    Would you mary a woman if she would agree to sign a contract in front of a public notary stipulating something like 'no rights, 100% submission'.

  4. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 19 November 2012


  5. The marriage penalty thing is mentioned in the article, at item #3 iirc. They provide counter-arguments in the form of a newspaper article, detailing how for the fiscal year of 2010, lots of married couples were actually given breaks.

  6. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 19 November 2012

    Ya well, lots of all sorts of things.

  7. Whatever particular 'trappings' put upon the custom humans do seem to have chosen a form of a pairing of male/female and the resultant family unit in a large part of the world. It existed in various native peoples all over the world.
    (yes there have been exceptions where it was more like group marriages but mostly it was pairs)
    This natural tendency towards pairing likely represents a sensible economy driven by human biology.
    The state and the church getting involved is the real problem, partnerships make sense.

  8. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 20 November 2012

    Sure partnerships make sense. The thing is, a partnership is not a marriage. Certainly not a traditional one, whatever that means.

  9. I kind of stopped paying attention from "If the wife sleeps around", but regained it when you used "jure uxoris". That phrase sounds kickass.

  10. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 20 November 2012

    It means "by the right of his wife".

  11. "Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
    Dorothy Parker.

  12. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Tuesday, 20 November 2012

    Hahaha bien trouve.


    I see you being a big supporter of these guys.

  14. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Friday, 23 November 2012


    Not rly.

  15. Time ago a girl needed to get married in order to posses anything and have her future assured, so the male needed to 'court' her, love babble(letters, poems, etc), which were mere assurances to the girl that the fucktard is idiot enough to marry her and won't run away or something, an exchange of cunt for probably unlimited food and shelter in time. Of course after marriage comes the deception, but you mostly couldn't break the marriage, so off to the brothel. I want to the think this could be used to argue love as a concept with "<3"s does not exist, but women themselves asked for legal introduction of divorce. Although this could be explained that it was because they could emancipate and live on their own money, with their own name on properties, and therefore they could start offering the cunt to whomsoever attractive enough and not to whomsoever provides food and shelter, but if I recall correctly physical abuse was the cause.

    Am i getting any of this shit right?

  16. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 26 November 2012

    Hardly. Must lurk moar.

  17. I's be tried.

  18. also

    Il y a dans un livre d'Alphonse Karr, intitulé: Am Rauchen, un homme qui suit, le soir, une femme très élégante, et dont, à la première vue, il est devenu amoureux, tant elle est belle. Pour baiser la main de cette femme, il se sent la force de tout entreprendre, la volonté de tout conquérir, le courage de tout faire. À peine s'il ose regarder le bas de jambe coquet qu'elle dévoile pour ne pas souiller sa robe au contact de la terre. Pendant qu'il rêve à tout ce qu'il ferait pour posséder cette femme, elle l'arrête au coin d'une rue et lui demande s'il veut monter chez elle.

    Il détourne la tête, traverse la rue et rentre tout triste chez lui.

    Je me rappelais cette étude, et moi qui aurais voulu souffrir pour cette femme, je craignais qu'elle ne m'acceptât trop vite et ne me donnât trop promptement un amour que j'eusse voulu payer d'une longue attente ou d'un grand sacrifice. Nous sommes ainsi, nous autres hommes; et il est bien heureux que l'imagination laisse cette poésie aux sens, et que les désirs du corps fassent cette concession aux rêves de l'âme.

    dis real life?

  19. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 9 October 2016

    Check out teh French cuckolds.

  1. [...] will or else cane her lily ass until she either dies or submits herself. This is what you get for fucking up marriage, but let's not [...]

  2. [...] have raised this question before, To which some really retarded people masquerading as “conservatives” thought proper to raise [...]

  3. [...] this has never been the case nor will it ever be. [↩]In reference to that entire pile of delusional lol. "Traditional" in what sense, "what I think my parents had going" ? Who ever knows what their [...]

  4. [...] for free, anyway, which is exactly why slavery is, exactly opposite to morally wrong : a social necessity. If she who's wrong on the other end of the line is your own thing, then putting in the time to fix [...]

  5. [...] as so on. [↩]Here's a hint : you want the elite men to reproduce. They, broadly speaking, can't be bothered, as being elite by definition means you'll have better things to do than watch your genes regress [...]

  6. [...] woman to decline joining them if invited. Which, after all, is exactly as it should be, the "traditional marriage"/monogamy bullshit has certainly outlasted its sell-by [...]

  7. [...] to it has to change. There are numerous other examples - the definition of marriage for instance changes all the time ; and the definition of "owed" changes whenever convenient as [...]

  8. [...] means, if the term is used properly. And why derpage eg in the US re "traditional marriage" is so hysterical. Really, TRADITIONAL ? Mmmkay. Just because it's your daddy's modern dun make it traditional. phf [...]

  9. [...] problems all this puts before the "traditional marriage" folks, monuments of well meaning if unexamined naivite as they find themselves, should be rather [...]

  10. [...] "traditional values" instead of "traditional custom", there's of course the older discussion of "traditional marriage". [↩]You know he's lying the moment he's saying "essentially the only possible". What does [...]

  11. [...] today. We changed the face of the world, we brought human to human (eventually, but unlimitedly to, man and woman) closer. Much closer. Two sigmas closer. We did what the 1960s fucktards [...]

  12. [...] Miss X and Mrs Y than there is between Kennedy's publicity photographs and Kennedy's corpse ; and any marriage that fails to produce this deindividualization of the female upon defloration is entirely spurious [...]

  13. [...] more to "pound sterling" than to "shpoung merling" ? Absolutely nothing more : you did away with tradition with all the gleeful idiocy of an "independent mind" cutting the branch it perched on, and that was [...]

  14. [...] principal qualities of the female object in the partnership called traditional marriage are diligence and fertility, in this order. Intelligence helps, but it is an ambiquous property, [...]

  15. [...] is to say, I believe the formulation, while not necessarily original, nevertheless was his in the common sense that goes. [↩] Category: Trilterviuri [...]

  16. [...] stuff your cock into brick walls and "explain things in your own words". There's no such thing as your own words, aite ? imagination is mildly-restrained psychogenic noise, which is a class of noise, like wetware [...]

  17. [...] stand by it, by the way. If you're married to a single woman you're factually living with some other dude. They only become female once [...]

  18. [...] : Stop your ramblin' stop your gamblin' stop stayin' out late at night Go home to your wife & fambly stay there, by the fireside [...]

  19. [...] habit (of sending the scions for a Grand European Tour once in their life). Just like marriage, as the concept has reached you, also an extension out of all proportion of a property [...]

  20. [...] even the third. We're talking of Henry Plantagenet, king in England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine jure uxoris, Count of Anjou (hence "Angevin") and Maine (no, it's not in the US). You know, Empress Mathilde's [...]

  21. [...] dancing mostly absent. Otherwise there's the simpy male as per early 1900s Americana conventions -- the nominal "head of a household", though in practice his wife's more a subby to the maid than a maid to her husband -- and the eager [...]

  22. [...] dancing mostly absent. Otherwise there's the simpy male as per early 1900s Americana conventions -- the nominal "head of a household", though in practice his wife's more a subby to the maid than a maid to her husband -- and the eager [...]

  23. [...] it is not. [↩] [↩]The most amusing part of it all is that this'd be exactly the 1950s vision of womanhood, and for that matter not exactly flushed out of plenty of minds -- I suspect a majority of [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.