Non Serviam – TMOS 5a

In the previous Theoretical Models of Society posts (Search for TMOS) parts 1 to 3 and 3a, I covered generally “big picture” concepts, and in part 4, tied together how these apply and what they produce when seen in relation to the individual man. Here we will look at the context of marriage, while keeping all the previous points made in mind.

And for the offended feminists, yes, wait; there will be a part 6, and it will be all about the individual woman. The reason this will be done after this post that focuses on marriage, rather than before it, will become obvious by then. So much so, that astute readers will already have concluded many of the things I will write in Part 6 even before I spell them out.

Let’s get to it then.

The first thing to understand is that the only valid perspective from which to view marriage is the spiritual one from which it originated. As many already know, in modern parlance, this leads to the Catholic perspective. That is, the only valid form of marriage that is genuinely a marriage, has the following attributes:

* It is, and can only be, between ONE man and ONE woman.

* Once validly entered into by both parties’ free will, it is indissoluble and for life. It can only end when one or both parties die.

* Its primary (but not exclusive) purpose is to make children and raise them within a safe, loving, respectful, honest, brave, orderly, pious and kind family.

* The body of one now belongs to the other, and vice-versa.

* You are to treat each other with love and respect in accordance with the analogous relationship between Jesus and His Church (humanity).

* It is a sacrament, that is, a spiritually holy thing, that bonds the man and woman in it before God, as a lifelong promise.

Anything other than the above is simply NOT an actual marriage, regardless of any secular laws made or names it supposedly goes by. People can say that a homosexual “marriage” now exists, but it has the same relationship to reality as me, a 6’2” Venetian saying I am a 4’ Pigmy. Just because you call yourself a flying monkey, doesn’t mean you are one either, tempting as it might be to want to push you off a roof to prove the point with a certain finality.

And for those of you squealing about what a “bigot” I am, because I ignore “marriages” from other religions, no, I am not ignoring them. I am just categorically saying they are of an inferior type of “bond” and do not qualify as being a proper and true marriage. Regardless of if any specific such “marriages” work or are happy or not, the contention is that as a matter of principle, they are merely a set of pagan rules, designed to formalise the general ownership of the woman. Which differs considerably from a Catholic marriage. This will become obvious later in this post as you work your way through the concepts.

But let’s look now, in the context of all the previous TMOS posts, why marriage is as defined above only, and why anything else simply isn’t marriage. After which we will also look at what marriage actually is and what it does, within the larger social context that this series of posts concerns itself with.

The Why

For most of human existence, a few things have always been true, and most still remain true. These are:

* Men are generally physically stronger and thus automatically become the protectors of their individual family unit as well as their greater social tribe (which for many millennia was limited to a few hundred people at most).

* Due to the point above, men necessarily form natural hierarchies between themselves, originally placing the most physically and intellectually powerful, willing, and capable men of leadership at the top of the hierarchy. Lesser capable men, or men with specialised skill would tend to naturally fall into a hierarchy that formed below that, based on various factors, their agreeability, willingness to be in their generally correct place in the hierarchy, relevance of skill to the tribe, and willingness to lead. It is important to understand that willingness to lead, in an actual leader that was lacking capability to do so, would tend to result in either autocratic tyrants, or, “leaders” that would be short lived. And, of course, also both. Autocratic tyrants often tend to be short-lived, after all.

* Because ultimately the ability to en-force rules within the tribe was ultimately limited to men in general, and men capable of organising, and following the hierarchical structure and keep it coherent more specifically, the natural order of things is that those higher in the hierarchy of leadership traditionally most often had their pick of the most attractive and desirable females. And because females are physically weaker, at a practical level, for millennia, they probably had relatively little say in which man they ended up “belonging to”.

Absent other men who cared about her to en-force either her wishes or a good situation for her, she may well have been mostly at the mercy of the greater hierarchy within the tribe. This is relatively easy to understand when you consider that if you were a mid-level man within the tribe wanting to get together with the daughter of the tribe chief, who also has various lieutenants loyal to him ready to bash the head of anyone that doesn’t fall in line with the chief’s wishes, your approach to that would be vastly different than if you wanted to approach orphan Annie who has no brothers. And again different if orphan Annie also captured the eye of the chief rather than the eye of just another mid-level male or perhaps even a lower-level male in the tribe.

* Because of the above, women, while not usually able to en-force their wishes physically, nevertheless found ways to influence outcomes. Mostly by using their feminine charms to influence some man, to do her bidding (if the chief who forced himself on her as her husband/owner really repels her, she may try to suggest to one of the more appealing lieutenants that he should be rightful chief… and he could be… if only he got rid of the chief…). Similarly, by being able to influence other women, she could potentially influence a bunch of men. If she managed to be seen as the most influential woman in the tribe by the other women, those other women would all be both simultaneously trying to be in her “good books” while also becoming as influential as possible themselves in order to replace her.

This explains why women will quite effortlessly compliment each other when face to face, even if they hate each other’s guts, while subtly undermining them behind their back.

It may not be a very flattering analogy, but if you think of men as people who generally speaking respond to efficiency, you can see how that hierarchy would tend to form and what it would look like. While a female hierarchy would tend to resemble more what a gaggle of thieves may organise themselves as. Sure… the thief that is most successful at gathering “ill gotten goods” (usually by being the consort of whoever is the wealthiest man in the tribe) may generally be thought of as the “leader” of the thieves, but it is an ever-shifting and temporary status as easily lost as the attention of that same wealthiest man in the tribe may shift from the current thief leader, to a potentially more attractive or better manipulator-level thief. And as the saying goes: There is no honour among thieves.

Now that we have a better understanding of the general pressures of society on both men and women, it should be obvious that in each case, biology dictates the situation. And so far we only really looked at the ability to enforce one’s wishes, which for many millennia essentially relied mostly on the physical strength of a man do do so, and then on the cohesion and organisational ability of groups of men to do so.

This being the most important thing in human affairs. That is, the ability to project your force into the world so as to shape it to your desires. For most of mankind’s existence this has hinged on the physical attributes of brute strength first, and ability to organise in coherent and durable hierarchies second. Over time this second ability became superior to the individual and formed the basis of society in general. Whatever rules the people most capable of organising the force-projection of men as a whole wanted to have, became the laws of the land.

Of course, if these rules were too harsh, or, conversely, too weak, other men, just as capable of leadership, could organise and plan a take-over of the leadership and power-projection structures.

It is little wonder then, that in these larger contexts, the role of women was relegated in many cases to the level of possession. Prized and cared for possessions in the best of cases, but still, in general terms, possessions.

Nor, despite the squeals of the fat, ugly, and unpleasant women, was this really necessarily a bad thing for women. If you were a prize worth having and the envy of the other men and women in the tribe, being treated well by the most capable man was generally speaking not a bad deal. As his woman you had more influence in the tribe than pretty much anyone else except the man that “owned” you, and your children with him too would be safe and well cared for. This also explains why women, in general, can more easily hop from one king’s bed, to the bed of the next guy who killed that particular king. Or at least do so with less trouble than most men would prefer, or feel comfortable contemplating.

Over millennia of such genetic selection for reproduction, women would tend to be most attracted to a man’s qualities that marked him as a potentially capable leader of men and protector of her and her offspring, than his specific looks.

While from a man’s perspective, the most physically attractive woman would tend to be the most desirable, because, generally speaking, unless her personality was especially toxic, she was bound to usually fall in line with whatever the man wanted or said. Her specific personality was less important. It would generally affect the man’s life usually less significantly than a man’s personality might affect a woman’s.

All of the above stems primarily and simply from one biological attribute above all others: the ability to project force effectively; and thus impose one’s will on others, and, simultaneously, preventing others from forcing their will upon you.

This, in essence, is the ability which shapes the hierarchies of men and the behaviour of women more than any other biological aspect of humanity.

One other important factor to keep in mind is also that women are always absolutely certain that any baby they give birth to is certainly theirs; even if the paternity might be dubious, depending on how easily she gave access to her womb to multiple men within a short span of time.

Which brings us to the next point of biology.

Because maternity is always certain, but paternity is not, for the longest time, because a woman could essentially be forced into sex by most men who had unfettered access to her, that act, of forcing yourself on a woman, was seen in generally homicidal tendency by any man that was responsible for her, be it her husband/owner or her father or say brothers (who generally can be assumed wanted to preserve her chastity in order to give her the best opportunity to pair with a man capable of protecting her and caring well for her).

That all said, a woman that was unhappy with her husband/owner, prey to her own wishes and desires, may well “stray” with a man that she was more attracted to if the opportunity presented itself, but only in secret, because the alternative could result in her own punishment, ostracism or even death, alongside that of the man in question.

So once again, this too, only reinforces the overall general sense that women were to a certain extent, possessions that were to be provided for and protected from other men; especially if you wanted to be sure that any children that came out of her were actually yours.

Run this subroutine for a couple million years and you get the concepts of honour (which is ultimately linked to effectiveness) of men, and the sneakiness of women (do what you must to survive and/or get your way).

Which is why ultimately it is foolish for a man to expect a woman to subscribe to the same concept of “honour” a man does.

Honour for a man means you keep your word even if your life depends on it.

Honour for a woman may be at most limited to ensuring your children are actually yours if she actually loves you, (as men are most likely to understand love anyway, which is rather different than how women may process it) regardless of what other indiscretions she may have got up to. But most times her concept of “honour” would be limited to ensuring she does whatever she thinks will provide her and her children with the best possible situation in terms of resources, comfort and status.

Right then, so, after all that… why marriage?

Because it was a public way to ensure everyone knew what was what.

If everyone knows that Jane belongs to Tarzan, any other monkey that comes sniffing around Jane will get their head bashed in by Tarzan, and everyone will know why, and accept that’s how things go.

And of course, back in the day, if Tarzan was actually Genghis Khan, he could have as many “wives” or “property” as he was able to keep as “his” and guard them from other men sneakily introducing their DNA in his family line.

This explains pretty much ALL the various forms of rituals that were invented to “solidify” this ownership of the woman by a specific man. Whether it was Islam’s multiple wife culture, Hindu marriage, Ancient Roman marriage, where the man had power of life and death over his wife and children, or any number of other systems, the purpose was essentially always the same, and not too different from the basics of property rights.

For all versions except one.

Enter Catholicism

That was how humanity, across pretty much all cultures and beliefs did things, until the Catholic Church came about, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself upon this Earth.

Now, the model of relations between Jesus Christ and Humanity (represented by the Church), gave a very different perspective on the situation that had existed between men and women since sabre-tooth tigers. And that was this:

Jesus was the indisputable leader of mankind and to be obeyed, yet, He also sacrificed Himself totally for us. And this model suggested the model of marriage that actually produced the most productive, fair, capable, and beautiful societies that have ever existed in the entire history of the human race. Why?

Because while not denying or ignoring ANY of the biological realities human males and female are both subjected to, Catholicism introduced the True and Loving approach to the pairing of men and women.

Go back to the start and notice what I had up there as the defining characteristics of marriage.

See that part there that says it’s only valid if entered into by the free will of all parties concerned? That’s a pretty big deal for humanity when you consider the 2 million years prior.

So, right away, Catholicism gave women the freedom and agency to be able to choose their husbands. Furthermore, it defined marriage as having specific duties for both sides, as well as an overall purpose.

The overall purpose was the creation and raising of children in order to create a nuclear family, as, again, identified right at the start of this long post. Of course, not all couples can have children, due to whatever unfortunate medical or physical condition, so although this was the primary purpose, a secondary and also important point was lifelong companionship, love and intimacy.

In order to uphold this purpose, it is only logical and reasonable that both the husband and wife, by entering marriage of their own free will, are also taking on some specific and irrevocable duties specific to marriage.

Both have the duties of:

* Remaining in the marriage for the rest of their life.

* Forsaking all others for the purposes of sexual, romantic and emotional intimacy related to it.

* Gifting their physical body for physical use sexually to the other, and thus, not be able to refuse sex to each other. This ensuring neither party is subject to sexual frustration.

* Not abuse of the gift of the other’s body by pretending to use it sexually when the other is ill, or there is a valid reason not to, including possible spiritual ones, but in any case, this is not a condition that should exist beyond a temporary time. “Not feeling like it” is not in itself a valid reason for either side. If there is an issue, the duty for both is to face it, address it together, including by prayer and basically to help each other through whatever the issue is and return to being able to have sexual access to each other’s bodies at will. This point is important because it fosters balance and kindness in that neither a general unspecified reluctance to engage sexually, nor an unreasonable request for it if one party is injured, ill or otherwise indisposed, is considered the norm or acceptable. The norm is perpetual and easy sexual access at all times that it is generally possible, and comprehension and discussion with a view to resolving any issue that from time to time may arise that impedes that, for what should in any case only be a temporary period required to resolve the issue.

* Raising their children within the same set of rules that their marriage is based on; that is, the Catholic faith. And since this is the primary purpose of marriage, not use contraceptive methods that would impede reproduction and thus make the sex act not a creative one, but essentially a masturbatory or intentionally sterile one, which ultimately promotes lust, or hedonistic selfish pleasure, at the expense of life and duty to it.

* Remain faithful to each other and the Catholic faith regardless of whatever unfortunate event, tragedy or circumstance befalls either or both of them.

* Present a united front against all enemies “foreign and domestic” so, both against people and events outside the family, as well as people and events within it, be they relatives or even the children. As a marriage is said to form “one flesh” it makes sense that a such a “body” cannot be in conflict with itself, and especially not when facing outside challenges or pressures.

Furthermore, each sex has specific duties that apply only to them. The main ones tend to be as follows:

For men (husbands)

* To provide and protect for their families and especially their wives and children.

* To lead their wife and children theologically and generally in life, not in what best suits the man specifically, but rather, what is in line with Catholic teaching and also best suits his family as a whole. The benefit to his wife, children, and family as a whole takes precedence over his own desires, well-being, or even survival. Of course, this principle being followed also means that in general terms, excepting some drastic circumstance, his continued survival and existence, as well as a general well-being is important too, because his absence, or continued lack of basic care, would ultimately impact on his duty of caring and leading his family in accordance with this principle.

* To love and cherish his wife, and in so doing, a woman, well led, well cared for, Catholic in belief, becomes her best self and becomes generally more loving, kind, selfless and less prone to sinning (behaving in ways that undermine the marriage and life in general too).

* To protect, including by pre-emptive action, as much as possible, the weak or innocent from predation, injustice, and evil actions in general. While this applies generally as a Catholic man not just within marriage but as a whole, it is worth mentioning here too. Because it is a quality expected of all Catholic men at all times, and as such must exist within a marriage, as it is also a sign of the quality of man and thus leader of a household that a man should aspire to be. It’s absence in general terms can be seen as a red flag prior to entering into marriage with such a man.

For Women (Wives)

* To obey their husbands as men obey God.

This point alone sends feminists into an incandescent rage, and because secular degeneracy permeates everything today, even a good portion of women that say they are not feminists, and even supposedly “religious” and “christian” women. So it deserves a little explanation. The relationship between a husband and wife is parallel to, or analogous to, that between Jesus Christ and humanity. Through love of us, flawed humans, He sacrificed Himself even as He attempted to teach and save us when alive. Similarly, a man that is acting correctly, is sacrificing himself and his desires daily for his wife and family. A woman, because she is biologically far less capable of being as “altruistic” as men (as we have seen in the previous explanations above) are prone to acting based on their emotions and solipsistic desires, instead of the greater good of their children and husband, that is, their immediate family, much less of the greater community or humanity at large.

You may feel this is unfair or not true, but the reality borne out by the facts is overwhelming. Which is why we now have tons and tons and tons of data that prove without doubt that women are less capable and nurturing than men even at what many assume is their best ability: raising children.

Single parent households of single mothers have children that are far more prone to delinquency, using drugs, having teen pregnancies, be subjected to abuse by their own mother (than by their father in single parent homes were the children are raised by the father alone), including more likely to be killed by their mother than by their father in single parent households, be more prone to be sexually abused by strangers, have generally lower academic results, less well-paying jobs, are more prone to suicide, and mental illness, and are more likely to become divorced themselves later in life. This could not be the case if women actually were more nurturing and generally better at raising children than men are. Similarly, even if the commonly accepted narrative is that men are more violent, this too does not bear out when it comes to domestic violence. The highest incidence of domestic violence is between lesbian couples, and the lowest between gay male couples.

The point here therefore is not that men are perfect (godly), and women are incorrigible trash that should just shut up and do as they are told; but rather, that since it is simply a fact that men are generally, objectively, and empirically, better than women at making long term decisions that affect their entire families, women should simply accept this and try their best to support the decisions their husband makes without being a nagging shrew that makes every choice a tribulation and strife the man needs to overcome before any useful action can be taken.

A simpler way to explain it is that on a ship, including a relation-ship, there can only be one captain, and when all is said and done, his word is law.

While the executive officer (XO) first in command after the captain, can chime in (usually only and specifically if asked, bar rare exceptions when the XO may make a welcome positive addition or respectfully make an observation the captain may have missed) they do so respectfully, carefully, and only after first having given due and proper consideration to the captain’s orders, which 99 times out of a hundred need absolutely zero input from the XO, because the captain is aware and considering usually more things that the XO is even aware exist, never mind has noticed.

Lastly, on this point, it is not perfection that is expected; for, just like men fail daily to obey God and be perfect husbands in all things, so will women fail at being perfect wives, but the point is to genuinely strive to be the best you can be and also to gradually improve at least a little day by day.

* To love and cherish her husband. So, be kind, loving, loyal and affectionate as well as respectful to their husband. In this way, just as a man makes a woman want to express her best self through his loving protection, providence and guidance, so a woman makes a man want to be his best self for the woman that treats him respectfully and lovingly. This is generally what is meant by a husband or wife “sanctifying” the other. In more secular terminology, treat a woman properly (while never permitting your authority to be questioned, it needs to be said) and she blooms, and similarly, a woman that treats a man properly will see him move mountains for her.

* To raise the children in accordance with the general rules set down by the husband, while also allowing herself to be somewhat of a buffer between the children and their father, since necessarily his rules need to be generally enforced more strictly than her rules, as a husband’s rules are for the most part to safeguard his family from all the dangers posed by those people and events outside of the family home, and thus more important to follow. While the rules of a mother tend to be for the general smooth and pleasant running of the home within the family, thus more geared for a harmonious home than outright survival, or at least things that can impact the whole family in very serious ways.

Now that we have seen both the why of marriages came about, and also the details and differences of how pagan “marriages” work, in their infinite manifestations, when compared to a Catholic marriage, and have far better understanding of what a Catholic marriage looks like in its specific internal dynamics, we are finally ready to understand the larger concept of what a Catholic marriage is and does in larger society.

I need to, once again, remind you and be clear that when I refer to a marriage, I really mean, specifically and only a Catholic Marriage. Because every other perversion of the concept, be it some pagan version from some heathen religion, or worse, a heretic one like Protestantism or even a schismatic one like Eastern Orthodoxy, not to even mention the absolute abominations of the concepts that homosexual “marriages” represent, they all, without exception, fall short of the primary purpose of the existence of marriage in the first place, and secondly, fall far short of the ideal relationship within marriage.

They fail at its primary purpose (making and raising children to form a nuclear family) because:

* We can immediately exclude all homosexual partnerships since they are biologically incapable of it.

* Secondly, we can immediately exclude all relationships where reproduction is artificially prevented, since it is clear that if the very purpose of marriage is being prevented intentionally from happening, then the real purpose of that “marriage” is something else (usually hedonistic pleasure).

* Thirdly, we can exclude all those “marriages” where the possibility of leaving the partnership is not absolutely excluded, since this means that there is no intentionality to remain a coherent family unit for the purpose of raising children as well as mutual growth and companionship until the end of life. And we can also surmise that any relationship where this is not a definite pre-requisite for entering into the relationship in the first place, is likely to make the choice of being in such a relationship quite light-heartedly and not very seriously. After all, if it doesn’t work out you can just bail out and try again. More the recipe for buying an inexpensive household appliance than selecting a life-partner.

On the above basis alone, we are left with very few possibilities, since only the (real i.e. Sedevacantist) Catholic Church still and always, insists in marriage being indissoluble other than by death.

But even if we were to find some sect, or a pair of individuals that whilst not Catholic still subscribed to the other three basic components identified above, we still have the issue that their children would be unlikely to follow in their parents’ footsteps in this regard, since they do not have 2,000 years of tradition, but more importantly, empirical evidence, that this way of doing things produces the absolute best societies that humanity has ever been able to create throughout its total existence.

And that aside, we are also left with the absence of the duties being specifically different for men than for women in the marriage.

In short, only a Catholic marriage fulfils all the above parameters and in doing so creates a whole that is demonstrably more than the sum of its parts.

The situation is fractal and the good present at the smallest scale, that is, the individual Catholic man or Catholic woman (yes, I know, the post on the individual woman will be next), is magnified within a marriage of a Catholic man and woman that go on to create Catholic children. And the good that such a Catholic family exhibits internally, is once again magnified when taken in the context of many such families forming a Catholic community.

The works that Catholics have done in the ages are unparalleled by any other religion.

Catholic monks literally invented the scientific method. They had much to do with astronomy, math and science in all its forms in general, especially natural science.

The works of intellectual reasoning of people like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the other illustrious doctors of the Church are a testament to both science (logic) and art (the beauty of the truth they expose is undeniable as it is in a sunset, a dawn, or a flower). The increase in justice that was brought to human beings in general, both by the new relation that men had with women as well as each other, resulted in the abolition of slavery and the treating of women and children almost entirely as property.

The communal aspects of Catholicism, while never being so overbearing to squash individual expression, nevertheless fostered the virtues that dogmatic Catholicism espouses, namely the four cardinal virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Courage, which if applied daily produce a society of people that act prudently, calmly, honestly and bravely, and the three theological virtues, of Faith, Hope and Charity, which as the overarching zeitgeist of a community or people, produce pious, hopeful (so generally optimistic and positive) people that are generous and kind.

It is not hard to see why within Catholic communities crime is practically non-existent, especially when you consider that Catholicism also rejects the dogmatic seven sins: Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Wrath, Envy, and Greed.

There are also less pivotal but still important virtues and sins that are also promoted or rejected, such as beauty in the positive sense, or gossip in the negative.

The overall result is that communities made up of people in Catholic marriages are genuine societies where people generally and naturally help each other and look after one another, despite all the usual human flaws we are all subject to.

A last important point I would very much like you to note, especially if you got this far and yet harbour the idea on some level that all this post is really just a contrived strategy to make Catholicism appear as better than it really is, I would like you to please re-read this, and note a few things:

1. I merely presented the objective facts of the case from first principles. You are free to present alternative answers that satisfy all the effects of a Catholic marriage. Provide examples of your theory that we can see having produced that very result you hypothesise for two millennia. (Pro-Tip: You can’t.)

2. While it is true that absent belief in God and His Trinity means it doesn’t necessarily follow that one would reach the same conclusions of Catholic Marriage, if you bother to run the thought experiment in the other direction, that is, trying to see what purely secular values would come up with, and on what basis their foundation would rest (realise that “oh well people just are generally good, so they would all agree to do X” is nonsense and is actually resting on the ruins of degraded Catholicism, and nothing else), you will find that we would reach the current, Rome in its last gasps, or Weimar Germany with its sex shows of transexuals peeing on people’s faces in the cabarets, pretty sharpish. Alternatively, if you try to envision a secular society that would stick to the same morals that Catholic marriage espouses, you will find it impossible to have a reason why they should if not the very real and deep belief in God and Catholic Dogma with all that goes with it.

3. Regardless of your personal belief system, which is unlikely to be Sedevacantist Catholic, the simple reality is that if a model produces good results, it is best to use it at least until you find a better model that consistently produces better and reproducible results.

And if you remove your personal emotions from the equation, you will find it pretty much impossible to find a system that produces equivalent results, never mind better ones than Catholic marriage and Catholicism in general.

I can say that with confidence because I did not start out as a Catholic, and I have exceedingly good powers of objective reality observation that are far above the normal average. In fact I started out with the view that Catholicism must be one of the worst possible models (mostly due to being fooled —as most are— into the belief that the Novus Orco Vatican II heresy is actually Catholicism, instead of what it really is: Satanism with a Catholic mask on). It was only by purely objective measures that I concluded Catholicism as a model of reality was superior; and eventually actual Catholicism pre-Vatican II and all its heresies and heretics.

On that last point, the only even remotely passable society I considered at least palatable was the one prevalent in Feudal Japan, but even then, it was hardly fair, just, or particularly humane. The main attraction point was that if you were lucky enough to be of the samurai caste, you did at least have the option of behaving in a way that could uphold justice, even if at the cost of your life in many cases. It certainly does not even begin to be equivalent to a Catholic society, but it would at least be generally tolerable to me, given that I am essentially quite able to deal with direct confrontation quite comfortably. But even so, feudal Japan’s social rules have long ago been eclipsed, and going around slicing people’s heads off for rude behaviour is somewhat frowned upon in our day and age, so it’s not as if it was a viable alternative anyway.

Conclusions

We can see that “marriage” in all its various forms was mostly a way to retain control of a man’s lineage and progeny by identifying a specific woman (or women in the case of certain societies) as being his exclusive property.

This state of affairs is inevitable given men have a monopoly on the use of force when compared to women.

The modernisation of treating women as human beings to be cherished, loved and protected, and married and committed to for life (and only one of them at the time) is relatively new and the sole province of Catholicism. The fact it was later “adopted” by corrupted versions of Catholicism (Churchianity in all its legion of names) does not change the fact that it is an institution first created by Catholicism.

Catholicism does not ignore any of the biological realities of male and female bodies, roles and psychologies, but allows both to support, complement and take care of each other each according to their abilities and specific duties, all within a greater context that permits good flexibility in the individual specifics of each marriage or individuals involved.

Such a marriage leads to coherent and positive communities that in turn create great advances in art, science, architecture, technology and really every endeavour of mankind, but all within a context of loving beauty and hopeful positivity. No other system of pairing of people produces this effect to anywhere near the same level of positive outcome.

Therefore, unless you wish to be in an actual marriage, with all its benefits and also all required duties, there is absolutely no need for you to ever enter into one of the pretend “marriages” that people indulge in, be it civil (government approved) contracts, pagan “marriages”, or worse of all, brutalist perversions of actual marriage, such as those performed by the fully heretical Protestant endless denominations that allow (and have no authority to deny) all sorts of degeneracy and destruction, such as divorce, abortion, contraception, gay “marriages” and so on.

As a man, given the current climate of secular society, why would you ever enter into a contract that can be broken at any time for any or even no reason whatsoever, while almost certainly ensuring you lose access to your children and also have to give half of all your created assets and wealth to the now divorced ex-wife?

And as a woman, why would you ever commit to care for a household and raise the children of a man that may abandon you as soon as you get too many wrinkles and his younger and sluttier secretary flashes a bit of leg at him after you gave decades of your life to your family only to be cast aside?

Quite simply, there is no valid reason why people who are secular should ever enter into a “marriage”. Doing so is really just a cargo cultist action. Following through with an action whose purposes and realities you understand not any better than aborigines in the pacific did that building an effige of a plane would not bring them containers full of goods either.

Marriage is only required of people who are interested in building civilisation, instead of dancing with abandon on its rotting corpse.

It is a serious and lifelong commitment with no way out; done with a clear understanding of all it entails, not simply because you really like and have great sex with the girl or guy in question.

And since only Catholics envisioned marriage in a way that was both functional and effective for humanity at every level, be it individual, family, or community level, but is also loving, made only by the free will of the participants, and is held as sacred in their most core and fundamental belief system they have: Catholic Christianity, it makes sense that you should enter into marriage only if it is an actual marriage.

In short, if you want to be married, you really should become a proper Catholic first.