@999canaveral

Its obvious that changing a marriage law would be difficult. Unpopular. Lossing voters. Each change would be a road through the hell.

And then it occurred to me that one thing and only one thing that look innocuous would work.

It would be hard to oppose this change without revealing the Machiavellian reasons behind it.

State backing off from regulating the marriages is the thing.

No marriage would have a legal status. No legal status, no legal responsibility.

If you don't want to get married, then don't. It's not particularly complicated to avoid, but if you're not actively working to gain an educated and well-informed understanding of romantic relationships and parentage independent of a fear born of the obligation or punishment for marriage failure, one can only conclude that you're either really stupid, really lazy, or a coward. Additionally, if you're in a relationship with a female incapable of discerning that wariness from you in casual conversations on the topic, then the only reasonable conclusions one can come to is that she's a delusional moron hobbled by her solipsism and other psychoses thus rendering her too stupid to be either a good prospective wife to any man, or good potential mother to her future children.

If you're in a relationship with a female who seeks marriage as a goal, despite you repeatedly telling them that you're not interested, stop banging them. Just ghost them or bail, there's plenty of fish in the sea. If you stick around with them under such circumstances and they're not taking the initiative to encourage you to educate yourself, you remain to your own folly because you're afraid to let your penis hang dry for a while. Should you find this is a regular occurrence with every female you get involved with, I'd strongly advise you invest into condoms, risug, or vasalgel procedures to take control of your virility so as to best avoid the potential of marriage entrapment by means of pregnancy until you've reached an educated and informed conclusion regarding your own interest, or disinterest, in being either a husband or father.

As for matters of state, history has shown governments seldom surrender power, unless someone's got a knife to the bureaucracies throats, a loaded pistol to the legislatures heads, and the security services testicles in a vise. At this point in time, I don't believe the citizenry possess the intelligence or determination indicative of any conscious unity required to make such things a reality. If anything, I'm more confident that the diabolical morons in government would be more inclined to massacre the entire population it parasites from than otherwise preserve, nurture, or enrich it with useful knowledge and most people would remain idle until they heard engines of death baring down upon them.

Therefore, it requires considering a legislative alternative the citizenry can get behind that doesn't overtly threaten those who benefit from the current policies in place. This requires the general population to form local decentralized groups working to comprehensively educate themselves regarding the liabilities prompting the states intrusion into peoples domestic affairs. Like anyone else, I have ideas of my own on the matter, but I'm always curious of the ideas others may suggest.

However, the best ideas oftentimes tend to be born of a mind that has pushed overcome their fears, reflected upon their own past, and made a sincere effort to educate themselves on the matter.

@Vermillion-Rx This

The famous Pavlov's Dog experiment, part two: they rang the bell, then alternated between beating the dog and giving it food. The dogs entered neurosis and many broke down. This is what happens to men nowadays: women send subtle ambiguous signals of interest, then when a man approaches he sometimes gets praised for his "confidence" and "initiative", but other times gets shamed and reprimanded for being a "creep." Do not allow women to ring the bell of Female Sexual Signals and then Beat the Men that respond to it. • Men being overly confused and careful about female sexuality serves one purpose: it raises the value of female sexuality, and thus enhances women's power in society.

I was reading your guide and listened to Nuclear Caudillo's the "dance scene" podcast and I kind of kick myself that I cant force myself for more interactions with ppl that I have mentally excluded. And I exclude rather a lot.

Then I read that and I think that my model is not that bad.

@Durek_The_Bald

Looking globally the divorce laws (or/and na execution) are getting worse. System is so broke it better be repaired by the individual contracts. Amazingly even the lawyers wouldnt loose the jobs.

An idividual contract would make a man to actually see what's in it.

A child support and an asset division being the hardest, but again everyone could know what they sign (if they read, or get a lawyer). From that a standard marriage contract would emerge and you'd get the video channels explaining everything point by point, so one wouldn't even need to read. Here we go a marriage version x.0

A spousal support would need investigating as I don't see being zeroed out (as a woman) to be fair if she didnt make the bad choices. We cant have/want a weaker sex and want to tell them to fuck off at the end. But that again should be in an individual contract. No problem to put into it ie

• woman's infidelity = strike out, 0 support
• man's infidelity > 3 = 20y support

Anyways, after breaking the system you might have the new standard marriage laws within a decade and the rest in an annex.

Fixing it, will not work as long as any shred of feminism exist.

Plus if getting married would not be a lawful contract as of tomorrow. Can you imagine how many weddings would be cancelled and lives saved?

I think that would be the biggest news since the WW2.

PS. I cant comment on the Scandinavian divorce laws. But even if I assume they are fair, it doesn't mean they will remain this way because the are feminist countries and changes can be forced anytime and work retroactively.