Down The Aisle Again On The Marriage Question

By Peter Wright: Once again I find myself walking into the murky waters of marriage, this time not in real life but in print, praise angels. As mentioned in a recent article by August Løvenskiolds, we had a conversation about marriage which unearthed some alternative ways of looking at it. On several points our understanding aligned, and on others they diverged. So rather than rely on August’s article alone, I’d like to lay down my own thoughts.
The conversation was partly stimulated by a comment I made elsewhere, which we decided to unpack – and I hope to unpack it further in this article:

Aside from those differences over origins, both sides agree that gynocentric marriage – its culture, customs, laws, taboos – must be utterly abandoned, not reformed. Notice here I refer to gynocentric marriage and not to a marriage of the minds, hearts, dreams, goals, projects, and bodies that might come with non-gynocentric relationships.

The contention of this paragraph is, hypothetically speaking, that a marriage can be based on different priorities than those of gynocentrism.
But before getting into it further lets start with the widest definition of marriage from the Oxford Dictionary, which is:

“any intimate association or union”

This definition covers pretty much all unions in which two or more things are brought together – whether in physics, biology, linguistics, or culture. In this case we are referring to human unions, and while some of the accompanying customs and behavior go well beyond this basic definition, they each conform to this minimum requirement in order to satisfy for the label marriage. There are two main orders of human union to consider: one involving culturally prescribed marriage customs, vs. the unadorned biological demand for intimate association.
During our discussion, and in his recent article, August proposed several combinations of words (portmanteaus) to describe different kinds of marriage. For the sake of simplicity I’m only going to tackle the two primary terms which are Gynomarriage, and Biomarriage.
Gynomarriage
Gynomarriage, (portmanteau of gynocentrism + marriage) describes the typical union between a men and women today. It is based on the culturally prescribed roles of female superiority and male-chivalry, a combination more generally referred to as romantic love. This is our modern understanding of marriage.

During the time this marriage has existed, laws have evolved to buttress and enforce it, laws tilted almost exclusively to favor wives both during the marriage, and especially in the case of its downfall.
As a social construct gynomarriage has not been around forever, with other periods in history generating different forms of marriage as was outlined by August (eg. Andromarriage – male centered). During the last 800 years however, and ongoing today, gynomarriage has ruled; so that’s what we’ll concern ourselves with in this article. To better understand it, let’s contrast it with another, far more important ‘marriage’ holding relevance today.
Biomarriage
Biomarriage (biology + marriage) is a very different idea involving not cultural constructs, but biological necessities built into our DNA. The ‘marriage’ urged by biology is based on three factors: sexual pleasure; intimate bonding/attachment; and reproduction with the concomitant parenting instinct (hence why we are triggered by neoteny).
Each of these imperatives has operated since our remote hominid past and will continue to compel our behavior for long after gynocentric culture ceases to exist. Like gynomarriage, biomarriage takes place between two adults, but in this case has done so for literally millions of years, not hundreds.
I’d like to spend the remainder of this piece talking about biomarriage because gynomarriage belongs, as any MGTOW or MHRA worth the name will tell you, in the scrap bin of history. People can easily get by without it, but the same cannot be said about biomarriage because the compulsion for human bonding, affection, and sex are far too powerful to ignore.
Some MGTOW will refuse to consider a biomarriage with a woman, a serious but otherwise rational choice to make in an environment that exposes men to being savaged by the in-creep of gynocentric exploitation.
If a man refuses the possibility of a non-gynocentric relationship with a woman, what is required are, at bare minimum, artificial avenues for expressing his biological compulsions. He can satisfy sexual needs with porn, imagination, prostitutes, fleshlights or fuck-buddies. He can satisfy his attachment needs at least partially with close friends, family, or perhaps with a pet. Likewise he can satisfy parental instincts via fathering the young among us — teaching school children, working in a daycare center, caring for the disabled, mentoring a fatherless child, coaching little league, looking after orphaned animals, or buying a puppy.
Are these replacement measures enough? Yes, they meet the minimum standard for maintaining physical and emotional stability. But it requires a strong understanding of one’s biological needs, and awareness, and a willingness to work hard on meeting those needs. Rather than satisfying our biological needs via “an intimate association or union” we can use a bricolage of band-aids to ensure our biological and psychological health.
Summary
So while you may legitimately think you can reject, nay should reject gynomarriage, do not rush to reject the elements we have detailed under the heading biomarriage unless you want to risk your health, and life.
We need to realize that while history has been full of amazing men who never married and eschewed relationships with women, and no man should be shamed for taking this course, it also pays to remind men that choosing isolation from the opposite sex has a cost, and should not be viewed as something trivial to do to yourself. Depression, anxiety, paranoia, delusions, suicide, and more must be protected against. Most people can probably do it, but they’ll need more than video games and YouTube in the long run to pull it off. It’s going to involve things like meditation, consciously working to both acknowledge your urges, and to cater to them in creative ways.
We can employ alternatives to satisfy our biological urges, but we might also revisit the question of whether there’s a way to conduct a biomarriage with a real flesh-n-blood human being minus the gynocentrism – think of it as a biofriendship based on the more essential facts of human being. I’d like to think that’s possible, if not now then sometime in the future.

Chimpanzees regularly kiss and groom each other as part of an instinctual process of bonding

Feature image of gynozoms by Phoenix Comicon
 

About Peter Wright

Peter Wright has been a MHRA for 30 years, a Man Going His Own Way for more than 10 years, and is the creator and publisher of gynocentrism.com

Source 

***

By Matthew Rend: When the Old Bolsheviks of the mgtow movement decree that to be married and a member of their club is not to be, I think of four words - Can't Undergo Logical Thinking.

So, marriage is possible after all? I can only imagine around cyber tables on Skype there will be huffing and puffing at the concept of not one but two flavours of icecream to choose from. "We had it all mapped out. It was so simple. Why'd Mr Wright have to go in and cause problems?"
Marrying with another because of the evolution of our DNA makes sense compared to gyno-bliss piped through a frosting gun on a cake to be scoffed in a church. Come to think of it, that monkey in the photo looks rather decent compared to selfies of drunken women with Kardenesque puckered mooshes flipping the camera.
But then again, they are victims of the Gynocentriarchy and know not what they do.

***

WD: The worst side effect of the gender war is the many unfortunate people who choose not to have children as a result. I hope to be excused for reiterating my belief that the divide is micromanaged from above and I might add that agenda 21's requirements are being met by this state of affairs.

When I was in my 20's, I believed that we could live as star trek denobulans, now I realize that requires a level of maturity that most lack, but I always knew that my reason was to have kids.

Let us not forget that life is struggle. You may live quietly with a fish in a bowl taking some small care of the life that you have lost, or you can get into some trouble and perhaps even have kids out of wedlock because even happy marriages have teenagers and troubles to contend with and in the end you have lived and you have succeeded in bringing forth another generation to ponder these eternal questions.

Of course we are here fighting to bring about a new status quo whereby we may one day again find a culture that treats us as equals so that we can live life to the full, until then you have my permission not to be to hard on yourselves when you stumble. I have had a couple of years when I really needed that permission myself.

NO! Please do not get pets as substitutes, instead please have kids any way you possibly can and LIVE!

...And then perhaps get some pets as well as an added bonus.