Hey Everybody, Marcus here,
It has been the longstanding rule that one can only be MGTOW if and only if one is not married. Though it seems that this is a simple enough rule to understand, I believe, and will defend the case, that we within the MGTOW community need to re-evaluate the concept of marriage as we apply it in this venerable rule of ours.
Just a few days ago Square Peg released a video entitled “Top Family Law Official Calls Modern Marriage an Abstraction.” In his video, Square Peg reads out excerpts from a document discussing the changing nature of marriage and some of the consequences that follow as they related to the family court. I have linked Square Peg’s video in the description.
Now, much like Square Peg, I too was immediately drawn to the verbiage used in the document. Specifically, the notion of looking at marriage as an abstraction. So far, within MGTOW, we have looked upon marriage in the concrete. Namely, one is married by virtue of having signed a concrete marriage contract. The distinction between a married man and an unmarried man was a black and white affair. It is either the case that you have signed a marriage contract or it is the case you have not signed a marriage contract.
Though the one hard rule in MGTOW, namely, that one cannot be married and MGTOW has been consistently upheld as orthodoxy, it has also become clear that co-habitation is disallowed almost as strictly as signing the marriage contract itself. In fact, it could be safely argued that, if it is not already the case, then within a year or so, to be a MGTOW will demand you are neither married nor are you co-habitating with a woman.
But why did this ban on co-habitation slowly creep into the MGTOW orthodoxy? The answer is fairly obvious; namely, the ever-growing universality of common-law marriage laws which in themselves are contingent on co-habitation. It may seem that a MGTOW rule forbidding a man from co-habitating with a woman is an additional requirement on top of the first rule forbidding marriage. However, a ban on co-habitation is nothing more than an extension of the first rule. As such, there is only one rule in MGTOW; that one cannot be married and MGTOW. The ban on co-habitation, in turn, is nothing but a logical consequence of the first rule.
Now, the reason I have pointed out the adoption of a co-habtation ban making its way into MGTOW orthodoxy is because it exposes the outdated quality of our understanding of the MGTOW ban on marriage. Marriage should not be considered as a concrete, black and white, delimited concept within MGTOW. Much like the authors of the document Square Peg was reading from in his video, marriage ought to be considered as an abstraction.
We ought to avoid all forms of marriage to women and not just the traditional marriage contract itself. Let me clarify. The marriage contract is a legally binding agreement between a man and a woman which ultimately, over time, has been weaponized to transfer wealth from men to women. However, the marriage contract is not the only tool that carries this power. This power of wealth transfer comes into force when a man has a child with a woman who he has not commissioned as a surrogate.
This power takes the form of child support payments. In India, as called out in a news piece read out by TFM, a wife who was living in a house owned by her husband’s father, upon divorce, was granted the right to remain in that house. Even though the property was not a marital asset and not even owned by the husband, the judge still decided that it was the family home from which she could not be evicted.
Now, as more and more men swear off the traditional marriage contract, the government, women’s ultimate white knight, will react by expanding the reach of traditionally marriage contract laws to non-marriage contract arrangements. Common-law marriage is such an expansion of that reach. So, when men began to abstained from signing the marriage contract but still lived with their women, the laws were altered to encompass co-habitation under marriage laws. The next extension is occurring with the concept of the meretricious relationship. Though as of today a meretricious relationship is nearly synonymous with common-law marriage in terms of the co-habitation requirement, co-habitation is only one consideration and not necessarily a hard requirement.
Much like when men stopped signing the marriage contract, marriage laws were extended to co-habitation and so common-law marriage was created. When men stop co-habitating with women to avoid common-law marriage, meretricious relationships will drop the co-habitation requirement and give more weight to other criteria. The current criteria that a judge evaluate to establish whether or not a meretricious relationship is taking place are as follows:
(a) continuous cohabitation;
(b) duration of the relationship;
(c) purpose of the relationship;
(d) pooling of resources and services for joint projects; and
(e) intent of the parties.
In the near future, a man might be considered married under the law if here merely dates a woman for 2 years and she can demonstrate that the intention of the relationship was one of a long-term commitment. Going on a trip together with a woman or meeting her parents may become evidence of a meretricious relationship. Or, in the most extreme cases, if the relationship was deemed to be “exclusive”, then this might suffice for defacto marriage.
No matter where men go, so too marriage laws will follow them. As such, I no longer believe that the MGTOW orthodox understanding of marriage can remain as a concrete concept. I believe the correct interpretation is that one cannot be MGTOW and consciously engage in an arrangement with a woman that can lead to legal, government enforced, transfer of his wealth from him to her. Having children with a non-surrogate would fall under this rubric but I would not begrudge a man who would gamble on a woman to have children given the expenses and legalities of surrogacy at this moment in history.
However, it seems that avoiding such a legal entanglement may be more complicated as showcased by the case I cited about India. Indeed, if you have a son who, god forbid, ever marries, you would be remiss to allow that couple to live in a house you own. Though your son’s wife is not directly connected to you, allowing for the couple to live in a house you own opens you up to that very wealth transfer you as a MGTOW wish to avoid. If you are a business owner, hiring women of child bearing years will just see wealth transferred from you to her in the form of maternity leave. In fact, if you are a business owner, hiring women always brings the possible risk of sexual harassment lawsuits against your male staff and yourself, which in turn will lead to wealth transfer from your business to her.
As the old joke goes. How do you build a multi-million-dollar company? Put a woman in charge of a multi-billion-dollar company.
As time goes by, I predict, an ever-broader expansion of wealth transfer laws will make their way into the arrangements between men and women. I believe the self-preservation dimension of the spirit of MGTOW is to not willfully ever put oneself at the mercy of such laws no matter what form they take; no matter what arrangement they target between men and women. To think in this way is to make the concept of marriage abstract and not to contain it to the concrete legal contract we have so far understood as marriage.
We must always be aware of the newest laws and keep a close eye to precedents being set by judges in wealth transfer cases. Though there are many arrangements one can have with a woman today that seem outside the reach of marriage laws, this may not obtain in the future. Whatever arrangement you may have with a woman today, may very well, with the stroke of a pen, become ammunition again you tomorrow. We as MGTOW must be ever vigilant of the expanding frontier of marriage.
Thanks for listening,