From Incel Wiki
(Redirected from Married)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Man bribing woman for sex and knowing who his children are.

In the modern Western context, marriage is a system of legalized prostitution by which a man bribes a woman with food/drink,[1] shelter, emotional security, employment stability, transportation service, an expensive ring and a lavish wedding. This comes in exchange for letting him have regular sex and to know who his children are through institutionalized long term monogamy (in practice, this promise is only broken in 3.4% of all childbirths[2]). This description of marriage does not even constitute all that women may be entitled to in a marriage, but it does constitute the most a man is expected to receive. The symbol of marriage is the future husband going down on one knee offering an expensive diamond ring to the woman. There is a reason why women hate to be the ones to propose like this, because most of the barter is supposed to be on the male side.

Even if there is 50/50 shared parenting and the mother works, it is still a bribe, as the condition for a stable marriage is only the man keeping his job, not the woman. As the National Parent's Organization says, "The key factor in the decision to divorce is whether Hubby has a job. If he doesn’t, even if his job loss is involuntary, his odds of being ditched by his wife skyrocket."[3] The wife's employment has no influence on divorce rates.[4]

Men who see modern marriage as a scam in favour of women have started a number of social movements including the Father's Rights Movement and MGTOW.

As perverted and anti-male modern Western marriage may be, marriage in itself (especially arranged marriage) is natural to humans as evidenced by its very high prevalence from the most primitive human societies all the way to early industrial Europe.[5] There is evidence marriage yields certain benefits such as facilitating investment into the offspring and reducing the incidence and economic cost of single moms and demotivated male incels.[6] In 1826, Hector Davies Morgan wrote The Doctrine and Law of Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce, which argued, among other things that marriage was an institution to prevent (in his exact words), "involuntary celibacy".[7]

Marriage and human nature[edit | edit source]

Marriage is extremely common in humans and can be found in nearly all cultures, even in primitive hunter-gatherers,[8] and possibly dates back at least to the earliest instances of modern humans in the Upper Palaeolithic, a period when modern humans from Africa first colonised western Eurasia.[9] A certain degree of dependence of women on men is also universal, with hunting (a source of calorie rich meat) being predominately performed by men even in more 'gender equalitarian' societies such as the Hadza[10] and men being significantly stronger.[11] What is more, arranged marriage is even more common than marriage based on free mate choice with 70% of hunter-gatherer societies primarily practicing this kind of marriage (especially in the first marriage).[12] In Sri Lanka when two people show interest in each or fall in love, they usually indirectly let the other person know via parents or other relatives.[13] Thus it seems that the advent of love shyness might be an evolutionary mismatch, whereby the people that do suffer from love shyness would've previously shown interest indirectly through parents are not able to/struggle with approaching directly as they are not adapted to this specific courtship behaviour. Parents also tend to care less about looks and more about status and resources in potential mates than their children, but the preferences between parents and children are still very correlated by about 0.83 (maybe the mother does know best?).[14][15] This raises the question whether humans have evolved to desire to be coupled by their parents, which in turn could also explain the rise of modern inceldom in an extremely free mating context. However, such adaptations are difficult to prove scientifically and may fall victim of the naturalistic fallacy.

What is, however, unnatural in modern marriage is the degree of institutionalization within large nation states. E.g. alimony, the requirement for the ex-husband to provide for the ex-wife after divorce, is such an institution. It derives from the necessity of the state to make sure everyone is taken care of. Free riders like men that like to pump and dump careless sluts create an undesirable incidence of single mothers with neglected children which incur a substantial cost on communities. Alimony solved this problem, but feminist policy pushed things so far that we are seeing an increase in single mothers, due to emphasizing personal freedom and mate choice (resulting in an overall decline in marriage) and due to no-fault divorce making it very easy for women (and men) to divorce. Unnatural is also the indefinite length of modern marriage contracts (which used to be less formal), however no-fault divorce has already largely resolved that. Unnatural may also be the close dyadic cohabitation of husband and wife, with historical societies having had a much stricter gender segregation to the point (see female subordination), with women often living in separate harems. Human's are a moderately polygynous species, meaning some amount of marriages were polygynous. In the average forager society, 21% of married women are married polygynously,[16] hence one would expect about as many women to face an evolutionary mismatch with monogamous marriages. There is evidence that women lose their sex drive sooner in the close cohabitation setting, but not when living apart, which may be an indication of an evolutionary mismatch.[17] Couples who marry following prior cohabitation also face a slightly higher divorce risk.[18]

Benefits of marriage[edit | edit source]

Marriage appears to increase well-being for men, but interestingly, the opposite is true for women.[19][20] Marriage has a protective effect for men as they received emotional support, are less likely to engage in risk, potentially harmful behavior (see adverse effects of inceldom). Married women reporting lower happiness is likely not fully explained by them being more likely mothers, and crucially it does not appear to be caused by the husband's assholeishness.[21] A United States study found that mothers with a male partner sleep less and do more housework than single mothers. The reasons for this were not determined, however another study showed that husbands create about seven hours of extra housework a week for their wives.[19]

These findings might point to modern marriages being more of an evolutionary mismatch for women than for men. For example, more women than men have lived in households with a harem. Further, women used to primarily take care of the household and childrearing, but nowadays they have an additional burden of a high inclusion in the workforce, and hence additional housework caused by the husband ends up being overwhelming. Thirdly, household chores and childrearing tasks used to be shared by elderly women and the daughters, and perhaps close friends within the community, whereas in today's very small and isolated families, women are more on their own in addition to having to work. All these observations are in line with women's happiness having declined over the recent decades.[22]

Divorce[edit | edit source]

In the U.S., women initiate 69% of the divorces explicitly, and maybe even more implicitly.[23] Your tax dollars then go toward subsidies for single motherhood, and often the state makes the dad pay the woman after she divorces him. The process of women marrying men, and then divorcing him for no good reason and collecting child support/alimony is also known as divorce rape. Women often say this is justified as boomer men cheat about 5% more than boomer women, but with the rise of female hypergamy, Tinder, other online dating, and social media, younger married women of the millennial generation are cheating more than men.[24]

Many like to bring up the statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce as evidence that humans (and in particular women as they initiate them in modern countries) are not meant to practice monogamy, however amongst first marriages only 35% of marriages end in divorce.[25][26][27] The reason why the divorce rate taken as a whole comes out at 50% is because a minority of r-strategists whom continuously divorce and remarry which means that the rate increases as a result. The bulk of divorces mostly occur at the 4th year of marriage (this is usually the age at which most fistborns begin to become more autonomous) and this corresponds to the idea that r-strategists will begin to typically divorce their husbands when they've outlived their usefulness. Secondly, number of pre-marital sex partners also influences rate of divorce,[28] which is likely also largely down to genetic differences in life history speed.

If a women has 0 premarital sex partners (approximately 5% of women) after 5 years theres a 5% chance of her marriage ending in divorce. If she has a single premarital partner, most likely her husband, there's a 20% chance of divorce (approximately 22% of women)[29]. Any more than that will increase the divorce rate to about 25%, with women who have 10+ partners having a 33% five year divorce rate. According to the CDC, 20% women aged 40-44 have only ever had sex with a single person compared to 11% of woman of the same age who've had sex with 15 or more partners.[29]

Rates also differ by race. Amongst Hispanic and Latina women as a whole 45% have only either had sex with a single person or are virgins, compared to 29% of white women and 19% of black women. It's well known that both East Asians as well as South Asians are more K-selected than Whites and Blacks; it comes as a surprise that Hispanics and Latinas are also more K-selected than white or black women. Hispanics, Latin and Asian countries also have lower twinning rates than both European and African countries which is indicative of a K-strategists whom have fewer offspring but invest more.[30] When not specifiying sex, Hispanics also cheat less often at a rate of about 13% (which means the rate is lower in women) when compared to whites (16%) and blacks (22%).[31]

Infidelity[edit | edit source]

Main article: Promiscuity

In 2018, feminist magazine celebrated the finding that younger women are now cheating more than men with their article, "Women hate monogamy even more than men do, vindicating empowered hoes everywhere."[32] Even though it is true that female infidelity is on the rise,[33] data from 2010-2016 actually indicate the rate of infidelity is actually roughly the same for young men and women (10% in men versus 11% in women),[34] with the gap widening with age and men generally being more infidel (though women lie more often than men about their infidelity, which means that this gap is probably smaller than what it seems). The gap is, however, nowhere near the figure of 50% of women cheating cited by, which stems from the book "Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free" by Wednesday Martin PhD from 2018.[35]

The article accurately notes that women get bored sexually quicker than men,[36] however they draw the false conclusion that this is evidence of a promiscuous female nature. In most monogamous species, including humans, pairs in sexual relationships will participate in an exhaustive amount of sex. After this burst of sexual activity, once the pair bond is established, the amount of sex declines to leave more time for the rearing of offspring. For example, the prairie vole (which mates monogamously for life, though with some infidelity) will find a suitable mate and engage in a 36-hour fuck-athon which will produce copious amounts of oxytocin to ensure the female bonds to the male. It is doubtful, though, that investment in the offspring is sufficient to explain the decline in female sexual desire in long-term relationships as female sexual desire declines even controlling for childbirth compared to no childbirth.[citation needed] An additional explanation for the tendency for pair bonds to dissolve eventually is that this increases the genetic and ecological variation for the offspring (coolidge effect).

Even though many women might find even find casual sex with many men pleasurable, it would be fallacious to conflude that such behavior is necessarily natural or good. For example, chocolatey is a superstimulus that tastes sweeter than anything in the natural human environment, but eating it a lot is actually very unhealthy (and poses an evolutionary mismatch). The same argument can be made regarding drugs. Simply because individuals abuse certain evolved mechanisms to achieve certain hedonic ends, it does not then follow that these behaviors are natural. The pleasure mechanisms in the brain have evolved to motivate the individual to perform actions that are conducive to reproductive success; that drugs can be used to stimulate those pleasure mechanisms is not evidence that those pleasure mechanisms have evolved for humans to take drugs (unless of course taking drugs is adaptive and contributes to reproductive success). Similarly, the burst of oxytocin we receive with a new sexual encounter (which we know has in part evolved due to pair-bonding) can be abused to constantly receive these pleasurable bursts by having multiple partners to induce them. Still, it does not mean that those bursts of pleasure have evolved because of promiscuity. Cross-culturally, it has been shown that extremely promiscuous women were less reproductively successful than more faithful females.[citation needed] This is because slutty women were more subject to murder and infanticide (by of their jealous partners, of course).

Finally, we are told, almost braggingly, that "Anthropologists found that the best mothers, across species, are the ones who fuck the most dudes." Now, whilst this is true for promiscuous species to create paternity uncertainty, this is not true of humans. She lays out the argument that: "By sleeping with tons of guys at the same time, women are able to "hedge against male infertility, up her odds of a healthy pregnancy and robust offspring, and create a wider network of support by lining up two or three males who figured the offspring might be theirs." This point is just blatantly false; the only cultures (regarding humans anyways) where it might be beneficial to engage openly with multiple men would be in certain Southern American tribes. These tribes believe in the myth of partible paternity (a child having one or more biological fathers). Still, even in these promiscuous societies, there exists jealousy between husbands and other 'fathers,' and should a child have too many fathers, nobody invests. Everybody's child is nobody's child (funnily enough, the same applies to women; everybody's woman is nobody's woman).

Trend toward polyamory with rise in divorce[edit | edit source]

With divorces and broken families rising exponentially and marriages decreasing since feminism and the decline of the family with industrialization women tout polyandry as a solution to inceldom and general male loneliness.[37]


The only problem is that short-term, high-friction polyamory in a free sexual market makes incels inevitable unless there is a specific social or government program to address inceldom. The growing pool of incels during a rise of polyamory always ends ultimately in societal polygyny, no matter how many women believe their individual polyandry results in societal polyandry. Many people are concerned about the rise of short-term polyamory with the disintegration of marriage, and propose enforced monogamy as a solution including NKL and Jordan Peterson.

Comics[edit | edit source]


References[edit | edit source]

  13. [Lust, love, and arranged marriages in Sri Lanka.]
  16. Marlowe & Berbesque, 2012
  19. 19.0 19.1
  29. 29.0 29.1 pg. 29 table 11
  30. Penis#Ethnic differences in testes size

See also[edit | edit source]



GameOvergamingFrame (PUA)Signaling theoryRomantic idealizationCourtshipNeggingSexual market valueBeautyCharismaOrbiterBullyingLMSPUAAssholeTalk therapyIndicator of interestDominance hierarchyFuck-off signalsSocial circleSlayerNeurolinguistic programmingDatingOffline datingOnline datingBraggingAnabolic steroidGuitarClown GameJock

Misc. strategies


Pick Up Artists

R. Don SteeleRoss Jeffriesr/TRPReal Social DynamicsRooshVOwen CookPlayer SupremeWinston WuList of people in the seduction community


Alpha maleAlpha femaleBeta maleBeta femaleOmega maleOmega femaleSigma maleVox DayDominance hierarchy


NeurotypicalNeurodivergentCoolCharismaStoicAssholeDark triadBorderline personality disorderNice guySimpApproach anxietyButterflies in the stomachConfidenceShynessLove shyHedonophobiaAsperger's SyndromeSocial awkwardnessIQRationalityEvolutionary psychologyTestosteroneEstrogen

Celibacy states

SexlessnessCelibacyIncelDry spellDating LimboSingleVirginWizardVolcelAsexualSex haverMarriedAscendedRelationship


HypergamyCopulationNudityCasual sexPump and dumpPromiscuityCock carouselRapeSexual harassmentBodyguard hypothesisBetabuxProvisioningMarriage proposalReproductive successSexual envySex driveBateman's principleSexual economics theoryResources for orgasmsSex ratioFemale passivitySexual attractionAttraction ambiguity problemBody attractivenessMuscle theoryFemale orgasmHuman penisHulseyismSexual conflictSexual modestySlutWhoreLordosisLeggingsPaternity assuranceMicrochimerismPartible paternityFeminine imperativePussy cartelRejection (dating)Ghosting (dating)Shit testAdverse effects of inceldomMaslow's hierarchy of needsCauses of celibacyHomosexualityHomocel hypothesisDemographics of inceldomTeleiophilic delayPolygynyPolyandryMonogamyMarriageTraditionalist conservatismMate guardingMate poachingMate choice copyingIntrasexual competitionFacial masculinityNeotenyParthenophiliaFisherian runawaySexual selectionCreepinessValidationChadsexualHybristophiliaScelerophiliaQuality and primitivity theorySexclamationTumescenceClitorisTesticlesLooks bottleneckGaitIncestpillPraying mantisoidMigraine

Other theories

Timeless quotes on womenFemales are socially ineptWomen-are-wonderful effectGynocentrismApex fallacyFeminismSexual revolutionFemale subordinationFemale hypoagencyFemale solipsismPrincess syndromeLife on tutorial modeFemale privilegeFake depressionFemale sneakinessFemme fataleBriffault's lawJuggernaut lawArguing with holes Halo effectFailo effectSinglismVariability hypothesisPsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapyAntifragilityTriggeredLife historyScientific Blackpill + Scientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Evolutionary mismatchMutationFeminizationBehavioral sinkPolitical correctness‎Affirmative actionVirtue signalingEugenicsEnvironmentalismMale scarcityRegression toward the meanMatthew effectPatriarchyTutorial IslandEmpathy gapWelfare gameX-factor theoryBuy a wheelchair to pick up women gameClown WorldProblematicIncel crisis coverup



Biological essentialismEugenicsEnvironmentalismTraditionalist conservatismFatalismJust-world fallacyBlackpillScientific BlackpillScientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Behavioral sinkHypergamyMatthew effectBeautyNeotenyFisherian runawayGood genes hypothesisDominance hierarchyIntrasexual competitionJ. D. UnwinSexual sublimationFemale subordinationSexual modestySexual MarxismOnline datingPhysiognomyPersonalityEvolutionary psychologySub8 theory


SlutMonogamyMarriageArranged marriagePolygynyPolyandry



BlackpillRacepillHeightpillDickpillBaldpillShitpillDogpillBirdpillTeen love pill

It's over

Cope or ropeCopeRopingLay down and rotInbreeding depressionOutbreeding depressionMutationFeminizationSocial epistasis amplification modelAtavismReproductive successDemographics of inceldomTeleiophilic delaySampo generationCauses of celibacyAdverse effects of inceldomBrain rotEvolutionary mismatchBehavioral sinkRegression toward the meanPeaked in high schoolFOMOSexual envyNo x for your yJaw is law