Joining the private members forum

Hi, can i join the private forum please :)

Hi hellznrg,

We usually ask prospective members to read Sexual Utopia in Power. Please introduce yourself also, tell us where your from, what brought you here, what you'd like to get out of this group, ect.

You'll have a response to your application in one week. If a super majority doesn't object, you'll be approved.

I'd like to join also.

I've read Sexual Utopia as well as whatever else I've found by Devlin. I agree with it as far as I understand it, although I wouldn't claim certainty of it all.

I've always been an enemy of feminism, but it got more serious back in spring 2010 when I found Roissy's blog. I'm not a fan of PUAism, but I agree with some of the things he writes nonetheless, and more importantly the blog became a springboard into the MRA movement which I've been following since (mostly passively though, reading).

I'm not as action-oriented as some of you guys, what I want is serious forum discussions and whatever sense of camaraderie that is possible to get via a forum. This limitation is partly because of health issues, I don't have energy for anything else, even forum participation may have its ups and downs.

I'm from Sweden, the feminist headquarter of the earth.

Hi JohnX, welcome to our forum.  How did you find CoAlpha?  What other forums are you active on?

Hi Drealm... thanks for that link... all i can say is WOW..

It confirms many of my own suspicions of where society is heading. In fact, I've reached many of the same conclusions *independently* based on my own amateur sociology research.

I'm one of these 30 something beta-male bachelors who is really frustrated about just how dysfunctional society is these days. I've all but given up on 18+ women. I've been corresponding with fschmidt (and others) for a while now and he knows that I've come to the conclusion that women over a certain age are unmarriageable (although he doesn't necessarily agree with my conclusion). The average age of first marriage in australia for women is 28 or 29. This means that women between 18-28 don't want to marry, and I for one am not going to argue with them on that point.

Right now, I really like a girl who happens to be 14. We met at a dance. My plan is to ask her father next year if I can court her for marriage when she's 16. I dare not leave it until later than that because I know I will lose her.

JohnX wrote

I'd like to join also.

I've read Sexual Utopia as well as whatever else I've found by Devlin. I agree with it as far as I understand it, although I wouldn't claim certainty of it all.

I've always been an enemy of feminism, but it got more serious back in spring 2010 when I found Roissy's blog. I'm not a fan of PUAism, but I agree with some of the things he writes nonetheless, and more importantly the blog became a springboard into the MRA movement which I've been following since (mostly passively though, reading).

I'm not as action-oriented as some of you guys, what I want is serious forum discussions and whatever sense of camaraderie that is possible to get via a forum. This limitation is partly because of health issues, I don't have energy for anything else, even forum participation may have its ups and downs.

I'm from Sweden, the feminist headquarter of the earth.

JohnX,

I don't know Roissy that well, except for the fact that he's a PUA'er. What is it you agree with him on?

hellznrg wrote

Hi Drealm... thanks for that link... all i can say is WOW..

It confirms many of my own suspicions of where society is heading. In fact, I've reached many of the same conclusions *independently* based on my own amateur sociology research.

I'm one of these 30 something beta-male bachelors who is really frustrated about just how dysfunctional society is these days. I've all but given up on 18+ women. I've been corresponding with fschmidt (and others) for a while now and he knows that I've come to the conclusion that women over a certain age are unmarriageable (although he doesn't necessarily agree with my conclusion). The average age of first marriage in australia for women is 28 or 29. This means that women between 18-28 don't want to marry, and I for one am not going to argue with them on that point.

Right now, I really like a girl who happens to be 14. We met at a dance. My plan is to ask her father next year if I can court her for marriage when she's 16. I dare not leave it until later than that because I know I will lose her.

Thanks hellznrg,

You'll get a response back once a week has passed.

fschmidt wrote

Hi JohnX, welcome to our forum.  How did you find CoAlpha?  What other forums are you active on?

Hey. I'm active on Happy Bachelors, same nick. I don't remember any longer how I found this place, it was some time ago and I've been visiting occasionally to read the public forum.

Drealm wrote

I don't know Roissy that well, except for the fact that he's a PUA'er. What is it you agree with him on?

Well, firstly it's all that stuff about modern "liberated" women being attracted to assholes. It's common MRA knowledge of course, but I didn't know about the MRA at the time. I had made many similar observations on my own, but I just couldn't fully believe it, the extent of it, until reading Roissy and the rest.

Also, he is an advocate of patriarchy, in the sense that he believes that to be the most stable system. He is still a hedonist PUA but he knows that the modern feminist/PUA society is coming to an end, that it has to end.

He has written approvingly of Devlin on occasion, in fact that's how I found Devlin (if I recall correctly).

Thanks JohnX,

I'm curious, how are the men in your country? The nordic countries seem to rank pretty high on the honesty scale in regards to government transparency.

The social capital and cohesion are said to be high, but they have been declining rapidly for years now. The most obvious cause is third world mass immigration. (Not that feminism is without blame.)

But aside from what the official data says I don't really know how Sweden compares, I haven't traveled much.

JohnX, what is your definition of marriage and your opinion of it?

Wikipedia defines it as follows: Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

That's a good enough starting point, but I'd say that it's a social union and a legal contract, and that it properly is lifelong (including by law), as it used to be.

I haven't decided what I think of same sex marriages, but should I decide against it I guess I'd exchange "people" with "a man and a woman".

I believe it's an important institution to maintain stability (among other things), but it more or less requires the right society with the right laws and the right ideas accepted by a majority of people.

Getting married today (in the West) doesn't make that much sense unless one has some special circumstances working in ones favor to keep things in order (preventing the wife from leaving, for example). That could be a strong sub-culture like the Hasidic Jews have that I know your a big admirer of.

As a bonus not getting married also strikes back at feminism.

I haven't really worked out all the details on this, but those are some of my current thoughts on the topic. Tell me what you think.

JohnX wrote

Wikipedia defines it as follows: Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

Getting married today (in the West) doesn't make that much sense

Are you using the word "married" in your second sentence in a way consistent with the Wikipedia definition?  I think you aren't.  Rather, you are using the feminist redefinition of marriage as meaning obtaining a "marriage" license from the government.  This license is neither a social union nor a legal contract.  It simply says that you will serve a lifetime of government enforced indentured servitude to the woman in return for absolutely nothing.  It is certainly not a contract between the people getting married.  It is not marriage by any definition other than that of a feminist.  I believe this license should more accurately be called an anti-marriage license since it is designed to destroy marriage.

I support marriage as defined by Wikipedia, and it saddens me that MRAs and MGTOW have accepted the feminist redefinition of marriage.  Since marital legal contracts have been outlawed in the West, one must be satisfied with a social union, ideally one sanctioned by some religious institution.  Government anti-marriage licenses should be avoided if possible.

fschmidt wrote

JohnX wrote

Wikipedia defines it as follows: Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

Getting married today (in the West) doesn't make that much sense

Are you using the word "married" in your second sentence in a way consistent with the Wikipedia definition?  I think you aren't.

I think the Wikipedia definition is broad enough to be consistent with modern marriages (what you call anti-marriage).

That is not to say that there aren't great differences between traditional and modern marriages, of course.

This license is neither a social union nor a legal contract.

I think it is, only of a very different kind than it used to be. So different, perhaps, that modern marriages shouldn't be called marriages at all, but either way the Wikipedia definition doesn't specify the details, like the content of the contract or dept of the kinship.

 I believe this license should more accurately be called an anti-marriage license since it is designed to destroy marriage.

You got a point.

I support marriage as defined by Wikipedia, and it saddens me that MRAs and MGTOW have accepted the feminist redefinition of marriage.

Disagreeing about the definition doesn't necessarily imply disagreement on the subject matter itself though, only that the ideas have to be phrased differently.

If I say "marriage sucks" on Happy Bachelors I mean modern marriage. If I want to communicate that idea here I'd say "modern marriage sucks" or perhaps "marriage 2.0 sucks", or whatever I think gets the idea across. Likewise, if I say "I support marriage" here I mean traditional marriage, but on Happy Bachelors I'd have to write that out: I support traditional marriage.

So even if I for convenience sake switch definition between forums (which I may or may not do, I'm not sure, this is just an illustration) that doesn't change my underlying ideas. It's just to ease communication.

(That's not to say that I would accept any definition, or that it's completely arbitrary, there's always and cost and a benefit to each definition, but there isn't necessarily only one right definition for all circumstances either. Convenience matters, I don't want every discussion on the topic to turn into a battle over definitions.)

That said, I know some (perhaps many) MGTOWs do disagree with you about the value of marriage (what you mean by it), not just the definition. Not all though.

JohnX wrote

I think the Wikipedia definition is broad enough to be consistent with modern marriages (what you call anti-marriage).

Which part is consistent with modern marriage, social union or legal contract between people?

I agree that there isn't much point arguing about semantics, but I personally don't like letting feminists define the meaning of the words I use.

On another topic, what do you think of Exodus 22:16-17:

16 "When a man seduces a virgin who was not promised in marriage, and he has sexual relations with her, he must certainly pay the bridal price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must pay an amount in silver equal to the bridal price for virgins.

And on a related topic, which women is it acceptable to seduce and which are off limits?

fschmidt wrote

Which part is consistent with modern marriage, social union or legal contract between people?

Both. The contract part even by your own description:

This license is neither a social union nor a legal contract.  It simply says that you will serve a lifetime of government enforced indentured servitude to the woman in return for absolutely nothing.

That sounds like a contract, just not a very good one.

I agree that there isn't much point arguing about semantics, but I personally don't like letting feminists define the meaning of the words I use.

Neither do I. And sometimes argue over definitions is worthwhile.

On another topic, what do you think of Exodus 22:16-17:

16 "When a man seduces a virgin who was not promised in marriage, and he has sexual relations with her, he must certainly pay the bridal price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must pay an amount in silver equal to the bridal price for virgins.

Being required to marry the virgin you seduce (if the father consents) sounds fine. No particular opinion on being required to pay a bridal price upon marriage, but I'm in favor of having some kind of penalty (whether equal to the bridal price or not) in the case of seduction with no marriage.

That's in a proper society, I wouldn't for the most part live by those rules today, neither would most fathers of virgins.

And on a related topic, which women is it acceptable to seduce and which are off limits?

In today's society, the off limit ones would be something like these: women in serious relationships, women whose men I have good relations with, women I knew would seriously regret it.

In a proper society there would be further restrictions.

About these questions; it makes sense to screen potential members of course, but I also recall (if not mistaken) other to-be members not getting them, so I was wondering if I've set off any red flags or anything.

JohnX wrote

fschmidt wrote

Which part is consistent with modern marriage, social union or legal contract between people?

Both. The contract part even by your own description:

This license is neither a social union nor a legal contract.  It simply says that you will serve a lifetime of government enforced indentured servitude to the woman in return for absolutely nothing.

That sounds like a contract, just not a very good one.

A contract is an agreement between parties which specifies what each party will do for the other.  By this definition, a marriage license is not a contract.  There is no signed agreement.  There is no obligation on the part of the wife which violates the concept of "consideration".

It also isn't really a social union since we now have men and women living together outside of marriage who are just as united as those in marriage.  The modern marriage license doesn't change the nature of this union in a social sense.

About these questions; it makes sense to screen potential members of course, but I also recall (if not mistaken) other to-be members not getting them, so I was wondering if I've set off any red flags or anything.

I don't know much about Happy Bachelors, where you are from.  So more than giving you a hard time, I am just curious how how you think.  I don't mind at all if people disagree with me as long they don't resort to insults.  I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a member of CoAlpha.

fschmidt wrote

A contract is an agreement between parties which specifies what each party will do for the other.  By this definition, a marriage license is not a contract.  There is no signed agreement.  There is no obligation on the part of the wife which violates the concept of "consideration".

But there is, the wife isn't legally allowed to marry someone else if she's already married."[A]bstinence from a future action" counts as a consideration according to your link. As for the lack of a signed agreement I take the wedding to be an equivalent. Of course the vows are not legally binding anymore, but there are other things that are (such as that about not marrying someone else).

You already know it, but I still feel like stressing that I'm not defending modern marriages. It's ridiculous to use those vows while depriving them of all meaning.

It also isn't really a social union since we now have men and women living together outside of marriage who are just as united as those in marriage.  The modern marriage license doesn't change the nature of this union in a social sense.

That could be true of traditional marriages as well (but it wouldn't be easy or common).

I don't know much about Happy Bachelors, where you are from.  So more than giving you a hard time, I am just curious how how you think.  I don't mind at all if people disagree with me as long they don't resort to insults.  I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a member of CoAlpha.

All right.