This post is also available in: English
Charles Darwin – yes, that guy – once drew up a pro and con list for getting married. His list is reprinted here, in readable format.
The standard Chateau view of marriage is that it is a raw deal for individual American men, as currently constituted, (it wasn’t always thus). However, there are good reasons for monogamous, heterosexual marriage to continue as a cultural norm and societal buttress. Ol’ Charlie hit on a number of the pros. It’s really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, particularly over the long term (single mommyhood erodes civilizational capital). Over the short term, it’s still a bad idea unless you belong to one of the few human races in the world (think: Swedes) who can handle having children within an unmarried, cohabitational context. (The verdict is out on how sustainable the Swedish method is, considering how quickly their evolved suite of mental characteristics compels them to hand their country over to the kebab crush.)
fr tho, Darwin’s other marriage pros could nearly as easily be gotten with a live-in long-term girlfriend, but to give him credit that was most certainly not the case back in his day. Also, 😆 at “Better than a dog, anyhow”.
A lot of Darwin’s marriage cons are inarguable; men must betray their masculine urge to wander and explore once they are hitched to home and wife. Most men aren’t keen about keeping themselves in good graces with relatives; women have much more affinity for nurturing family ties. It is absolutely true that wives, and to a lesser extent husbands, get fat and lazy after marriage. A wife and family are a responsibility that will cut into a man’s free time, (many men are ok with trading in their free time for the comforts of domestication). Less money? Sure. (Don’t be fooled by the lure of a double income. Wives – and long-time cohabitating girlfriends – will just spend twice as fast and twice as much what they spent when they were single.)
Darwin was very concerned about an increase in his “anxiety” from marriage, as he wrote it twice. Potential marital money problems vexed him, too. The provider beta was a real catch in Darwin’s day that isn’t as true today. Women didn’t HATE HATE HATE betas back then with the same bubbling spite. But the ability of a provider beta in the Darwin era to leverage his provisioning skill for prime poon meant that he couldn’t slack off and give his date a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and recline smugly knowing a blowjob was coming his way regardless. Jerkboy Game in Darwin’s time probably had more limited appeal to women than it does today.