Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Stop calling marriage a "contract"
This topic contains 42 replies, has 24 voices, and was last updated by 
SESQUI ano est 1 year, 10 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I think we’re all agreed that, whatever you call it, marriage is a s~~~ty f~~~ing deal. He can tell us himself, but I thought all the OP was trying to say is that, in terms of “pure” legal theory, a contract is a meant to be an agreement/bargain between two relatively equal parties, in the sense of “I’ll give you this goat and you’ll give me that corn”. Of course there are plenty of contracts in the modern world where the parties have completely unequal bargaining positions (consumer vs massive company and so on), so there’s no real bargain there, and marriage is one of those.
There aren't holes in your pockets. It's called marriage.
Marriage is NOT a contract by any stretch of any legal concept or definition.
You’ve made what’s called in my profession a gross conceptual error.
You’ve incorrectly assumed that the term “contract” implies “fairness”. It doesn’t and it never has.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
Contract or not, I don’t know. I know I was scammed.
When I married in Asia, there was no “no-fault divorce”. If my wife get caught committed adultery, she is at the wrong and I don’t need to pay her anything.
Now when we move to the US, she cheated and file no fault divorce and entitled half of my stuffs and the kids, even though she cheated.
The law change on the fly. WTF!
The church ceremony has nothing to do with the marriage contract.
Until she goes to the courts and cries that it does and the courts deem it as good as signing on the dotted line. Hell, merely living with a woman long enough is sufficient excuse for the courts to impose that bad contract on you. Then there’s the risk of impregnating her, or her merely claiming you did.
If the marriage contract were a good deal for men, the courts wouldn’t be constantly looking for an excuse, any excuse, to put that noose around men’s necks.
No marriage.
No cohabitation.
No procreation.
No exceptions.The law change on the fly. WTF!
That’s why it’s a BAD contract.
asian wife
AWALT.
NO exceptions.
I think we’re all agreed that, whatever you call it, marriage is a s~~~ty f~~~ing deal. He can tell us himself, but I thought all the OP was trying to say is that, in terms of “pure” legal theory, a contract is a meant to be an agreement/bargain between two relatively equal parties, in the sense of “I’ll give you this goat and you’ll give me that corn”. Of course there are plenty of contracts in the modern world where the parties have completely unequal bargaining positions (consumer vs massive company and so on), so there’s no real bargain there, and marriage is one of those.
Yeah. I agree. However, the problem what his words were, is he’s trying to make seem less of a deal by making excuses, of what marriage isn’t. What marriage is, is a contract. There’s no denying in that. There’s no saying that marriage isn’t other than contract, because it is. Too many f~~~ing examples out there. But what he’s trying to say, that marriage is honorable between man and wife and until death do us part.
That might be nice, but it’s also blue pill. I see no reason in getting married, when it takes a toll of your life, and your money. So, how’s marriage honorable? COUNT ME OUT.
"I come in Peace. I didn't bring Artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen. Marine Mattis Mad DOG
You’ve incorrectly assumed that the term “contract” implies “fairness”. It doesn’t and it never has.
Yes! Marriage today has never been fair. Never once been married, and don’t want to. What for? So I can my life suck out? F~~~. that. s~~~.
"I come in Peace. I didn't bring Artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen. Marine Mattis Mad DOG
Until she goes to the courts and cries that it does and the courts deem it as good as signing on the dotted line.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you get married thru a church, don’t they file the paperwork with the State?
Don't chase tail. Turn yours around, walk away, and live free!
Correct me if I’m wrong…
You’re wrong.
You need a marriage license first and it must be signed by someone authorized to do so. Depending on the jurisdiction, that person could be a secular official like a judge, county clerk, justice of the peace, notary, etc., or any number of religious officials. They then need to report that they performed the marriage.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
But what he’s trying to say, that marriage is honorable between man and wife and until death do us part.
That might be nice, but it’s also blue pill. I
Lion on the loose understood what I was trying to say and unknown surviving and other have me exactly opposite. My point was knowledge and consent not fairness. “fairness” is not part of the definition or what I claimed. Informed consent is important. A bait and switch scam will not be enforced. I understand that states define marriage as a contract and they enforce their codes as the terms of that “contract” but most guys (call them stupid) have no understanding of this and had no idea what they were agreeing to. I think that the word “contract” gives too much honor to the institution and hides the massive fraud that you all refer to as “divorce rape.” Just as you say “divorce rape” we need an equally insulting word for the marriage – as the first response said “c~~~ract”
"Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, I would spare you that." 1 Cor 7:28
You still don’t understand because you’re still confusing the label for the thing. Suggesting that marriage no longer be referred to as a contract ignores the fact that marriage is a contract. The question of whether a given contract is fraudulent or a scam is determined solely by the legal system in which the contract was made.
The problem lies with the mistaken assumption of fairness too many people attach to contracts and not with the term “contract”. Changing the labels won’t change those assumptions.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
Informed consent is important.
I think that the word “contract” gives too much honor to the institution and hides the massive fraud that you all refer to as “divorce rape.” Just as you say “divorce rape” we need an equally insulting word for the marriage – as the first response said “c~~~ract”
Huh? Informed consent is important? What the f~~~? DO I ask for permission for sex from her? Consent is considered rape if you f~~~ your wife without her permission. Holy f~~~. it’s nuts.
Contract is a contract. You mean credit, because there is no honor in marriage.
"I come in Peace. I didn't bring Artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen. Marine Mattis Mad DOG
I’m not sure why you’re not understanding. It just what it is. Simple. Fraud? It’s not fake. It’s just altered to a new meaning of marriage, because for the women involve, because they want power over men, and they want to be men. The rules of the game has changed. Altered. Not fake. So fradulent or scam isn’t exactly the right word.
But I do understand it. It’s just the game is changed, and they never told us the rule. Which is their point in feminine strategy. Their point is to blind us as a scam. But marriage remain the same as contract, except a few changes, and it’s f~~~ed up.
It’s really simple. Nothing hard about it.
"I come in Peace. I didn't bring Artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen. Marine Mattis Mad DOG
Anonymous3What do you mean marriage is not a con-tract?
con – something (such as a ruse) used deceptively to gain another’s confidence.
tract – An expanse of land or water.
I don’t really care for marriage, not anymore, but like any deal, on market, women sees what value in men has, and start to date him, for measly a year or two, then come marriage. That marriage, goes on about 9, 10 years. Sometime 20 years, but it’s mostly 8, 9 years of marriage, because the woman breaks contract, and not by death, or love, but breaks it, for money, in the long run. Women today are using marriage as a con. They’re con-artist. They don’t give a s~~~, about marriage; they’re waiting for the final jackpot, rake it in, and leave him broke as f~~~.
I’ve seen it too many f~~~ing time. To women, it’s business contract to them, because it applies money from the man, as a resource, or income. That’s why I don’t see marriage as honorable, and because you did make it seem like it’s honorable for women AND MEN, based on legal status bulls~~~. That’s why I don’t agree.
I don’t give s~~~ what’s the legal status here on marriage before or after, it’s doesn’t matter. Because it’s a f~~~ing contract. And that title is named correctly.
"I come in Peace. I didn't bring Artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen. Marine Mattis Mad DOG
Correct me if I’m wrong, but when you get married thru a church, don’t they file the paperwork with the State?
Usually they do, but not necessarily. It depends on the legitimacy / orthodoxy of the church. Not that it matters in divorce court.
You need a marriage license first and it must be signed by someone authorized to do so. Depending on the jurisdiction, that person could be a secular official like a judge, county clerk, justice of the peace, notary, etc., or any number of religious officials. They then need to report that they performed the marriage.
Only if you intend to get some tax benefit or other gain from your marital status. None of that is necessary when it comes time for “wifey” to claim half your stuff etc. in divorce court, and the lack of any officially sanctioned marital status is no protection.
tl;dr: you don’t actually need to get married for her to screw you in divorce.
This may be old and already determined, but I am new to MGTOW and am responding to several MGTOW youtubers and some posts here who refer to marriage as a “contract.” The legal codes define marriage as a “contract” and so when dealing with the law we have to pretend that we believe the lie, but we need to be clear and honest with ourselves. Marriage is NOT a contract by any stretch of any legal concept or definition. Marriage is a legally instituted fraud and “no fault divorce” is rejection of the very concept of western law and logic.
The legal concept of a contract is a “meeting of the minds.” I ask any of my brother who were married. Do you honestly think that you had a “meeting of the minds” with your wife, or did she have a whole different idea of what “marriage” meant to her? As, I think it was Chris Rock who said, “before getting married I honestly thought my wife enjoyed having my D— in her mouth.” – No meeting of the minds. Only deception.
A “contract” is defined as “an agreement recognized by and enforceable in law.” Another way to say this is “a legally binding agreement.” In a marriage we are required to make “vows.” That is the stated “agreement.” We might even make those vows in a court, in front of a judge. We should all know that if you lie to a judge in court about a material fact, it is perjury and a felony.
If marriage were a contract, the courts would enforce the vows. They don’t. They enforce a complicated code that no one except experts in divorce law know. You therefore have no agreement recognized by law or enforceable in law. The judge knows this but yet he makes you recite vows. He the makes you sign a marriage certificate that puts you under code jurisdiction and nullifies the vows he just made you say. In short, he is manipulating you into committing perjury. If marriage were a real contract violators might even be subject to felony perjury charges.
Imagine you lease a car for $300/month. Then you get a bill for $600/month. When you complain the company says that they only say and write $300 because it sounds good and makes people happy. Hidden in the law is a clause that says all payments can be doubled. This is marriage. It is institutionalized bait and switch. It is institutionalized fraud.
It used to be that if a wife cheated she was thrown out with nothing. She violated an actual contract. Furthermore the husband could sue the Chad that banged her for damages. (Sex was given a monetary value in court. Husband lost sex, house cleaning and cooking for years so no small amount of damages.) In England this was called “criminal conversation” and in America it was “alienation of affection.” The in the late 1800s things began to change with the women’s rights movement. A woman could get alimony and the courts even found that the money Chad had to pay to Husband was money that the wife could take in alimony. So the bitch could take money from husband and the lover.
This is like a mugger suing you because he hurt himself when he stabbed you.
This brings me to the “no fault divorce” being a rejection of western law. The purpose of law (court) is to identify a harm, identify a duty, and determine if a breach of that duty caused the harm. Then determine how to compensate for the harm. This is why we have a “judge.” It is all about fault. You should see that the concept of “no fault” has no business or place in a western (or any just) legal system. Divorce courts are simply a demonstration that we are slaves to the state. We are forced to pay random penalties regardless of whether we are the victim or criminal. Imagine this in any other area of law.
Bob walks into an ally with $200. Frank is waiting and pulls a knife, demanding the money. Bob then finds a police officer and takes Frank to court. The judge declares this is a “no fault mugging” state so he orders Frank to give Bob back $100. Now we have an even split and everything is fair. If that happened crime would go through the roof. The courts know it and this is why we have criminal punishments and damages in civil court. But not in divorce. They knew that “no fault divorce” would make women as promiscuous as cats in heat, but it serves the legal system and provide more work for lawyers.
MGTOW needs to keep this in mind and stop using the word “contract” as it gives a form of legitimacy to the greatest fraud in human history. Just image the wedding aisle (or even the slot c) as that back alley. Women and the government are enticing men saying, “Come in. It is safe and warm.” MGTOW is standing near the entrance screaming, “Stay out of f’ing alley brothers”
Do you agree to do something? Yes. Do you sign said paper of you agreeing to do something? Yes. Does she also agree to do something? Yes. Does she also sign said paper agreeing to do something? Yes. That’s a contract. The idea of a marriage contract expresses various goods and services in exchange for goods and services. Whereas in normal circumstances, this would happen without issue – in this case it’s written on paper for everyone to see. YOU agree to exchange your hard work, time, and laborious efforts into an entity. That entity is marriage. You agree to help raise a family, to labor at work for an income to provide for said family, and to invest emotional and physical support for said family. She agrees to do the same. The only difference is, the courts get involved in determining outcomes when said contract comes to an end.
You’re wrong.
Thanks Old Bill. Good to see you on the site again.
Missed your knowledge and insight!Don't chase tail. Turn yours around, walk away, and live free!
Informed consent is important
Do you agree to do something? Yes. Do you sign said paper of you agreeing to do something? Yes. Does she also agree to do something? Yes. Does she also sign said paper agreeing to do something? Yes. That’s a contract.
The quote below reveals why the idea of contract can be shakey at times.
Hell, merely living with a woman long enough is sufficient excuse for the courts to impose that bad contract on you
So in this case living with a woman can result in the state imposing a contract that did not exist previously on you. The same way a slave owner had a contract with his slaves.
Everyday above ground is a good one. Everyday above ground while single...better still.
Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that we have parallel systems of justice in the USA. Business contracts are upheld and interpreted in business court, but the marriage contract is enforced through the family court, which is obviously completely unfair. But if you get married, you now have legal obligations towards your wife (though she has none towards you), so yeah, it’s a contract all right.
Women are better at multitasking? Fucking up several things at once is not multitasking.
“Marriage” is a contract, the worst one you can possibly sign as a man.
Don’t think it is a contract ? Well, tell that to the lawyers, judges and child support people, I am sure plenty of divorced brothers can tell you all about it.
I promise you, the obligations that contract puts on a man will be enforced in all but the most gross examples.
And like any other contract, any contract that much against your best interests in one you should never enter into.
Frank V.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
