Appreciate this))

lol

@Mysteriedingens What is that profile picture?

it's my eye m8. feel observed?

U WOT M8

ikr i let down my aryan family roots

lol

@ColdEmbraceOfDeath @mysteriedingens I was mainly referring to people's general fear of commitment nowadays

People still get into relationships.

Can't really say if it's a general fear.

Well, projecting fear into that kinda thing appears to be rising. In the West, anyway.

So mgtow also stands for anti marriage? Or is it a personal preference?

And differs?

Yeah, kind of.

There are some guys who are like that, the majority I guess are just on a marriage strike.

MGTOW, the movement in itself is definitely defined by not binding yourself into eternal monogamie until you get cheated on

that includes marriages

So y'all fundamentally believe women cheat in marriages and relationships and that puts you off?

No, but marriage is unnatural and will definitely have consequences because of that, read the article i posted in <#493528742941949952>

Most of them would, given that they have options and that they have no negative consequences for doing so.

A lot of things are unnatural, doesn't mean they are bad. If you want a functional society or a family unit that is held together, you need something like a marriage.

A functional society means working for gynocentrism nowadays

Traditionalist societies with male authorities are still gynocentric.

without the oportunity to display your opinion openly without being teared down by the major political group against you

What societies are you referring to?

All societies of the past pretty much.

ancient greeks?

How were they gynocentric?

All of them, not just the greeks. India used to be that way, rome used to be that way.

i dont find anything gynocentric in the greeks to be honest.

Because you still are disposable and still pandering to women, doing most of the shit work and getting crap in return.

Sure... Worshipped for being able to produce life. Ain't nothing wrong with that. But other than that?

If you are taking the protective instinct of men as gynocentric, thats wrong. When they go to war, they defend their property. women were their property

An arrangement that benefits the woman more than the man is gynocentric.

I mean what do women offer than being able to have kids? Do they still need to be provided for even after that phase of utility?

Now that inspires the question as to when you would consider an arrangement between a man and a woman as more beneficial for the man

Something that brings in net gain, money wise or utility wise.

Taking kids out of the equation there isn't much utility, most of what they can do has been simplified in the present.

A woman can push you to be productive and produce. Thats why i dont neccesarily think shortterm-Monogamy is to be thrown upon. Companionship and intimacy is healthy. Just dont bind yourself to anything and dont date something hard to handle

You can be productive without a woman.

You have your friends for that.