# Are there any tangible benefits?



## unbelievable

Assume you are talking to a single, employed male with no particular aspirations of raising children. What, if any, benefits could he expect from marriage?

If he remains single, his living expenses will be 1/3 or less of that required if he marries.

If he remains single, he has more discretionary time, more disposable income, and he will exercise 100% control over how he spends both.

If he remains single and childless, he will incur no risk of losing anything he has or any future earnings due to domestic litigation.

If he remains single he can have sex as frequently and with as many partners as he chooses.

If he remains single, he will retain 100% control over his environment, his diet, his funds, his time, his associations, his appearance, etc, etc, etc.

How could you sell him on the idea that marriage would benefit him in any way?


----------



## john_lord_b3

I could foresee that a large number of successful young men will go that direction in the future..


----------



## Pitbull5555

This works for the ladies too!!! :smthumbup:


----------



## weightlifter

True. But life is all about chances. Which ones you are willing to take.

I know married who are best friends. I know some who are enemies. They would nnswer your question differently.


----------



## unbelievable

Actually, I don't believe it does work equally as well for women. If you become pregnant, married or otherwise, you become legally entitled to certain support. A guy can't get pregnant and he has little control over whether a woman chooses to, with or without his involvement or knowledge, married or otherwise.

Right or wrong, men typically do earn somewhat more than women and we statistically live shorter lives. That favors the majority of women, financially and disadvantages most men.

Statistically, women make 80% of household spending decisions, so even if the wife (or cohabitating partner) earns 50% of household income, the guy is still disadvantaged.

For a single guy to improve his financial position through marriage he would have to marry a woman who made at least four or five times his salary, assuming such a woman would be content to only make 80% of household spending decisions.


----------



## soccermom2three

My brother is 44 and has never been married. I'm not sure what I could tell him to want to get married. He does what he wants, when he wants. I mean, pretty much what you listed is his life. In addition to that, at his age he's probably set in his ways. I do worry about him that he might be lonely though, especially as he gets older. He's never had a LTR and he's never introduced a significant other.

All of his friends are married with kids so he's definitely observed some marriage dynamics. In our parent's marriage, my Dad was a "nice guy" and was a bit whipped, (my mom could really be a nag). I'm thinking after growing up and witnessing that dynamic, my brother decided marriage wasn't for him, lol.


----------



## unbelievable

Your brother can still have a LTR or as many short meaningful ones as he wishes. My dogs and kids love me but we didn't get the government involved in making a contract. Back in my single years I was neither lonely nor lacking for female companionship. I would also point out there are lots of lonely married folks. I don't believe we can say that marriage offers a guarantee against loneliness, or even celibacy, for that matter.


----------



## unbelievable

In 2009, there were 158 million women in the US compared to 153 million men. 58% of adult men were married but only 55% of women were. Depending on which study one cites, upwards of 50% of married women cheat. A single man in the U.S. should have no trouble finding female compansionship. The way I figure, nearly 75% of adult women could be considered possible relationship candidates for a single guy. 81% of adult women in the U.S. are mothers and only 55% married, so that leaves a pretty target-saturated environment, just in the United States.


----------



## soccermom2three

Oh, I agree with you regarding being lonely in a marriage. I think my worry is a big sister/little brother thing. I hope he's not holding himself back from having a meaningful relationship with someone because of fear or some other factor. I want him to be happy and if that's being single that's fine with me.


----------



## unbelievable

Couples who have been married 50+ years were born into an entirely different country with very different values than the current selection field typically produces. I could pretty quickly list all the marital advantages for men from the dawn of time all the way to 1970. After that, it gets pretty tough.


----------



## unbelievable

This is pretty sad. A marriage forum and I can't get one tangible male benefit with with which I could recommend the institution to some young guy considering it? The benefits of marriage to society and to kids are enormous and many. Men are rational creatures. There ought to be some obvious benefit to them if we expect to have a decent, productive, law-abiding society for much longer.


----------



## Mavash.

Just playing devils advocate but that life sounds incredibly boring.

Doesn't playing the perpetual bachelor get old?

Doesn't dating and a string of relationships get tiring?

I guess you could find a woman who doesn't want kids or marriage but they'd likely be older and past child rearing years.

I guess my thinking is this is great for a problem free life but its kinda empty to me.

Disclaimer: I'm happily married with 3 kids.


----------



## unbelievable

Right. It'd be far more exciting to be a thankless drone, laboring for 50 years for the privilege of being told what's wrong with you.


----------



## Thebes

That is true if you remain single and childless you will have more control over your time and money. However when you are older there may not be anyone there that is willing to help you or look out for you if you become ill. A nursing home may be your only alternative and there may be no one to look in on you to make sure you are taken care of.


----------



## unbelievable

If you get married there might not be anyone there next year and certainly not at the end of your life. I wonder how many nursing home resident are or were married. I'm guessing almost every one.


----------



## Shoshannah

unbelievable said:


> This is pretty sad. A marriage forum and I can't get one tangible male benefit with with which I could recommend the institution to some young guy considering it? The benefits of marriage to society and to kids are enormous and many. Men are rational creatures. There ought to be some obvious benefit to them if we expect to have a decent, productive, law-abiding society for much longer.


 There are no guarantees in life, whether married or single. A man who is married to a woman who loves and respects him will receive long term emotional support and encouragement. He will have affection, someone to listen to and support him through all of life. A woman who loves her husband will have his back, no matter what. When he loses his job, wrecks the car, or goes through the failures life inevitably brings, she will be there beside him, rooting for him and making sacrifices for him. A girlfriend, no matter how long term, will never have as much invested in a man as a wife can. 

Here's a super tangible advantage: both of my grandmothers cared for my grandfathers through the end years, strokes, broken hips and the end stages of old age. In turn, myself and my parents cared for my grandmothers as they aged and later died. Now my parents are taking care of each other. My husband knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will care for him until the end, if need be. The fact is, men die at younger ages than women statistically, but they go through the health problems related to aging before they die. Who will take care of them? Money isn't everything when it comes to loving care through sickness and old age. I know of a very high end nursing home. The people there have everything materially they could possibly want but they are homesick and love starved. That includes the single men. My husband and I believe that we help each other make decisions, big and small. I know we work better together than separately.


----------



## Sanity

This is actually a great post and IMHO I place a lot of blame on feminism convincing a generation of women that giving anything to a man means they are being exploited. Men are bashed in this country for showing any sign of manliness yet we are expected to take it.

Furthermore, to answer your question, I can't give you a good reason to marry given today's male punitive divorce laws. If you have any sort of substantial assets, you are literally playing financial Russian roulette when things don't work out. So a man works his ass off for years, builds a nice chuck of wealth just to have a greedy/scornful/entitled women ask for "go away money". I've seen it happen way too many times to be dismissed as "I'm generalizing".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## twin

Tangible means touchable, but the most important things in my life are not "things" at all. No amount of money can give me what I value most, health and happiness. I'm a woman, so I might have a different perspective, I think the benefit is having a partner in this journey of life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faiora

Absolutely there are tangible benefits. 

None of the drawbacks you have mentioned apply if you find a woman who wants the same things - freedom to have sex with other people, separated finances (involving a prenup), and so on. You could certainly get ahead financially by sharing a residence, food, etc. - mind you, you don't need to be married to do that. So the tangible benefits are then tax benefits, shared insurance plans, and the like. Those are pretty big financial items.

And of course (here the non-tangible benefits you were avoiding in your list), if you find someone you get along well with (which is kind of the idea), then ideally you will be happier overall with them than without them. There's a lot of cynicism on this board about marriage, but as someone with an SO of 12 years, my relationship is happy and has improved my life and my SO's life. My SO is my best friend and I wouldn't be as happy living without him. I know I'm not the only one, so I guess the trick is to learn what kind of person will be a good friend for you long term, build your teamwork skills, and drop a bit of your ego. 

Why would you discount the non-tangible benefits when trying to (not) recommend marriage to some boy? The non-tangible drawbacks are often discussed fully, so that pretty much results in a biased and cynical viewpoint along the lines of "it's only worth it if you can get money out of it." 

I guess you have your priorities figured out. *shrugs*


----------



## Oldrandwisr

There is no one good answer, other than "it depends". 

From the priorities you listed, most of them are financial. A prenuptial takes care of most concerns in that department. 

It depends upon your other priorities in life. Most people marry because they like the stability of knowing who will be there with them five, ten, twenty years from now and on. There is something beyond words for having a relationship with a person for that length of time. If someone is mature and rational enough, they are dependable to remain a team with you.

I know some people who think like you and are happy their entire lives also. It's probably not much different to vow to be alone than the vow the nuns or monks make. Do you have family you trust to be in your life well into your old age?

This is the short answer, but many valid points from other perspectives have already been made.


----------



## Viseral

There are no benefits for men to marry anymore. In fact, I would say that marriage, as it's currently defined, is mostly disadvantageous to men.

This hits close to home because I'm considering marrying for the second time. My first marriage lasted two years, no children, and the divorce cost me over $150k.

What really bothers me is No-Fault divorce. It means that my wife could leave me at any time, on a whim, or for any reason, take the kids, take half the assets, and make me a wage slave for decades to come.

Knowing that that could happen at any time is like living with a gun to your head.

So why am I considering it again? Because I love my girlfriend. I want to know the love of a child and a family. Marriage is a pre-requisite for children in my girlfriends family.

But I won't do it without a solid pre-nup and separate finances. If she doesn't agree then I'll have to let her go.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> If you get married there might not be anyone there next year and certainly not at the end of your life. I wonder how many nursing home resident are or were married. I'm guessing almost every one.


Every countries has different norms. In my country, the family ties are very strong. We still find several generations of a family living together at the same big house. My wife has some aunts and uncles who are not married, and are now getting old, but since they lives at the same house with their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, grand nieces, grand nephews, etc, they are not alone. And family members takes care of each other.


----------



## Lyris

Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.

My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.

My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him. 

Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him. 

Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.

Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

twin said:


> Tangible means touchable, but the most important things in my life are not "things" at all. No amount of money can give me what I value most, health and happiness. I'm a woman, so I might have a different perspective, I think the benefit is having a partner in this journey of life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You can have that without a marriage contract.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Lyris said:


> Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.
> 
> My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.
> 
> My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him.
> 
> Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him.
> 
> Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.
> 
> Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.


If all wives were like you then we'd have the answer. But of course most aren't. You're an asset but most are a liability.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Shoshannah said:


> There are no guarantees in life, whether married or single. *A man who is married to a woman who loves and respects him will receive long term emotional support and encouragement. He will have affection, someone to listen to and support him through all of life. A woman who loves her husband will have his back, no matter what. When he loses his job, wrecks the car, or goes through the failures life inevitably brings, she will be there beside him, rooting for him and making sacrifices for him. *A girlfriend, no matter how long term, will never have as much invested in a man as a wife can.
> 
> Here's a super tangible advantage: both of my grandmothers cared for my grandfathers through the end years, strokes, broken hips and the end stages of old age. In turn, myself and my parents cared for my grandmothers as they aged and later died. Now my parents are taking care of each other. My husband knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I will care for him until the end, if need be. The fact is, men die at younger ages than women statistically, but they go through the health problems related to aging before they die. Who will take care of them? Money isn't everything when it comes to loving care through sickness and old age. I know of a very high end nursing home. The people there have everything materially they could possibly want but they are homesick and love starved. That includes the single men. My husband and I believe that we help each other make decisions, big and small. I know we work better together than separately.


Beautiful Post... purely my line of thinking as well.  

I Love being married...for me, 2 will always be superior to one.... if my husband wasn't the marrying type, I would have walked away quickly...

The day IS here where the incentives to marry for men are simply LESS than the benefits... it's hard for even me to disagree from a man's perspective.... 

I feel only women can turn this around.. we hold more Power than we will ever realize .... 

Unbelievable, I know you are a Christian man... so this article will not offend you... I just read this ...and so much of it.. I resonate with ....to how our roles were INTENDED to be in the lives of our men....and ...oh My ...what a difference it would make in this thing called Marriage... 

The Power of a Woman (just a sampling at the beginning...)... 



> Marriage is intended to be redemptive for both men and women. God has given us women the privilege and the ability to bring life to our husbands with our love. Women have enormous power with men, and we can use it for good or for evil.
> 
> A woman's power over men has not lessened since those biblical days. Today, the advertising industry exploits this power in order to sell everything from cars to toothpaste. Magazines, billboards, posters, and store windows use attractive women, seductive women, and blatant sexual images to catch a man's glance and capture his attention.
> 
> Every day men walk away from wives, children, friends, parents, siblings—risking career and reputation. For what? Another woman.
> 
> Female attraction can be deadly. But death was not our Designer's intention. Feminine power was intended to give life. Eve, as a woman, was designed to complete her man, to nurture life in him and to create new life in children....
> 
> Many wives do not understand how profound this power is. God has blessed you with a feminine ability that you can use for great good in your husband's life. God has plans for your man. He wants to use you to grow him into a godly man. Your power can meet his aloneness and his companionship needs, affirm his sexual identity, protect him from temptation, and keep him for life....


nearing the ending...I felt this was explained well....



> *Keep him for life*
> 
> When we stated our vows at the wedding altar, most of us repeated the words "*to have and to hold*" and "*till death do us part.*" We signed up for life. But have you ever thought about what it means to "have" and "hold" your husband?
> 
> To have implies a possession. It means he belongs to you and no one else. He is your responsibility, and you are his. Are you fulfilling your sexual responsibility? For frequency? Creativity? Have you turned him down more often than you have invited his love? Do you put his needs before or after those of your children or your work?
> 
> To hold means to keep or bond, much like a magnet. A magnet has the power within to pull another polar opposite to itself. My husband and I are virtual opposites in nearly every way. It's what attracted us to each other in the first place. But I must continue to be a magnet in his life if I am to keep him. Too many women would love to have him if I let him leave home for work or travel constantly in a state of sexual deprivation. First Corinthians 7:5 (NKJV) tells us, "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to ... prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
> 
> This may come as no surprise to you, but most men want—really want—their wives to passionately desire them. And when you express sexual longing for him—whether verbally or nonverbally—your husband is unlikely to refuse your magnetic power.


----------



## jay_gatsby

unbelievable said:


> Actually, I don't believe it does work equally as well for women. If you become pregnant, married or otherwise, you become legally entitled to certain support. A guy can't get pregnant and he has little control over whether a woman chooses to, with or without his involvement or knowledge, married or otherwise.
> 
> Right or wrong, men typically do earn somewhat more than women and we statistically live shorter lives. That favors the majority of women, financially and disadvantages most men.
> 
> Statistically, women make 80% of household spending decisions, so even if the wife (or cohabitating partner) earns 50% of household income, the guy is still disadvantaged.
> 
> For a single guy to improve his financial position through marriage he would have to marry a woman who made at least four or five times his salary, assuming such a woman would be content to only make 80% of household spending decisions.


How did you come up with 4-5x? I think 2-3x is worth it...


----------



## Bottled Up

So many people find this question fascinating, whereas I find it a little annoying. The obvious tangible benefit to marriage is marriage itself. If you don't want to experience it then don't partake in it, simple as that.

Don't try and turn marriage into a car sale... When you start wrapping all these Worldly assets into it and how they benefit only you, then you're missing the whole point of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lenzi

Bottled Up said:


> The obvious tangible benefit to marriage is marriage itself.


I would say that's the _only_ tangible benefit.

And of course, that really isn't _any_ benefit at all.

Young successful men are less likely to get married nowadays because let's face it.. the guys from generations before them have worked their butts off for years to provide for their families, only to get shafted by having to continue to support their wives and children after they've outlived their usefulness.

Typically they're left with so little that their standard of living is shattered.

Sure it sometimes happens the other way around and the woman is the one who pays the heavy price but that's the exception.

And today, guys know it. Only the women are to blame for it. As well as they're attorneys and the skewed court system.


----------



## Bottled Up

I understand the premise of all the logic tied into every claim and statistic stated here on how any individual could be "better off" without marriage... But the question is designed to pit people against each other for that specific reason.

The question is designed to be selfish while supporting selfish agenda with statistics. It's designed to ignore the wonder of how beautiful a working marriage could be if two souls really gave it their all to make it a wonderful marriage.

Marriage is the only tangible benefit you need if you stop concerning yourself with personal gain and consider the beauty of sharing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Seems to me that if a young man doesn't want to get married, then he shouldn't. And I would never presume to convince him otherwise.

If his primary concern is ensuring that he has full control over his finances and gets to do what he wants, when he wants, then avoiding marriage is likely a good idea.

However, I would point out that for many men regular sex isn't as easily achieved as the OP suggests. Yes, some good looking men will have many women interested in them, but many will just be lonely.

And if they want kids, they will have to adopt and be a single parent.

And they may find that they are lacking companionship, or someone who cares about them when they're sick or going through hard times.

And if they are lucky, they will choose someone who supports them financially, does most of the household chores, is very much into sex, and looks after him in multiple ways. That's what my h did.


----------



## Nynaeve

unbelievable said:


> Assume you are talking to a single, employed male with no particular aspirations of raising children. What, if any, benefits could he expect from marriage?
> 
> If he remains single, his living expenses will be 1/3 or less of that required if he marries.


But if he marries a woman who is employed, he could have double or more income.

If the expenses are 1/3 more but the income is 2 times more you still end up with more disposable income.



> If he remains single, he has more discretionary time, more disposable income, and he will exercise 100% control over how he spends both.


Some people enjoy the support of another person in making decisions about spending money and use of discretionary time. Not everyone is a loner. It can be quite beneficial to have someone to brainstorm with. Friends, even spouses, often invite us to do things that we might not have thought about doing that we end up enjoying. For example, I introduced my husband to golf. He thought he wouldn't like it. Turns out he loves it and is very good at it.



> If he remains single and childless, he will incur no risk of losing anything he has or any future earnings due to domestic litigation.


If he gets a vasectomy, he won't need to worry about child support. And if his wife is employed, he won't pay alimony.

He could even get a pre-nup to protect his assets if he's that worried about it.



> If he remains single he can have sex as frequently and with as many partners as he chooses.


Married people statistically have sex more frequently than single people.

And for some people, variety of partners isn't a plus. So, depending on the man, having one partner is a bonus. And the dating game is a chore for a lot of people, not so easy to find people to have sex with them.



> If he remains single, he will retain 100% control over his environment, his diet, his funds, his time, his associations, his appearance, etc, etc, etc.


Does he really, though? Doesn't his job already control his environment, his diet, his funds, his time, his associations, his appearance, etc? At least to a certain extent? Is anyone really 100% in control of these things?



> How could you sell him on the idea that marriage would benefit him in any way?


I honestly wouldn't try to if these are his priorities. If a person doesn't believe marriage will offer him or her any benefits then marriage is not for that person. It's no skin of my nose if some people choose not to get married.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Lyris said:


> Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.
> 
> My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.
> 
> My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him.
> 
> Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him.
> 
> Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.
> 
> Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.





WorkingOnMe said:


> If all wives were like you then we'd have the answer. But of course most aren't. You're an asset but most are a liability.



:iagree::smthumbup::iagree:

I agree, any men whom are able to have a wife like Mrs. Lyris describe, are blessed in heaven and earth.

Maybe some men already have such wife, but for some reasons does not realize their own fortune, and mistreated her to such extend that they got divorced. In my country we have a saying "bodoh kuadrat" for such husband (meaning: doubly stupid)

On the other hand, many men think they got a dream wife, and end up getting someone whom are the exact opposite of a dream wife.

So, the risk are still there. 

My advice for young men is to look for a wife like Mrs. Lyris described above. But if you cannot find one, then don't bother getting married.


----------



## See_Listen_Love

- Giving reasons to marry, benefits for the single person?


No, there are no tangible benefits. statistically.

Life sucks, and more people, more misery.


BUT


We are programmed to fall in love, because evolutionary genitics, or Gods creation, drive us to procreate, against or will, if we had one.

So only the lone ranger stays alone, the rest of us are prone to the usual problems of relations in real life. 

And the accompanying illusions of happiness.

And the benefit of social companionship, friendship, real love, making love, intimacy and maybe other things, that can be part of a LTR like marriage.


----------



## unbelievable

john_lord_b3 said:


> Every countries has different norms. In my country, the family ties are very strong. We still find several generations of a family living together at the same big house. My wife has some aunts and uncles who are not married, and are now getting old, but since they lives at the same house with their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, grand nieces, grand nephews, etc, they are not alone. And family members takes care of each other.


I do apologize. I had modern marriage in the United States in mind when I posted the question. I haven't developed any jaded opinions regarding the institution as it is practiced elsewhere. Your arrangement for end of life care sounds like our norm until the last few decades. We have lost our minds over here and now we have government programs and urine smelling buildings with unusually happy sounding names to take care of our elderly. I understand we will soon be just shoving them toward the light.


----------



## VeggieMom

Studies show that people who are married live longer than lifelong single people.

That being said, I have noticed a HUGE difference in the aging process of women who were married vs people who remained single by choice. I have seen this amongst my high school friends (now 20+ years out), my aunt who remained unmarried and childless, a couple of co-workers too. They look younger and age better. I think it must be all those sleepless nights caring for babies, the havoc pregnancies and nursing does on our bodies, and marriage is stressful. Even the happiest marriages, so my happily married friends tell me, are stressful. And, your money is stretched a lot more which can be stressful too.


----------



## unbelievable

Bottled Up said:


> I understand the premise of all the logic tied into every claim and statistic stated here on how any individual could be "better off" without marriage... But the question is designed to pit people against each other for that specific reason.
> 
> The question is designed to be selfish while supporting selfish agenda with statistics. It's designed to ignore the wonder of how beautiful a working marriage could be if two souls really gave it their all to make it a wonderful marriage.
> 
> Marriage is the only tangible benefit you need if you stop concerning yourself with personal gain and consider the beauty of sharing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No sane person does anything their own self-interest. If women didn't believe they would be better off married, they wouldn't get married. If that's selfish, so be it. Men are rational creatures. We don't operate well in this nebulous world of platitudes and BS. The sad reality is that fewer and fewer guys are getting married. The benefits of marriage that were obvious to their male ancestors have largely disappeared. Society used to honor men and now it ridicules them or punishes them for acting like men. Might be why you see so many 30 year old men acting like kids. This sucks for society because kids growing up without a dad in the home statistically do less well in school and are more likely to grow to be violent little goblins and unemployable drains on society. If we don't want to be hacked to pieces in our sleep and taxed at 90%, we might want to figure out how to make marriage a little more appealing to men.


----------



## unbelievable

Lyris said:


> Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.
> 
> My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.
> 
> My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him.
> 
> Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him.
> 
> Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.
> 
> Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.


No doubt about it, that's a sweet deal for any man and if it were the norm, I could sell even the toughest cynic on marriage using your example.


----------



## unbelievable

VeggieMom said:


> Studies show that people who are married live longer than lifelong single people.
> 
> That being said, I have noticed a HUGE difference in the aging process of women who were married vs people who remained single by choice. I have seen this amongst my high school friends (now 20+ years out), my aunt who remained unmarried and childless, a couple of co-workers too. They look younger and age better. I think it must be all those sleepless nights caring for babies, the havoc pregnancies and nursing does on our bodies, and marriage is stressful. Even the happiest marriages, so my happily married friends tell me, are stressful. And, your money is stretched a lot more which can be stressful too.


Married men live longer because they can't afford to die.


----------



## Nynaeve

I don't understand the point of this thread.

If you don't want to marry, you don't have to. No one is going to force you to.

What is the point of trying to convince married people that there's no benefit to marriage? 

Also, it sounds to me like it isn't marriage that is the worst thing for men, but divorce. So... what's your end game here? You want to convince married people that marriage doesn't have benefits. But if they want to be single and enjoy all the benefits of singleness, they have to divorce. But divorce is where the pain really starts, it's after marriage that things get real bad.

So, yeah, what's the point again?


----------



## treyvion

unbelievable said:


> Actually, I don't believe it does work equally as well for women. If you become pregnant, married or otherwise, you become legally entitled to certain support. A guy can't get pregnant and he has little control over whether a woman chooses to, with or without his involvement or knowledge, married or otherwise.
> 
> Right or wrong, men typically do earn somewhat more than women and we statistically live shorter lives. That favors the majority of women, financially and disadvantages most men.
> 
> Statistically, women make 80% of household spending decisions, so even if the wife (or cohabitating partner) earns 50% of household income, the guy is still disadvantaged.
> 
> For a single guy to improve his financial position through marriage he would have to marry a woman who made at least four or five times his salary, assuming such a woman would be content to only make 80% of household spending decisions.


The reason some marry or settle with one, is all the time changing out and chasing and getting to know relationship partners can be bypassed by picking one who works well with you and both of your needs are met. Plus the risk for diseases and people getting into your business.


----------



## unbelievable

Nynaeve said:


> I don't understand the point of this thread.
> 
> If you don't want to marry, you don't have to. No one is going to force you to.
> 
> What is the point of trying to convince married people that there's no benefit to marriage?
> 
> Also, it sounds to me like it isn't marriage that is the worst thing for men, but divorce. So... what's your end game here? You want to convince married people that marriage doesn't have benefits. But if they want to be single and enjoy all the benefits of singleness, they have to divorce. But divorce is where the pain really starts, it's after marriage that things get real bad.
> 
> So, yeah, what's the point again?


I'm already married. The point is, American men are choosing to not marry and doing so in rapidly increasing numbers. Society suffers in a number of ways when marriage rates decline. Less marriage results in more women and children on welfare. It results in lower academic performance of kids and higher delinquency for boys. Generationally, it will only get worse because more and more kids won't have an idea what a healthy marriage looks like.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> I do apologize. I had modern marriage in the United States in mind when I posted the question. I haven't developed any jaded opinions regarding the institution as it is practiced elsewhere. Your arrangement for end of life care sounds like our norm until the last few decades. We have lost our minds over here and now we have government programs and urine smelling buildings with unusually happy sounding names to take care of our elderly. I understand we will soon be just shoving them toward the light.


No apologies necessary! This is just a socio-cultural comparison after all. In regards to the decline of large-clan system in your country..surely there are rational consideration which made Americans decided to abandon the concept of large clan-house and opts for smaller family-units. Maybe the need for being independent in decision making/not allowing the clan to dictate personal opinion is also an appealing concept. But, if I may ask, what would happen to a 70 years old ailing bachelor in your country, who has no family to take care of him? What options are available to him, if he is not very rich? You mentioned government programs. Are those available to all Americans, or only for retired State employees?


----------



## Viseral

If men had legal protections within marriage, and also moral traditions that valued men, then marriage would be a more appealing prospect. For example:

- Bring back fault based divorce
- Grant fathers more rights to their children
- Limit financial awards given to ex spouses
- Abolish alimony
- Have common sense child support regulations
- Have balanced moral traditions, i.e. the man gets a gift of equal value to engagement ring and/or wedding.
- Establish equal rights and equal responsibilities between the genders.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> If men had legal protections within marriage, and also moral traditions that valued men, then marriage would be a more appealing prospect. For example:
> 
> - Bring back fault based divorce
> - Limit financial awards given to ex spouses
> - Abolish alimony
> - Have common sense child support regulations
> - Have balanced moral traditions, i.e. the man gets a gift of equal value to engagement ring and/or wedding.
> - Establish equal rights and equal responsibilities between the genders.


Mr. Viseral, I have read TAM and gleaned a little, but I am not really familiar with laws in your country, so could you please explain a little about what is "fault based divorce" and "financial awards given to ex spouses"? I have very partial understanding about this and would love to hear more.


----------



## Lyris

unbelievable said:


> No doubt about it, that's a sweet deal for any man and if it were the norm, I could sell even the toughest cynic on marriage using your example.


I'm not perfect by any stretch. I'm messy, not that organised and I lose paperwork really easily.

But I'm a good person, my husband is a good person and we are good together. My parents have a good marriage.. There are lots of examples of good marriages in my extended family, as well as some less successful ones. 

I don't think it's marriage that's the problem. It's people. Find the right person, treat them well, expect them to respect you and don't tolerate anything less.


----------



## Viseral

john_lord_b3 said:


> Mr. Viseral, I have read TAM and gleaned a little, but I am not really familiar with laws in your country, so could you please explain a little about what is "fault based divorce" and "financial awards given to ex spouses"? I have very partial understanding about this and would love to hear more.


Fault Based Divorce: Means your spouse can't cheat on you, take half the assets, then expect to be paid via alimony and child support. In modern marriage, as it's currently defined, it's perfectly legal to do that. Immoral behavior is financially rewarded, and there's a financial incentive to seek divorce. The financial incentive for divorce needs to be removed.

Financial Awards Given to Ex Spouses: Example, if a man earns 50 million dollars, and then he gets married, and after a while his wife decides to divorce him under "no-fault" divorce laws, she is entitled to receive up to 25 million dollars, for doing nothing more than saying "I Do". True story. There needs to be common sense limitations on the financial awards given to ex spouses.

Time to revamp the laws that govern marriage/divorce to accommodate the change in gender roles we've experienced over the past 40 years.

Time to move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0.


----------



## Caribbean Man

This thread could be deemed pointless...
_If the statistics were not true._

The reason behind the statistics is that love just ain't what it used to be, and that's the reason our fore parents had longer lasting marriages.
Somehow, somewhere politics has taken the place of good , old fashioned values like romance,honour, ethics and respect.
Even if two people find themselves compatible , [ which is becoming very rare ] and get married ,the issue of
_" political correctness "_ will inevitably arise.

In our fore parents days, men were expected to practice chivalry.
In these " progressive " times, male chivalry is viewed as an insult to gender equality.

In our fore parents days , men were expected to love , provide for and most of all protect women. That's why men who physically beat women were considered as cowards.
I these " progressive " times, some women scoff at the idea that a man _could and should _ physically protect them.

And the list goes on.

Everything that was used to define maleness became politically incorrect, and also to a certain extent ,those things that has for ages been regarded as desirable feminine traits in women.

Having stripped both genders of the psychological and physiological differences , we are now left with empty shells , trying to function in a capacity we were designed to function, minus the historical, social constructs. 

These social constructs didn't just " appear" out of thin air, they are the product of generations of careful observation and adaptations to suit the purpose of building civilizations.
It is foolhardy to think that we can simply discard these constructs, that has worked to build the advanced civilization we now enjoy, without any repercussions.

Its like having the latest design SUV, fuel efficient , environmentally friendly engine , best safety devices , best GPS navigational devices ,best anti lock braking system, computerized, independent hydraulic systems, and no wheels.

The wheel being the oldest invention that has enabled mechanics and mobility since the birth of civilization.
And love, sound family values, respect, honour and understanding for the differences between genders being the foundation of any successful marriage, since the birth of civilization.


----------



## Sanity

Viseral said:


> If men had legal protections within marriage, and also moral traditions that valued men, then marriage would be a more appealing prospect. For example:
> 
> - Bring back fault based divorce
> - Grant fathers more rights to their children
> - Limit financial awards given to ex spouses
> - Abolish alimony
> - Have common sense child support regulations
> - Have balanced moral traditions, i.e. the man gets a gift of equal value to engagement ring and/or wedding.
> - Establish equal rights and equal responsibilities between the genders.



Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I cannot understand why in any sane society this is not considered common sense. When you cheat or cause irreparable harm to your marriage there should be personal and financial consequences. My best friends ex actually mentioned alimony and other unreasonable financial concessions after having a sex buffet with multiple men. Are you serious? The law should be clear on this and punish accordingly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unbelievable

john_lord_b3 said:


> No apologies necessary! This is just a socio-cultural comparison after all. In regards to the decline of large-clan system in your country..surely there are rational consideration which made Americans decided to abandon the concept of large clan-house and opts for smaller family-units. Maybe the need for being independent in decision making/not allowing the clan to dictate personal opinion is also an appealing concept. But, if I may ask, what would happen to a 70 years old ailing bachelor in your country, who has no family to take care of him? What options are available to him, if he is not very rich? You mentioned government programs. Are those available to all Americans, or only for retired State employees?


Nothing rational was going on in that process, as least, not for our long term success. About 1937, FDR bullied our Supreme Court into changing their interpretation of our Constitution so it would allow taxpayer funds to be used for individual pensions of private citizens. It got another boost in 1965 by President Johnson. After that, it was a downhill spiral of politicians getting elected by selling private citizens promises of public goodies. As it turns out, envy and greed are very effective campaign appeals. Why take care of granny or even your own kids if you can shove them off on your neighbors?


----------



## treyvion

Viseral said:


> Fault Based Divorce: Means your spouse can't cheat on you, take half the assets, then expect to be paid via alimony and child support. In modern marriage, as it's currently defined, it's perfectly legal to do that. Immoral behavior is financially rewarded, and there's a financial incentive to seek divorce. The financial incentive for divorce needs to be removed.
> 
> Financial Awards Given to Ex Spouses: Example, if a man earns 50 million dollars, and then he gets married, and after a while his wife decides to divorce him under "no-fault" divorce laws, she is entitled to receive up to 25 million dollars, for doing nothing more than saying "I Do". True story. There needs to be common sense limitations on the financial awards given to ex spouses.
> 
> Time to revamp the laws that govern marriage/divorce to accommodate the change in gender roles we've experienced over the past 40 years.
> 
> Time to move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0.


I learned when I was on the West Coast, that some females where marrying males KNOWING they were going to divorce them after some amount of time. The entire point was to get a nice tear out of his earnings. Theres a good percentage of people with this exact mindset.


----------



## toomuchtotell

Viseral said:


> If men had legal protections within marriage, and also moral traditions that valued men, then marriage would be a more appealing prospect. For example:
> 
> - Bring back fault based divorce
> - Grant fathers more rights to their children
> - Limit financial awards given to ex spouses
> - Abolish alimony
> - Have common sense child support regulations
> - Have balanced moral traditions, i.e. the man gets a gift of equal value to engagement ring and/or wedding.
> - Establish equal rights and equal responsibilities between the genders.


Divorce may be more beneficial for women, but marriage seems to be more beneficial for men. Studies show that married men are happier than unmarried men, and men are less likely to file for divorce than women. It is also known that even in households where both the husband and wife are equal breadwinners, women still end up with more of the housework and child-rearing responsibilities. Men have more flexibility with regards to their career and aren't judged as being a bad parent if they work long hours or travel for business. Men can enjoy a house full of children without ever dealing with 9 months of potential agony and permanent bodily disfiguration from pregnancy. its so much easier for men to 'have it all' - career, kids etc.. if they so choose. 

I had also read how men so are many more times likely to bail on a marriage when the wife is ill, and it is not so when the husband is ill. which shows that men are more likely to be the recipients of nurturing and support in marriage. Marriage seems to be a sweet deal for men. It's divorce where they get the short end of the stick, which in some respects I do feel the courts favoring women does somewhat even out the imbalance. It does go too far in some ways, though. 

Oh, and regarding engagement rings, I actually find that to be a moral tradition balanced in the favor of men rather than women. The ring is like a visible badge of ownership, telling other men that the woman is now "off the market". I always thought that both the man and women should wear an engagment ring (or neither should wear one).


----------



## treyvion

toomuchtotell said:


> Divorce may be more beneficial for women, but marriage seems to be more beneficial for men. Studies show that married men are happier than unmarried men, and men are less likely to file for divorce than women. It is also known that even in households where both the husband and wife are equal breadwinners, women still end up with more of the housework and child-rearing responsibilities. Men have more flexibility with regards to their career and aren't judged as being a bad parent if they work long hours or travel for business. Men can enjoy a house full of children without ever dealing with 9 months of potential agony and permanent bodily disfiguration from pregnancy. its so much easier for men to 'have it all' - career, kids etc.. if they so choose.
> 
> I had also read how men so are many more times likely to bail on a marriage when the wife is ill, and it is not so when the husband is ill. which shows that men are more likely to be the recipients of nurturing and support in marriage. Marriage seems to be a sweet deal for men. It's divorce where they get the short end of the stick, which in some respects I do feel the courts favoring women does somewhat even out the imbalance. It does go too far in some ways, though.
> 
> Oh, and regarding engagement rings, I actually find that to be a moral tradition balanced in the favor of men rather than women. The ring is like a visible badge of ownership, telling other men that the woman is now "off the market". I always thought that both the man and women should wear an engagment ring (or neither should wear one).


From my observation, "very happily married" women age better than ones who never came out of the single game.


----------



## unbelievable

Of course men are less likely to file for divorce. That isn't an indication that they're happier than women. It means most men aren't crazy. The decision of a wife to divorce typically means she gets a guaranteed check every month, probably the house, and maybe she has to let her ex see the kids one weekend every couple weeks. Boo Hoo. The same decision for a guy means he basically loses his kids and at least half his present property and at least 1/3 of his future earnings for the next 18 years. In short, his duty to support these people through his labor will continue but whatever benefit he had been getting from marriage ends. Her standard of living decreases a little, his decreases a whole lot.


----------



## toomuchtotell

unbelievable said:


> Of course men are less likely to file for divorce. That isn't an indication that they're happier than women. It means most men aren't crazy. The decision of a wife to divorce typically means she gets a guaranteed check every month, probably the house, and maybe she has to let her ex see the kids one weekend every couple weeks. Boo Hoo. The same decision for a guy means he basically loses his kids and at least half his present property and at least 1/3 of his future earnings for the next 18 years. In short, his duty to support these people through his labor will continue but whatever benefit he had been getting from marriage ends. Her standard of living decreases a little, his decreases a whole lot.


The only opinion you are stating above is that divorce sucks for men. You are stating it there yourself that men benefit very much by being married...it's just that they lose those benefits if they get divorced. With regards to alimony and child support.."these people" that you are referring to are your children and the mother of your children. Yes you absolutely should be supporting them finanicaly, married or unmarried. You made the decision to do that when you agreed to procreate.


----------



## Catherine602

unbelievable said:


> No sane person does anything their own self-interest. If women didn't believe they would be better off married, they wouldn't get married. If that's selfish, so be it. Men are rational creatures. We don't operate well in this nebulous world of platitudes and BS. The sad reality is that fewer and fewer guys are getting married. The benefits of marriage that were obvious to their male ancestors have largely disappeared. Society used to honor men and now it ridicules them or punishes them for acting like men. Might be why you see so many 30 year old men acting like kids. This sucks for society because kids growing up without a dad in the home statistically do less well in school and are more likely to grow to be violent little goblins and unemployable drains on society. If we don't want to be hacked to pieces in our sleep and taxed at 90%, we might want to figure out how to make marriage a little more appealing to men.


Every kid has a dad.

What gave you the idea that they don't? Does anyone else find it strange that the parent who stays and cares for their children is not honored but denigrated?

Could that be the crux of the problem? If our culture honored adult maleness the problem of single parenthood would be halved. 

The second statement in red is what this is all about, No? What's in it for me? 

Not much, if you count your relationship with women in terms of what you can get out of them with as little investment of money, time and emotions as possible. Going into a LTR with that mindset is doomed to fail. 

Staying single for some men seems best. I suspect that since women are so much like men, many will come to the same decision. 

Then the pepetually single men and women can dance around trying to get something from each other. Ode to a Grecian Urn incarnate. 

May the best man win.


----------



## treyvion

toomuchtotell said:


> The only opinion you are stating above is that divorce sucks for men. You are stating it there yourself that men benefit very much by being married...it's just that they lose those benefits if they get divorced. With regards to alimony and child support.."these people" that you are referring to are your children and the mother of your children. Yes you absolutely should be supporting them finanicaly, married or unmarried. You made the decision to do that when you agreed to procreate.


I think a good marriage is a beautiful thing.

However I cannot agree on the "rights" for a man after he gets married. From my perspective you lose the rights.


----------



## unbelievable

Ok, well let's just rephrase. What does society expect a wife to do?


----------



## treyvion

unbelievable said:


> Ok, well let's just rephrase. What does society expect a wife to do?


At this point what society expects is not a good thing at all.


----------



## unbelievable

Catherine602 said:


> Every kid has a dad.
> 
> What gave you the idea that they don't? Does anyone else find it strange that the parent who stays and cares for their children is not honored but denigrated?
> 
> Could that be the crux of the problem? If our culture honored adult maleness the problem of single parenthood would be halved.
> 
> The second statement in red is what this is all about, No? What's in it for me?
> 
> Not much, if you count your relationship with women in terms of what you can get out of them with as little investment of money, time and emotions as possible. Going into a LTR with that mindset is doomed to fail.
> 
> Staying single for some men seems best. I suspect that since women are so much like men, many will come to the same decision.
> 
> Then the pepetually single men and women can dance around trying to get something from each other. Ode to a Grecian Urn incarnate.
> 
> May the best man win.


Every dog was sired but there are valuable working dogs, loved pets, and there are menacing wild dogs. The first two are of benefit to society and society must pay to rid itself or protect itself from the 3d category. The link between father presence in the home and academic achievement as well as adolescent violence prevention is well established. Pretty much every man has sperm, so they are technically capable of siring offspring and many do. That doesn't mean they are fathers in any sense of that word which benefits society. The single most determinative factor concerning teen violence is whether the kid lives with parents who are married. Living together doesn't cut it and joint custody doesn't cut it. The average income of married women far exceeds the average income of divorce or never married women. 75% of those receiving means-tested government support are women with kids. Fewer marriages means greater burden on taxpayers, less productivity because kids aren't as well educated, more violence = more crime = higher property losses, higher government expense for corrections, rehabilitation, security, and enforcement. The more men decide marriage is a rotten deal for them, the more society will suffer. It's just simple math.


----------



## Nynaeve

unbelievable said:


> I'm already married. The point is, American men are choosing to not marry and doing so in rapidly increasing numbers. Society suffers in a number of ways when marriage rates decline. Less marriage results in more women and children on welfare. It results in lower academic performance of kids and higher delinquency for boys. Generationally, it will only get worse because more and more kids won't have an idea what a healthy marriage looks like.


This is all assuming that these men who don't marry are still procreating, though.

The problems would all be avoided if those men just got vasectomies.

So, instead of trying to convince them to marry, why don't we just convince them to make sure not to have children?

If women and children are seen as nothing but a financial burden to those men, then IMHO, those men shouldn't be getting married or having children. That attitude does nothing to strengthen marriages and, IMHO, is only likely to hasten a divorce. How would those men feel if their wives only ever gave to them begrudgingly? 

What a jaded outlook on life that is. To see other human beings as only a drain on one's own resources.


----------



## treyvion

toomuchtotell said:


> Divorce may be more beneficial for women, but marriage seems to be more beneficial for men. Studies show that married men are happier than unmarried men


You would have to differentiate between happily married men and unhappily married men. Unhappily married men are less happy than a single, and happily married men are more happier than a single.


----------



## john_lord_b3

treyvion said:


> I learned when I was on the West Coast, that some females where marrying males KNOWING they were going to divorce them after some amount of time. The entire point was to get a nice tear out of his earnings. Theres a good percentage of people with this exact mindset.


 but surely these are extreme cases and not the norm, right?


----------



## treyvion

Catherine602 said:


> Every kid has a dad.
> 
> What gave you the idea that they don't? Does anyone else find it strange that the parent who stays and cares for their children is not honored but denigrated?


Us TAM guys would never denegrate a male or female who is doing the SAHM/SAHD situation, as long as they are benefiting their household. I do realize that society is making a joke of the SAHM situation, but it IS a job and that job improves the quality of life of everyone in the situation.



Catherine602 said:


> Could that be the crux of the problem? If our culture honored adult maleness the problem of single parenthood would be halved.


Adult maleness is denigrated at the current time, it is looked down upon as almost a mental illness, a personality deficiency.



Catherine602 said:


> The second statement in red is what this is all about, No? What's in it for me?


That became the start of all these problems. As adults we have to come to accept there are degrees of badness and goodness in all of us. There are some downright evil tyrants on this world, killers, manipulators, some people get involved with people WHO DO NOT CARE about them. It's more than 1%, there is a huge percentage of people in this world only concerned about how a situation benefits themself.



Catherine602 said:


> Not much, if you count your relationship with women in terms of what you can get out of them with as little investment of money, time and emotions as possible. Going into a LTR with that mindset is doomed to fail.


Both the men and women do this. Men do it, wanting to get all the benefits of a a literal "biblical marriage", or just the sex part met with minimal financial expenditure. Women go into it, looking for support and financial assistance with as little output to no output possible. This is not ALL men, but it's quite more than a "few".



Catherine602 said:


> Staying single for some men seems best. I suspect that since women are so much like men, many will come to the same decision.


Some people have always been single, always look for self first, and should not be married or in serious relationships.



Catherine602 said:


> Then the pepetually single men and women can dance around trying to get something from each other. Ode to a Grecian Urn incarnate.


I agree, it's a ugly thing. I just can't imagine sex between these two being very fulfilling, but they probably get off on the complexity and treachery of the situation...



Catherine602 said:


> May the best man win.


And woman.

I still long for this utopia of a relationship between a man and woman. Of course all the needs being met, but while honoring your committment and doing your part. It's possible!


----------



## unbelievable

toomuchtotell said:


> The only opinion you are stating above is that divorce sucks for men. You are stating it there yourself that men benefit very much by being married...it's just that they lose those benefits if they get divorced. With regards to alimony and child support.."these people" that you are referring to are your children and the mother of your children. Yes you absolutely should be supporting them finanicaly, married or unmarried. You made the decision to do that when you agreed to procreate.


That men have to pay and generally lose out in custody arrangements isn't my opinion. It's well documented. I didn't say men benefited greatly from marriage, only that men might find the pain of marriage preferable to the pain and expense of divorce. Folks in prison aren't happy but they don't usually volunteer for lethal injection.


----------



## unbelievable

treyvion said:


> You would have to differentiate between happily married men and unhappily married men. Unhappily married men are less happy than a single, and happily married men are more happier than a single.


???? Happier men are happier than unhappy men? Ok. I'll agree with that. Is there something about a piece of paper and a ring that made one group happier than the other?


----------



## unbelievable

In a position without a job description, how does one know if they are doing a good job?


----------



## treyvion

unbelievable said:


> That men have to pay and generally lose out in custody arrangements isn't my opinion. It's well documented. I didn't say men benefited greatly from marriage, only that men might find the pain of marriage preferable to the pain and expense of divorce. Folks in prison aren't happy but they don't usually volunteer for lethal injection.


Right.

You get married, and realize you have no rights at all!

You where having sex before, a pretty good appearance of a relationship, and as soon as the ink is dry on the marriage certificates you learn you have no right to support, intimacy, affection and for your other half to do their part.

It feels like being bamboozled!


----------



## Starstarfish

> the man gets a gift of equal value to engagement ring and/or wedding.


I can get on board with the engagement ring thing, but I think the idea of a "gift value" for the wedding is a less tangible thing. First, obviously there's the question of who paid for the wedding. Was it you both together? Was it your parents or hers? Was it a combined effort? That's obviously a lot less cut and dry than the engagement ring if a lot of people went into the pot and paid for it. 

I mean, if you go that route, if you get divorced would you want her parents suing you for the cost to be added to her alimony? Would you try and determine whose family and friends got more "tangible benefits" from the experience because of who ate more or drank more at the open bar? If you had joint finances and both partners worked after the marriage to pay off any remaining wedding debts collectively, how would you determine who contributed which portion?

That sounds like it might cause as many or more problems than it would solve, honestly. And, I think that would be contrary to the idea of making divorces less sticky and burdensome when you start having to calculate whether you think great Aunt Bessie ate a 1/4 or 1/2 cup of that fancy cranberry wild rice pilaf you served.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> Nothing rational was going on in that process, as least, not for our long term success. About 1937, FDR bullied our Supreme Court into changing their interpretation of our Constitution so it would allow taxpayer funds to be used for individual pensions of private citizens. It got another boost in 1965 by President Johnson. After that, it was a downhill spiral of politicians getting elected by selling private citizens promises of public goodies. As it turns out, envy and greed are very effective campaign appeals. Why take care of granny or even your own kids if you can shove them off on your neighbors?


I understand the taxpayer funds for individual pensions thing, we have something like that too here in my country, but for State employees only. So if I am a bachelor who worked 20 years as janitor for State Library, my government has set aside enough tax money for me to sustain me when I am 60 years old and no longer able to dust away the highest book cabinets. So yes, it is possible to live a bachelor in a lifetime, financially speaking, if we are having good job.

But that is only money and being a lifetime bachelor will not give us the pride of being able to say "I have a great wife, wonderful children and overall a happy marriage". Surely that pride should be taken into consideration before deciding upon eternal bachelor-hood..


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> At this point what society expects is not a good thing at all.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:
Which is what I'm trying to say.
We allow society which is hell bent on destroying the old landmarks like the institution of monogamous marriage, to dictate to us what we should expect from our partner in a marriage.


----------



## toomuchtotell

treyvion said:


> You would have to differentiate between happily married men and unhappily married men. Unhappily married men are less happy than a single, and happily married men are more happier than a single.


The point of the survey I was referring to is to rate levels of happiness between the married and unmarried. overall married men were happier than single men. If what you stated above is true, what point would that be making? It's a risk/benefit ratio with an outcome that would not be known until a person is married. The point is that the outcome for marriage is generally more favorable with regards to happiness than staying single. It doesn't mean it's a sure thing for everyone.


----------



## treyvion

toomuchtotell said:


> The point of the survey I was referring to is to rate levels of happiness between the married and unmarried. overall married men were happier than single men. If what you stated above is true, what point would that be making? It's a risk/benefit ratio with an outcome that would not be known until a person is married. The point is that the outcome for marriage is generally more favorable with regards to happiness than staying single. It doesn't mean it's a sure thing for everyone.


Those of us forced to TAM for support were obviously in intolerable situations, our happiness was obviously hurt. There is a good percentage in intolerable situations like us. It's good to hear, that OVERALL the average is "happy", so we need to find a situation that's on the other side of that bar.


----------



## unbelievable

treyvion said:


> Right.
> 
> You get married, and realize you have no rights at all!
> 
> You where having sex before, a pretty good appearance of a relationship, and as soon as the ink is dry on the marriage certificates you learn you have no right to support, intimacy, affection and for your other half to do their part.
> 
> It feels like being bamboozled!


Not very far from the truth. I dated my wife for a few years before marriage. She had a Masters Degree, a full time job where she had been almost 18 years. She jumped my bones for sex basically every day. She even cooked once in a while. We got married and within a year, she quit her job outright. No bennies, no nothing. Sex went to pretty much never. She decided she didn't like to cook, wash dishes, clean house, etc. Without even the slightest exaggeration, she doesn't spend 10 minutes a day contributing to the marriage. I'm sure if she were asked, she'd say she's a great wife and I'm only a marginally acceptable husband. If someone was working double to provide for me, pay off my debts, etc, I'd think I was getting a pretty sweet deal. They'd be coming home to at least a meal. She can barely manage civility most of the time. When she was working, if I were home when she got off work, I always had something prepared for her. I'm no chef, but I didn't let her walk in the door like nobody gave a damn or even noticed she had been gone. She's in bed when I go to work, in bed when I return and nothing but crushed candy and Amazon bills for romance novels to show she's been alive. I'd feel guilty as hell in her position but she, her mother, and every woman who knows her seems to think this is perfectly acceptable, normal, and they wonder why she puts up with me. Most of the guys I work with are married but if not for restaurants or cooking some kind of slop for themselves, they'd starve. In the defense of those wives, I believe all of them work outside the home or have small kids at home. If mine worked outside the home, I wouldn't expect her to do much of anything here. I didn't expect it when she was working. Just seems to me that in a partnership, both parties ought to be doing something worthwhile.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> This thread could be deemed pointless...
> _If the statistics were not true._
> 
> The reason behind the statistics is that love just ain't what it used to be, and that's the reason our fore parents had longer lasting marriages.
> Somehow, somewhere politics has taken the place of good , old fashioned values like romance,honour, ethics and respect.
> Even if two people find themselves compatible , [ which is becoming very rare ] and get married ,the issue of
> _" political correctness "_ will inevitably arise.
> 
> In our fore parents days, men were expected to practice chivalry.
> In these " progressive " times, male chivalry is viewed as an insult to gender equality.
> 
> In our fore parents days , men were expected to love , provide for and most of all protect women. That's why men who physically beat women were considered as cowards.
> I these " progressive " times, some women scoff at the idea that a man _could and should _ physically protect them.
> 
> And the list goes on.
> 
> Everything that was used to define maleness became politically incorrect, and also to a certain extent ,those things that has for ages been regarded as desirable feminine traits in women.
> 
> Having stripped both genders of the psychological and physiological differences , we are now left with empty shells , trying to function in a capacity we were designed to function, minus the historical, social constructs.
> 
> These social constructs didn't just " appear" out of thin air, they are the product of generations of careful observation and adaptations to suit the purpose of building civilizations.
> It is foolhardy to think that we can simply discard these constructs, that has worked to build the advanced civilization we now enjoy, without any repercussions.
> 
> Its like having the latest design SUV, fuel efficient , environmentally friendly engine , best safety devices , best GPS navigational devices ,best anti lock braking system, computerized, independent hydraulic systems, and no wheels.
> 
> The wheel being the oldest invention that has enabled mechanics and mobility since the birth of civilization.
> And love, sound family values, respect, honour and understanding for the differences between genders being the foundation of any successful marriage, since the birth of civilization.


Sir Carribean, I really admire your eloquence! :smthumbup:


----------



## treyvion

unbelievable said:


> Not very far from the truth. I dated my wife for a few years before marriage. She had a Masters Degree, a full time job where she had been almost 18 years. She jumped my bones for sex basically every day. She even cooked once in a while. We got married and within a year, she quit her job outright. No bennies, no nothing. Sex went to pretty much never. She decided she didn't like to cook, wash dishes, clean house, etc. Without even the slightest exaggeration, she doesn't spend 10 minutes a day contributing to the marriage. I'm sure if she were asked, she'd say she's a great wife and I'm only a marginally acceptable husband. If someone was working double to provide for me, pay off my debts, etc, I'd think I was getting a pretty sweet deal. They'd be coming home to at least a meal. She can barely manage civility most of the time. When she was working, if I were home when she got off work, I always had something prepared for her. I'm no chef, but I didn't let her walk in the door like nobody gave a damn or even noticed she had been gone. She's in bed when I go to work, in bed when I return and nothing but crushed candy and Amazon bills for romance novels to show she's been alive. I'd feel guilty as hell in her position but she, her mother, and every woman who knows her seems to think this is perfectly acceptable, normal, and they wonder why she puts up with me. Most of the guys I work with are married but if not for restaurants or cooking some kind of slop for themselves, they'd starve. In the defense of those wives, I believe all of them work outside the home or have small kids at home. If mine worked outside the home, I wouldn't expect her to do much of anything here. I didn't expect it when she was working. Just seems to me that in a partnership, both parties ought to be doing something worthwhile.


I wish I could say I don't know what your talking about. I wish I could say that what you are describing does not exist in any significant numbers. I've also done the acts analysis,and also equivolated to "time", this in an intolerable situation. She also had support that no matter what I did I was wrong. What this particular ex-spouse did was unethical, and I should've simply left earlier, when I realized my partner was going to strong arm me and give me nothing.


----------



## unbelievable

Using self-interest during mate selection isn't selfish. It's common sense and it's a big part of natural selection. Stupid or lazy squirrels don't get to mate in the real world. Both mating partners look for the best deal available for them. The end result is superior offspring, more likely to survive. Only raving idiots would jump into a legally enforceable contract believing it was to their detriment to do so, so as unromantic as it sounds, we all enter marriage with self interest in mind. Women don't go down to skid row hoping to hook up with a husband. I expect if one surveyed single women on their ideal mate's attributes, "successful" or "ambitious" or "industrious" or variants of those words would appear prominently. Most wives expect their husbands to provide or help provide financial support if the man is physically able to do so. This isn't selfish, it's just survival of the species in action. Men must have some expectations of prospective wives and if they aren't met to some reasonable degree, the institution will disappear. A contract that doesn't meet the self interest of both parties is doomed.


----------



## unbelievable

I have no interest in putting women barefoot and in the kitchen but it seems to me society has to have some logical expectations for wives and there needs to be some societal penalty for wives who don't even try to meet those expectations. Marriage is important to society but guys are rational, even more so than women. They do go through a cost/benefits analysis when making decisions. If you can't demonstrate that there are benefits in marriage that can't be found elsewhere and that outweigh the risks, we won't be having marriage forums 100 years from now.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> Fault Based Divorce: Means your spouse can't cheat on you, take half the assets, then expect to be paid via alimony and child support. In modern marriage, as it's currently defined, it's perfectly legal to do that. *Immoral behavior is financially rewarded, and there's a financial incentive to seek divorce. The financial incentive for divorce needs to be removed.*
> 
> Financial Awards Given to Ex Spouses: Example, if a man earns 50 million dollars, and then he gets married, and after a while his wife decides to divorce him under "no-fault" divorce laws, she is entitled to receive up to 25 million dollars, for doing nothing more than saying "I Do". True story. There needs to be common sense limitations on the financial awards given to ex spouses.
> 
> Time to revamp the laws that govern marriage/divorce to accommodate the change in gender roles we've experienced over the past 40 years.
> 
> Time to move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0.


Thank you for your kind explanation. :iagree: I agree especially the bolded parts above. 

So the proposal above is called "Marriage 2.0"? Could you get your politicians to support this proposal?


----------



## Nynaeve

So this is all about revenge and punishing women.

LOL, but men are the rational ones.

Right.


----------



## ScubaSteve61

Nynaeve said:


> So this is all about revenge and punishing women.
> 
> LOL, but men are the rational ones.
> 
> Right.


[threadjack] 

Love the name!

[/threadjack]


----------



## unbelievable

Our military's policy regarding divorce is entirely out of whack. If a spouse is married to a service member 10 years, they get a portion, generally half of the pension. It doesn't matter if the service member served 35 years and the spouse and the member were legally separated for four of the ten years. Doesn't matter if the spouse earned five times as much as the service member. There is no court, no due process, just a confiscatory policy based on paternalistic and outdated assumptions regarding military marriages. Specifically, these assumptions would be that "spouse" means "wife" and "wife" means an unemployed female dependent upon the income of the service member to survive. Lots of military spouses are men and a whole lot of spouses have jobs. Courts are capable of figuring out who deserves what in the way of support.


----------



## Mavash.

I know just as many self centered controlling men as I do awful women.

This truly goes both ways.

Woman marries, has no education, has a few kids, takes care of him and the house, he cheats, gets the better attorney because he can afford it, she gets out with the clothes on her back and he pays child support when he feels like it.

Both men and women need to be taught not to avoid marriage but how to protect themselves.

Most however marry young before they have any idea what they are getting themselves into.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> I have no interest in putting women barefoot and in the kitchen but it seems to me society has to have some logical expectations for wives and there needs to be some societal penalty for wives who don't even try to meet those expectations. Marriage is important to society but guys are rational, even more so than women. They do go through a cost/benefits analysis when making decisions. If you can't demonstrate that there are benefits in marriage that can't be found elsewhere and that outweigh the risks, we won't be having marriage forums 100 years from now.


Eh, I am certain that, even in Western countries, surely there is some kind of societal pressure for wives and husbands to meet their expectation? Surely there are some? 

Even in my country, there are expectations for both sexes, for example, there is an expression "Pengki Naek Ka Bale" for a lower clan man marrying a higher clan woman, it means that this man must strice his utmost to achieve economic status comparable (preferably exceeding) his wife's clan, to "prove" to the clans that he is worthy to marry a woman of higher social standing. Otherwise he will be called "Pengki Naek Ka Bale".. (literally, dirty broom being put in bed).. Not nice, I know, but that's how things works around here..


----------



## john_lord_b3

Mavash. said:


> I know just as many self centered controlling men as I do awful women.
> 
> This truly goes both ways.
> 
> Woman marries, has no education, has a few kids, takes care of him and the house, he cheats, gets the better attorney because he can afford it, she gets out with the clothes on her back and he pays child support when he feels like it.


This sounds very sad  What a heartless man. Those are _his_ kids, why he pays child support sparsely? I will not allow my nieces to marry such person!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Mavash. said:


> I know just as many self centered controlling men as I do awful women.
> 
> This truly goes both ways.
> 
> Woman marries, has no education, has a few kids, takes care of him and the house, he cheats, gets the better attorney because he can afford it, she gets out with the clothes on her back and he pays child support when he feels like it.
> 
> *Both men and women need to be taught not to avoid marriage but how to protect themselves.*
> 
> Most however marry young before they have any idea what they are getting themselves into.


Well, based on the statistics, some are considering avoidance as a method of protecting themselves.

In essence, to some people, the risks involved _seem_ to outweigh the tangible benefits.
So the person who's entering the contract , who stands to loose the most, dose a risk analysis before, and decides to protect himself, by avoiding such risks.
Why risk loosing your respect, identity, your money by entering into an arrangement whose most tangible benefit can be had outside of marriage without the risks?
This appears to be the question single men are asking themselves, and justifying their decision to remain single.

Really , what are the _guaranteed_ benefits of getting married?


----------



## unbelievable

john_lord_b3 said:


> Eh, I am certain that, even in Western countries, surely there is some kind of societal pressure for wives and husbands to meet their expectation? Surely there are some?
> 
> Even in my country, there are expectations for both sexes, for example, there is an expression "Pengki Naek Ka Bale" for a lower clan man marrying a higher clan woman, it means that this man must strice his utmost to achieve economic status comparable (preferably exceeding) his wife's clan, to "prove" to the clans that he is worthy to marry a woman of higher social standing. Otherwise he will be called "Pengki Naek Ka Bale".. (literally, dirty broom being put in bed).. Not nice, I know, but that's how things works around here..


Interestingly enough, John, "no", there appears to be none. Our society assumes that women are victims of male domination and that the position of wife has been the historical equivalent of slave. Modern media depictions of wives most frequently show them as the strong, intelligent, reasonable voice in the home and fathers are depicted as just rather large children, frequently less intelligent or capable than the kids.


----------



## Viseral

Catherine602 said:


> Every kid has a dad.
> 
> What gave you the idea that they don't? Does anyone else find it strange that the parent who stays and cares for their children is not honored but denigrated?
> 
> Could that be the crux of the problem? If our culture honored adult maleness the problem of single parenthood would be halved.
> 
> The second statement in red is what this is all about, No? What's in it for me?
> 
> Not much, if you count your relationship with women in terms of what you can get out of them with as little investment of money, time and emotions as possible. Going into a LTR with that mindset is doomed to fail.
> 
> Staying single for some men seems best. I suspect that since women are so much like men, many will come to the same decision.
> 
> Then the pepetually single men and women can dance around trying to get something from each other. Ode to a Grecian Urn incarnate.
> 
> May the best man win.


Just to clarify, I don't think any man here is saying they don't want to be financially responsible for their children. They do, and most men love their children dearly, and wish to be part of their lives.

The struggle for most men comes with the financial responsibility to an ex spouse. Men (providers) have largely been replaced by the career woman. 

When women provide for themselves, then men should not be obligated by the state to dole out so much money in the form of child support and alimony.

Child support payments are important for children, but handing over huge sums of cash, which isn't required to be tracked and spent on the children is an issue.

Women, through technology and women's rights movements have freed themselves of their obligations to men. Men should then be freed of their obligations to women.

Chivalry, and well honed masculinity and femininity, would be much more preferable and romantic than the nearly identical gender roles we've adopted, but we've entered an age now of "equality" which sadly is confused by most as "sameness".

Time to update the laws and move on to Marriage 2.0.


----------



## SomedayDig

unbelievable said:


> Right. It'd be far more exciting to be a thankless drone, laboring for 50 years for the privilege of being told what's wrong with you.


And this comment here is most cynical viewpoint of all. I know it sucks when people get hurt, but really...THIS is the telling part right here. THIS is the part where people who actually read between the lines of a thread go - Ahhhhh...I get it now.

Yes. There are benefits to being married. It's just that you actually have to _work_ for them. THAT is why chivalry is dying...not because of "feminist agendas" or whatever other cool buzz words are out there.

Chivalry dies in ONE man's heart. Then he proclaims it dead.

It's pretty alive and f'ng kicking in my life and household.


----------



## Wiserforit

unbelievable said:


> If he remains single he can have sex as frequently and with as many partners as he chooses.


This is wrong on so many levels. 

The data on sex frequency is strongly in opposition to this, and perhaps more importantly it is entirely the wrong framing. Quality of sexual experience matters a great deal, and for a lot of people doing it with a committed partner is way, way more satisfying than with anyone else. 

The business about having as many partners as you choose - heh. As many WILLING partners. You certainly don't get everyone you want. A lot of them are already married and a lot of them are not going to be interested in you. 

But hey, it isn't my business to convince anyone on marriage. To each his own. I just don't agree with framing single life as sexual paradise.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> Interestingly enough, John, "no", there appears to be none. Our society assumes that women are victims of male domination and that the position of wife has been the historical equivalent of slave. Modern media depictions of wives most frequently show them as the strong, intelligent, reasonable voice in the home and fathers are depicted as just rather large children, frequently less intelligent or capable than the kids.


 like Homer Simpson? But surely Americans are capable of telling that The Simpsons are fiction and are not to be taken seriously?


----------



## unbelievable

We twice elected a president who had never ran so much as a lemonade stand or led even a Boy Scout troop. We pay to watch "Honey Boo Boo". We passed massive legislation that will completely alter the relationship between citizen and nation ....and nobody seems to have read the bill first. Our Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, took on the question of whether two males or two females were proper mates. That's a question that neither birds or squirrels have found the need to ask since the dawn of time. We have laws against discrimination but we can go to a bar and throw a little person. If you can divine what Americans are capable of thinking or believing, your position in American history is assured.


----------



## FlyingThePhoenix

treyvion said:


> You would have to differentiate between happily married men and unhappily married men. Unhappily married men are less happy than a single, and happily married men are more happier than a single.


“Unhappily married men are less happy than a single” = Very true, I’ve seen this in my family but both men and women continuously advise me to remain a bachelor. But then most these people have been married 15/20 years plus.

“happily married men are more happier than a single” = I disagree here example given above. I could have been married 15 years ago but discovered it was all a pack of lies. I’ve remained a bachelor ever since; the last several years I’ve been happier and healthier then in my whole life. Besides those that in LTR without marriage where do they enter here? If men and women find their inner happiness first and decide to share it together, that's between them. The word marriage is just a public statement to all, look everyone we're married, that means nothing if both of them are miserable and unhappy.



toomuchtotell said:


> The point of the survey I was referring to is to rate levels of happiness between the married and unmarried. overall married men were happier than single men. If what you stated above is true, what point would that be making? It's a risk/benefit ratio with an outcome that would not be known until a person is married. The point is that the outcome for marriage is generally more favorable with regards to happiness than staying single. It doesn't mean it's a sure thing for everyone.


Any chance you could provide a link to this article, I’d love to read it, but just based on your words above, I’m already slightly biased against it. Your sentence is true.



treyvion said:


> Those of us forced to TAM for support were obviously in intolerable situations, our happiness was obviously hurt. There is a good percentage in intolerable situations like us. It's good to hear, that OVERALL the average is "happy", so we need to find a situation that's on the other side of that bar.


Your words echo with me! I wish they didn't though!


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> We twice elected a president who had never ran so much as a lemonade stand or led even a Boy Scout troop. We pay to watch "Honey Boo Boo". We passed massive legislation that will completely alter the relationship between citizen and nation ....and nobody seems to have read the bill first. Our Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, took on the question of whether two males or two females were proper mates. That's a question that neither birds or squirrels have found the need to ask since the dawn of time. We have laws against discrimination but we can go to a bar and throw a little person. If you can divine what Americans are capable of thinking or believing, your position in American history is assured.


:scratchhead: speechless...

Most Americans I met are very highly intelligent, especially my lecturers.. But maybe they are not representative of all Americans.. I really hope that things will progress to a better way for your country. USA is a great country, in many aspects (especially sciences and technology) we still look up to.


----------



## unbelievable

You don't? Our country has been at war 11 years and fewer than 2% of fighting age males showed up. How many 30 year old males still live at home, playing video games on their mother's couch? Why are over 50% of low-mid level income births to unwed mothers? Why do over 35% of all American kids live in a home without a father? I don't know how old you are but your father never heard of kids going to school and shooting everyone. When your dad finished High School he could not only read and write, he was prepared to get a job which would support a family. He probably did just that. Honest to God, we have people who walk into an Army Recruiter's office with a high school diploma but aren't educated enough to pass the minimum requirements to be a Private. They show up to apply for jobs with a high school diploma but they can't read, write, or perform basic math functions sufficiently to perform even entry level work. Our colleges have to put them into remedial programs so they can perform Freshman work. Our schools are calling the police if a 5 year old boy acts like a normal 5 year old boy and engages in any level of warrior play. Our military is jailing our soldiers for acting like they dislike our enemies. Your government is searching their barracks for photos of women in bikinis, afraid a male 20 year old warrior might have a little testosterone. You don't see a problem?


----------



## Mavash.

john_lord_b3 said:


> This sounds very sad  What a heartless man. Those are _his_ kids, why he pays child support sparsely? I will not allow my nieces to marry such person!


This was my best friends story.

My sister also married a man like this. Not only does he not pay child support but he remarried and had a new family essentially abandoning my niece for the new kids.

My sister is no saint I know but still.....


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> This whole thread perplexes me. I don't see this so-called fall of masculinity that so many on TAM seem to rail against. I don't see evidence of this vast feminist conspiracy trying to tell us being manly is wrong.
> 
> Saying that in the past, men who beat women were considered cowards is totally disingenuous. At least in America, it's only been in the last 70-100 years or so that violence against wives was considered wrong. In the past, it was accepted and even expected that a man could and should slap around his wife if she got mouthy.
> 
> In the American South, we still open doors for women, let them on/off the elevator first, etc. If a woman doesn't like this kind of behavior, it isn't some harbinger of the end of chivalry, it just means she doesn't like having the door opened for her.
> 
> And how is romance on the decline? Talk to most successful married couples and they'll tell you romance played an important part in that. Hell, isn't "keeping the romance alive" one of the primary TAM-approved pieces of advice? Isn't this the same forum where men rail against women for reading romance novels? So which is it?
> 
> I'm a pretty manly guy. No one has ever come up to me and said, "David, you're being far too masculine. Tone that down." I don't see it in the men around me. Women still act, dress, and talk feminine where I work and live. Men still act, dress, and talk masculine.
> 
> So what are the signs of this so-called "fall of masculinity"? Women in the working world? Women making competitive salaries? Less SAHMs? That's just a changing economy, not some intricate subplot of the secret gynocratic regime.
> 
> Is it more women filing for divorce than men? That's a pretty high-level and generic statistic from which to be drawing such granular conclusions.
> 
> I don't see it. What I do see are men who are bitter and angry that their marriages didn't work out, and many times rightly so, but they're making the mistake of trying to blame their failed marriages on the "fall of masculinity".
> 
> Have men lost their way a bit? Perhaps, but that's not because of secret conspiracy, that's simply men not keeping up with an ever-changing society and instead lamenting at how things aren't how they used to be.
> 
> The qualities listed of masculinity, romance, protector, honorable, loving, provider, these are things women still desire in men. Not in the same way or to the same degree as women have become able to provide for themselves, but I don't know a single woman who thinks, "You know, I'm a new age woman, I want a dishonorable man who won't love or romance me ever."
> 
> *I just don't see it.*


Maybe you might see it better if a_ woman_ said it?

So here's a woman saying it.

Helen Smith: 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married


----------



## unbelievable

My wife was a public school teacher. That means she taught in a school funded by United States tax dollars. When I was deployed by the U.S. government to Iraq, I sent her a photo. She was not ALLOWED to display the photo in her classroom because I had a weapon on my person in a photo taken in a war zone. There has been a systematic and institutionalized effort to feminize men in this country and we will all pay the price if we don't turn it around.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> 1) One woman's list of reasons, however valid, is anecdotal evidence and not statistically indicative of society at large
> 
> 2) Men not wanting to get married because they believe marriage favors women would be a rise in masculinity, not a decline, as that would be men standing up for their rights against what they perceive as a rigged system.



Nope.

This is not " one woman's" list of reasons.

Here is an excerpt from the opening paragraph.

" It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested. Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago.* "According to Pew Research Center,* _the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. *For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent."* _

That's a six point drop in the opposite direction. 
Do you still consider it anecdotal?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> ...which reinforces exactly what I said: Men are standing up against what they perceive as a rigged system. That would be a sign that masculinity is on the rise, not on the wane.


That's not the debate sir.
Nobody's arguing that masculinity is on the wane. What is being discussed is the reasons men are no longer interested in marriage.
Ie: Men have perceived that they stand to loose more than benefit from marriage.
That's the basis of the discussion.
Its not about " bitter men, " but about men who have decided to examine their option before marrying , opted to stay single and its implication on the future of marriage and Western civilization.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Davelli0331 said:


> ...which reinforces exactly what I said: Men are standing up against what they perceive as a rigged system. That would be a sign that masculinity is on the rise, not on the wane.


The married man stereotype is being presented as a neutered yes dear individual.men who refuse to marry seem to be seen as unattainable,masculine prizes.

I'd say if men are refusing to marry,they're standing up for themselves against a legal system they feel is bent against them.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Davelli0331 said:


> 1) One woman's list of reasons, however valid, is anecdotal evidence and not statistically indicative of society at large
> 
> 2) Men not wanting to get married because they believe marriage favors women would be a rise in masculinity, not a decline, as that would be men *standing up for their rights against what they perceive as a rigged system*.


:iagree: Ah, if being explained this way, I understand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are many tangible benefits to my husband due to being married to me. He tells people all the time how much happier he is. We do not have children together, he was 40 y/o when we met, and no, there was literally no "reason" in the old fashioned sense of the word for him to marry me.

But he did because I am his Dream Girl.

He had already screwed as many women as he wanted, yet none of that compares to the type of sex you can have in a long term committed marriage.

We now have grand-kids, and the benefits to him personally of having those kids in his life was truly life changing for him. 

The companionship we share is just as important as the great sex.

His standard of living has increased because two can live cheaper together than separately and he now has the benefit of my income. We live in the house I owned before we met, so he doesn't actually contribute "more" to the household expenses than I do. We use the POJA for all expense decisions.

Everyone who knows him has talked about how GREAT it is that we met and got together.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> This thread could be deemed pointless...
> If the statistics were not true.
> 
> The reason behind the statistics is that love just ain't what it used to be, and that's the reason our fore parents had longer lasting marriages.
> Somehow, somewhere politics has taken the place of good , old fashioned values like romance,honour, ethics and respect.
> Even if two people find themselves compatible , [ which is becoming very rare ] and get married ,the issue of
> " political correctness " will inevitably arise.
> 
> In our fore parents days, men were expected to practice chivalry.
> In these " progressive " times, male chivalry is viewed as an insult to gender equality.
> 
> In our fore parents days , men were expected to love , provide for and most of all protect women. That's why men who physically beat women were considered as cowards.
> I these " progressive " times, some women scoff at the idea that a man could and should physically protect them.
> 
> And the list goes on.
> 
> *Everything that was used to define maleness became politically incorrect, and also to a certain extent ,those things that has for ages been regarded as desirable feminine traits in women.*
> 
> Having stripped both genders of the psychological and physiological differences , we are now left with empty shells , trying to function in a capacity we were designed to function, minus the historical, social constructs.
> 
> These social constructs didn't just " appear" out of thin air, they are the product of generations of careful observation and adaptations to suit the purpose of building civilizations.
> It is foolhardy to think that we can simply discard these constructs, that has worked to build the advanced civilization we now enjoy, without any repercussions.
> 
> Its like having the latest design SUV, fuel efficient , environmentally friendly engine , best safety devices , best GPS navigational devices ,best anti lock braking system, computerized, independent hydraulic systems, and no wheels.
> 
> The wheel being the oldest invention that has enabled mechanics and mobility since the birth of civilization.
> And love, sound family values, respect, honour and understanding for the differences between genders being the foundation of any successful marriage, since the birth of civilization.


Maleness has NEVER declined.
It has always been there.
Most men have never stopped wanting to be themselves.
What men want is to be understood and accepted and not have to be " politically correct."

What has changed is what's acceptable and what's no longer acceptable from _both_ genders.

And I laid out two distinct , clear examples.

I will give another one.
many men find that before marriage sex is regular and enjoyable.
After marriage, sex suddenly begin to decline, both in frequency and quality.

Would you want to marry knowing that the possibility of this happening was high?

PS; _That's reason #2 in the article I linked._


----------



## Laila8

If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:

-companionship
-emotional closeness and support
-regular sex
-love and affection
-someone to pack his lunch
-someone to cook him a hot dinner
-someone to support and encourage him
-someone to cuddle with in bed every night
-a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
-someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
-someone to run the household
-someone to plan the social calendar
-someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase

And on and on.

The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Laila8 said:


> *If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:*
> 
> -companionship
> -emotional closeness and support
> -regular sex
> -love and affection
> -someone to pack his lunch
> -someone to cook him a hot dinner
> -someone to support and encourage him
> -someone to cuddle with in bed every night
> -a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
> -someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
> -someone to run the household
> -someone to plan the social calendar
> -someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase
> 
> *And on and on.
> 
> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. They pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.*


Ahhhhhh!

i wish I could like this post a thousand times.

And I'm glad that a _woman _said it.
Especially this part " _They pick with their d*cks _."


----------



## Wiserforit

You can weed out most of the problem with one simple rule: if she self-identifies as a feminist, just cross her off the list. 

The first feminist meme that comes out of her mouth - walk away. Discussion is pointless. The only way they are going to learn is exactly how it is being taught: we are not marrying you. Spew all the rationalizations and manipulative double-talk you want honey. I won't be listening. There are plenty of women worldwide who aren't full of this misandry.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Wiserforit said:


> You can weed out most of the problem with one simple rule: if she self-identifies as a feminist, just cross her off the list.
> 
> The first feminist meme that comes out of her mouth - walk away. Discussion is pointless. The only way they are going to learn is exactly how it is being taught: we are not marrying you. Spew all the rationalizations and manipulative double-talk you want honey. I won't be listening. There are plenty of women worldwide who aren't full of this misandry.


Mr. WiseForIt, from books that I read, there are different types of feminists, and yes some are misandrists, but not all of them are.. it is important I think to distinguish between which and which..


----------



## unbelievable

Davelli0331 said:


> Um, no, that's because having a picture of a man holding a weapon being posted in a classroom is very inappropriate given all of the school violence that we have endured in recent decades.


You're a Marine and you're buying this Koolade? You think there might have been any sexist males island-hopping in WWII or killing VC in Vietnam? We call prostitutes "Hookers" because they followed General Hooker, commanding the Army of the Potomac in our Civil War. You may have heard of it...liberating slaves and all that. The Great Seal of the United States depicts an eagle holding arrows, not pointy sticks for marshmallow roasting. Back in the day, I attended government school. I learned about American heroes and most of them were males who proficiently used weapons to kill the enemies of freedom that made my government school possible. There is nothing shameful about an American serving his or her country in time of war. What's the point of teaching American kids anything if you're not going to tell them the value and cost of freedom? What did they think we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Handing out milk and cookies (yeah, I guess we did a little of that, too). Firearms are so important they have their very own Amendment to the Constitution but a school kid can't look at one without becoming a psychopathic predator? I used to carry a rifle into public school to attend hunter safety class. It was a required part of the class. We call the SWAT team if a kid dares hold a chicken leg wrong? These people have lost their minds. All the Liberal pacifists in this world haven't liberated enough people to fill the rear seat of a Yugo. Without trained and armed killers we'd have no schools.
As far as "popular" wars, I don't think we have ever had a war that didn't involve dying and only sociopaths really like the idea of killing. American men went because they were expected to go and it was deemed dishonorable not to. I meet young men all the time and I have tried my best to recruit many as they had no job, no prospects, and nothing else going for them. Almost every one wasn't interested and their primary complaint was that it was dangerous. We call that "cowardice". I had a number of grandmothers and mothers on their 2nd or 3d tour and these "men" couldn't saw their end of the log? They'd let Granny or Grandpa take their place? Those aren't men.


----------



## Wiserforit

john_lord_b3 said:


> Mr. WiseForIt, from books that I read, there are different types of feminists, and yes some are misandrists, but not all of them are.. it is important I think to distinguish between which and which..


That's one of the great things about feminism: not having a definition. It's one of the exact reasons for crossing them off the list. 

Pretending to have your own definition of a term is a demonstration of manipulative nature. Words do not have fixed meanings. Instead they mean whatever we want them to mean depending on what our agenda is. 

For the ones that claim feminism is all about equality and not "radical" feminsim - that's exactly who I am talking about. Cross them off the list. There isn't any point to the term in that case. I could call myself a "masculinist" and say that means the same thing, ie masculanist = feminist = gender neutralist. 

I know to expect disengenuous discussion with such a person, so there is no point to having relationships with them. There are plenty of women worldwide who have not been infected with this, including right here in the USA. But there are many cultures which have far less of it.


----------



## toomuchtotell

Laila8 said:


> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


:iagree:


----------



## unbelievable

32 Facts That Show How Men Are Being Systematically Emasculated In America Today | Zero Hedge


----------



## Sanity

Laila8 said:


> If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:
> 
> -companionship
> -emotional closeness and support
> -regular sex
> -love and affection
> -someone to pack his lunch
> -someone to cook him a hot dinner
> -someone to support and encourage him
> -someone to cuddle with in bed every night
> -a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
> -someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
> -someone to run the household
> -someone to plan the social calendar
> -someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase
> 
> And on and on.
> 
> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


Amen sister and unfortunately I am a man who "picked with his ****". I now look back and remember dumping this great girl that loved me, had a job and even had her own place at 23 with no help from anybody. I dumped her to be with my now ex. I was a dumbass. 

You are so right though, when a man picks a great woman marriage is a wonderful thing.


----------



## lenzi

Lyris said:


> Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.
> 
> My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.
> 
> My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him.
> 
> Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him.
> 
> Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.
> 
> Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.


You can get all those things with a committed long term relationship.

And being married doesn't guarantee that a person will get those things for the rest of their lives.

If you align to 'statistical norms' the odds are greater that you will divorce before one of you dies.


----------



## Wiserforit

unbelievable said:


> What did they think we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?


In Iraq, attacking a country who had not attacked us, which by the Nuremburg principles was the supreme war crime. 

In Afghanistan we overthrew the government and let the perpetrator of 9/11 waltz over to Pakistan, where we were funding a corrupt, oppressive military. We are negotiating now with the Taliban for our surrender, basically - just as with Viet Nam and every other great power so stupid as to think they could rule Afghanistan. 

The professional studies, even by the military itself demonstrate these wars created more enemies than they eliminated. So let's not get all high and mighty about protecting my freedom. These were historical strategic disasters. 

I wouldn't be comparing myself to the warriors who fought for independence, against a better-armed professional British army. In either of the above we were facing vastly outgunned rag-tag impoverished third-worlders. If you want bravery, it is them for standing up to the greatest military machine in the history of the planet with sandals and a WWI musket. It isn't us with tanks, artillery, A-10's and bombers, night vision, armored vests, overwhelming numbers, etc. 

Fishermen, loggers, farmers, and a long list of others face higher occupational hazards than these well-insulated soldiers. Saying this is not to take away from those who are not preening like you are. Just don't be calling me stupid and pretending you are my savior. You are part of the _problem_ with this bellicose, self-defeating jingoism.


----------



## FlyingThePhoenix

ScarletBegonias said:


> The married man stereotype is being presented as a neutered yes dear individual.men who refuse to marry seem to be seen as unattainable,masculine prizes.
> 
> I'd say if men are refusing to marry,they're standing up for themselves against a legal system they feel is bent against them.





Laila8 said:


> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


Excellent Post ladies!!!!!! An example of me, over the last 15 years, my family / friends have done nothing but bully and belittle me for not marrying because they did, a system I personally, have nothing against. Interestingly some of them are now divorced because they were either cheating on their partners or were so miserable in their marriages they just couldn't handle it anymore so they divorced. 

As for me, there was once a woman I wanted to marry, but she had a Jekyll and Hyde personality, which utterly destroyed me. One day I’ll find that woman without the Jekyll and Hyde personality, who can see right through me and if she manages to push my buttons, that's the woman I'm going to marry. Until then, I'm going to fight for my right, to remain a bachelor. Was that _too much_ ????


----------



## 2ntnuf

Laila8 said:


> If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:
> 
> -companionship
> -emotional closeness and support
> -regular sex
> -love and affection
> -someone to pack his lunch
> -someone to cook him a hot dinner
> -someone to support and encourage him
> -someone to cuddle with in bed every night
> -a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
> -someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
> -someone to run the household
> -someone to plan the social calendar
> -someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase
> 
> And on and on.
> 
> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.




These are things he should know how to do or get before getting married. If he doesn't he will be weak for the tough times.

-companionship
-emotional closeness and support
-regular sex
-love and affection
-someone to pack his lunch
-someone to cook him a hot dinner
-someone to support and encourage him
-someone to cuddle with in bed every night
-a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school 


Most marriages do not last this long. It's a shame. He should be able to at least ask someone to these events before marriage. If he learns how to compromise to find a date for these, it will help him some when he is married. 

-a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)



There a plenty of books out there to help him with this and he should know what he likes before getting into a marriage.

-someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad


He needs to know how to live alone and like who he is before getting married. Much of that will involve these below. 

-companionship
-emotional closeness and support
-regular sex
-love and affection
-someone to pack his lunch
-someone to cook him a hot dinner
-someone to support and encourage him
-someone to cuddle with in bed every night
-a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school 


If you get married before knowing how to do this stuff, you will be at the mercy of the marriage. You need to know this before you get married, then you will feel more secure with yourself and be more self-confident. That will turn into an additional point of attraction for a woman. It will also free you from feeling trapped. 

Yes, it is good to be married when it is a good relationship. Miss out on this stuff and you will be playing catch up all your life and at the mercy of the marriage instead of being there because you want to be, while knowing you can do it all on your own.


----------



## Lyris

lenzi said:


> You can get all those things with a committed long term relationship.
> 
> And being married doesn't guarantee that a person will get those things for the rest of their lives.
> 
> If you align to 'statistical norms' the odds are greater that you will divorce before one of you dies.


As I said in my post, legally, where I live there is no difference between a marriage and a cohabiting long term relationship, so either carries the same risks, if you want to put it that way.

And first marriages, that is where both partners have not been married before, have only a 25% chance of ending in divorce rather than the death of one spouse. Even if you take into account all marriages, marriages that end in divorce are less than 50%, therefore the odds are not greater that I will divorce. 

I'm a feminist too. So it's interesting that my marriage as I describe it has been generally accepted as a good one in this thread in spite of my apparent man-hating tendencies.


----------



## lenzi

Lyris said:


> As I said in my post, legally, where I live there is no difference between a marriage and a cohabiting long term relationship, so either carries the same risks, if you want to put it that way.


I guess if you're in a jurisdiction that recognizes commonlaw marriage, the discussion would be rather moot.


----------



## Lyris

This is an international board.


----------



## Enginerd

Davelli0331 said:


> This whole thread perplexes me. I don't see this so-called fall of masculinity that so many on TAM seem to rail against. I don't see evidence of this vast feminist conspiracy trying to tell us being manly is wrong.
> 
> Saying that in the past, men who beat women were considered cowards is totally disingenuous. At least in America, it's only been in the last 70-100 years or so that violence against wives was considered wrong. In the past, it was accepted and even expected that a man could and should slap around his wife if she got mouthy.
> 
> In the American South, we still open doors for women, let them on/off the elevator first, etc. If a woman doesn't like this kind of behavior, it isn't some harbinger of the end of chivalry, it just means she doesn't like having the door opened for her.
> 
> And how is romance on the decline? Talk to most successful married couples and they'll tell you romance played an important part in that. Hell, isn't "keeping the romance alive" one of the primary TAM-approved pieces of advice? Isn't this the same forum where men rail against women for reading romance novels? So which is it?
> 
> I'm a pretty manly guy. No one has ever come up to me and said, "David, you're being far too masculine. Tone that down." I don't see it in the men around me. Women still act, dress, and talk feminine where I work and live. Men still act, dress, and talk masculine.
> 
> So what are the signs of this so-called "fall of masculinity"? Women in the working world? Women making competitive salaries? Less SAHMs? That's just a changing economy, not some intricate subplot of the secret gynocratic regime.
> 
> Is it more women filing for divorce than men? That's a pretty high-level and generic statistic from which to be drawing such granular conclusions.
> 
> I don't see it. What I do see are men who are bitter and angry that their marriages didn't work out, and many times rightly so, but they're making the mistake of trying to blame their failed marriages on the "fall of masculinity".
> 
> Have men lost their way a bit? Perhaps, but that's not because of secret conspiracy, that's simply men not keeping up with an ever-changing society and instead lamenting at how things aren't how they used to be.
> 
> The qualities listed of masculinity, romance, protector, honorable, loving, provider, these are things women still desire in men. Not in the same way or to the same degree as women have become able to provide for themselves, but I don't know a single woman who thinks, "You know, I'm a new age woman, I want a dishonorable man who won't love or romance me ever."
> 
> I just don't see it.



Yes masculinity is not dead. It's simply gone underground like an economy that's over taxed. It will re-emerge when the electricity goes out.


----------



## chillymorn

and the bus goes round and round.


not everybody has the life skills to be happily married. they might never aquie them.

and some people are just users and get married for shelfish reasons. 



and thats on both sides of the fence male and female alike.


----------



## lenzi

chillymorn said:


> and some people are just users and get married for shelfish reasons.


Well if she knows how to broil a lobster...


----------



## chillymorn

lenzi said:


> Well if she knows how to broil a lobster...


:scratchhead:not sure I understand the referance.


----------



## chillymorn

LOL never mind shelfish lol


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> As I said in my post, legally, where I live there is no difference between a marriage and a cohabiting long term relationship,



Interesting!
In our country it is the same.
Women who are in LTR's have almost the same rights as women who get married. [ Except they cannot divorce.]

For example if a man never marry's a woman who he's in a LTR with ,and he dies suddenly, his property goes to her, and not his family.


----------



## chillymorn

Caribbean Man said:


> Interesting!
> In our country it is the same.
> Women who are in LTR's have almost the same rights as women who get married. [ Except they cannot divorce.]
> 
> For example if a man never marry's a woman who he's in a LTR with ,and he dies suddenly, his property goes to her, and not his family.


note to self never move there!

no offense!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Common law marriage is after 7 yrs,maryland. PA ended the practice in2005. But if you have a common law when you move from md or any other state,pa honors that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

chillymorn said:


> note to self never move there!
> 
> no offense!


Well actually I think its a good thing.
A lot of women [ down here ] live with men for the duration of their lives and if the man died, they neither their kids have absolutely nothing to get. They then become a liability to the state especially if she was a SAHM.
However , if they separate , only their kids [ under 18 ] are entitled to anything.

Mortgage companies also tend to favour married couples when advertising and granting mortgage.
The philosophy being that marriage has a purpose beyond just two people coming together.
It is the building block of societies.
Cannot build a progressive society without strong family structure or marriage.


----------



## unbelievable

Communism and the Family by Alexandra Kollontai

We're almost there! Yippee!!


----------



## Catherine602

treyvion said:


> Us TAM guys would never denegrate a male or female who is doing the SAHM/SAHD situation, as long as they are benefiting their household. I do realize that society is making a joke of the SAHM situation, but it IS a job and that job improves the quality of life of everyone in the situation.
> 
> Adult maleness is denigrated at the current time, it is looked down upon as almost a mental illness, a personality deficiency.
> 
> That became the start of all these problems. As adults we have to come to accept there are degrees of badness and goodness in all of us. There are some downright evil tyrants on this world, killers, manipulators, some people get involved with people WHO DO NOT CARE about them. It's more than 1%, there is a huge percentage of people in this world only concerned about how a situation benefits themself.
> 
> Both the men and women do this. Men do it, wanting to get all the benefits of a a literal "biblical marriage", or just the sex part met with minimal financial expenditure. Women go into it, looking for support and financial assistance with as little output to no output possible. This is not ALL men, but it's quite more than a "few".
> 
> Some people have always been single, always look for self first, and should not be married or in serious relationships.
> 
> I agree, it's a ugly thing. I just can't imagine sex between these two being very fulfilling, but they probably get off on the complexity and treachery of the situation...
> 
> And woman.
> 
> I still long for this utopia of a relationship between a man and woman. Of course all the needs being met, but while honoring your committment and doing your part. It's possible!


Why are do you think this subject is brought up so frequently by men who are unhappy in their relationship? They are angry with their wife. The wife represents all women to them. 

They relish a future where women get what's coming to them and cede power and control out of desperation. It's all about power and control. 

It could happen, who knows. The coming of the trouble free Stepford wives may be at hand.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Why are do you think this subject is brought up so frequently by men who are unhappy in their relationship? They are angry with their wife. The wife represents all women to them.
> 
> They relish a future where women get what's coming to them and cede power and control out of desperation. It's all about power and control.
> 
> It could happen, who knows. The coming of the trouble free Stepford wives may be at hand.


Well Catherine, 
If it were that simple then it could be overlooked.
But the statistic we're dealing with are of men who have _never _been married and have absolutely_ no_ intention of getting married.
Also these men are young , professional men.

At the same time, the number of women desiring to get married seem to be increasing.

The question is why?
Why do these young men see marriage as disadvantageous _to them_?
What are these young women hoping to get in marriage that make them optimistic and their young potential mates, pessimistic?


----------



## unbelievable

Whether I bring the topic up or the tooth fairy does, whether I am miserable in marriage or deliriously happy, stats are stats and marriage is on the fast track downhill. Marriage is important to child development and these little monsters will be supporting us, caring for us, defending us, leading us or grinding us up into Soylent Green someday. Might be handy to address this problem.


----------



## Catherine602

unbelievable said:


> Of course men are less likely to file for divorce. That isn't an indication that they're happier than women. It means most men aren't crazy. The decision of a wife to divorce typically means she gets a guaranteed check every month, probably the house, and maybe she has to let her ex see the kids one weekend every couple weeks. Boo Hoo. The same decision for a guy means he basically loses his kids and at least half his present property and at least 1/3 of his future earnings for the next 18 years. In short, his duty to support these people through his labor will continue but whatever benefit he had been getting from marriage ends. Her standard of living decreases a little, his decreases a whole lot.


Wow. These people? You are not including your children in that are you? Do you consider your kids so dispassionately just because you have a problems with their mother? 

Why should you walk away with no financial obligations? When you have a child you sign up for a financial and moral commitment to them for 18 years at the very minimum. 

If you view them as a drain on your finances then that's where the obligation ends. People who don't want that should not get married or have kids.


----------



## unbelievable

Catherine602 said:


> Wow. These people? You are not including your children in that are you? Do you consider your kids so dispassionately just because you have a problems with their mother?
> 
> Why should you walk away with no financial obligations? When you have a child you sign up for a financial and moral commitment to them for 18 years at the very minimum.
> 
> If you view them as a drain on your finances then that's where the obligation ends. People who don't want that should not get married or have kids.


Since you ask about my personal situation, my kids are grown. I have three. I met my son's mother when he was 3. His dad never did a thing for him. His mom and I divorced when he was 8 and she gave me custody (you read that correctly). He's 31. I supported him from age 3 until he was well into adulthood and able to support himself. He is married to a great gal and owns a home, works a good job. My eldest daughter is a nurse. She is my biological child but ex, though originally signing custody over to me with my son, refused to send her back after transatlantic visitation. I paid child support, paid for her wedding, helped pay for college, etc. Her husband walked out, refused to pay support, etc. My youngest daughter, I've supported her entire minor life and I still am. She's attending university in Europe. She's an interesting case. I was dating her mother who was well into her 30s. She secretly quit taking birth control and deliberately got pregnant, specifically to get me to the alter. I found out years later when she bragged about it to some of her girlfriends. Sweet piece of work, there.


----------



## FlyingThePhoenix

Caribbean Man said:


> Well actually I think its a good thing.
> A lot of women [ down here ] live with men for the duration of their lives and if the man died, they neither their kids have absolutely nothing to get. They then become a liability to the state especially if she was a SAHM.
> However , if they separate , only their kids [ under 18 ] are entitled to anything.
> 
> Mortgage companies also tend to favour married couples when advertising and granting mortgage.
> The philosophy being that marriage has a purpose beyond just two people coming together.
> It is the building block of societies.
> Cannot build a progressive society without strong family structure or marriage.


That's interesting; here in my country many people are opting to enter civil partnership's (LTR's) instead of marriage, because here we don’t have “no-fault” based system. Personally, I hope we never do, I think a “no-fault” based system devalues the whole concept marriage by 50% of its true value. If I marry in the future it’s because the word “Marriage” has consequences if I or my future wife fail in our duty within the marriage, then fault must be applied and accepted by either one of us or both of us.

But your last paragraph is spot on; society is engineered towards supporting married couples more than any other type of union. But thankfully this is being slowly redressed and equal status is slowly being applied to other types of unions. But those that enter “Marriage” will always, have more rights than those that don’t enter this type of union; simply because society is built from the ground up to support “Marriage” first, and every other type of union afterwards.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> Well Catherine,
> If it were that simple then it could be overlooked.
> But the statistic we're dealing with are of men who have _never _been married and have absolutely_ no_ intention of getting married.
> Also these men are young , professional men.
> 
> The question is why?
> Why do they see marriage as disadvantageous _to them_?


You are making several assumptions that lack validity and show a lack of logical conclusions based on facts. You assume that men are not getting married because there is nothing in it for them. But why is that your interpretation? Men are the only ones with the right of refusal? Power.

A further assumption is that women are or should be desperately trying to reverse this trend. They should give into to male demands to make marriage advantageous to them. Control.

Is it possible that young women are making the same decision men are making? Is it possible that women are less happy married than single? 

To make marriage even more unpleasant with more demands will not get reluctant young women to the alter. 

It is simple. Power and control, punto finale.


----------



## Catherine602

unbelievable said:


> Since you ask about my personal situation, my kids are grown. I have three. I met my son's mother when he was 3. His dad never did a thing for him. His mom and I divorced when he was 8 and she gave me custody (you read that correctly). He's 31. I supported him from age 3 until he was well into adulthood and able to support himself. He is married to a great gal and owns a home, works a good job. My eldest daughter is a nurse. She is my biological child but ex, though originally signing custody over to me with my son, refused to send her back after transatlantic visitation. I paid child support, paid for her wedding, helped pay for college, etc. Her husband walked out, refused to pay support, etc. My youngest daughter, I've supported her entire minor life and I still am. She's attending university in Europe. She's an interesting case. I was dating her mother who was well into her 30s. She secretly quit taking birth control and deliberately got pregnant, specifically to get me to the alter. I found out years later when she bragged about it to some of her girlfriends. Sweet piece of work, there.


You have had bad experiences so i understand why you feel as you do. You sound like an extraordinary man. You could easily have gotten out of the support of your kids. You certainly are not obliged to support them into adulthood. But yiu are too good to leave them high and dry. 

I an sorry that b!tches did this. They are not as happy and carefree as they seem. 

Its not the children's fault though. I think your actions agree with that. 

So whats to be done? You have had bad experiences so has your daughter. Will making marriage more advantageous to men solve the problem? Perhaps making marriage a better institution for men and women is an approach that would work.


----------



## 2ntnuf

classssssic example. LOLOL


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Laila8 said:


> If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:
> 
> -companionship
> -emotional closeness and support
> -regular sex
> -love and affection
> -someone to pack his lunch
> -someone to cook him a hot dinner
> -someone to support and encourage him
> -someone to cuddle with in bed every night
> -a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
> -someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
> -someone to run the household
> -someone to plan the social calendar
> -someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase
> 
> And on and on.


Or leaves him notes in his rugged old lunch Box - no briefcases here (mine is a blue collar worker) - Love your post .. .he'd vouch for all those.... We've always felt it got better after the
 's....even with some valley's along the way... just being able to lean on each other... We both look upon each other as the ..."Wind beneath Our Wings".. 

 post Laila8 



> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. *They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face*.


We have 5 sons...We care a great deal that they choose wisely when it comes to women...this could make or break their very futures... their happiness..

Our 3rd son is still pretty young ... he's got a cheerleader GF who I believe is stringing him along...with a little flirting it up on the side -when he is not around... she is secretive, saw her walking around with 3 guys at a festival yesterday... she wasn't answering her phone when he was calling either .. he knows he's going to have to let her go (again)........ Physically beautiful ...but ...he needs a site more than that !

He broke up with her last year -over this sort of thing...his brother was furious when he got back together with her.. and here it is happening all over again.... Oh well. They are young, He is learning. Too many red flags with this one.. Our teens do talk to us about this stuff.. they value our input... probably not the norm. But we are thankful .


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> You are making several assumptions that lack validity and show a lack of logical conclusions based on facts. You assume that men are not getting married because there is nothing in it for them. But why is that your interpretation? Men are the only ones with the right of refusal? Power.
> 
> A further assumption is that women are or should be desperately trying to reverse this trend. They should give into to male demands to make marriage advantageous to them. Control.
> 
> Is it possible that young women are making the same decision men are making? Is it possible that women are less happy married than single?
> 
> *To make marriage even more unpleasant with more demands will not get reluctant young women to the alter. *
> 
> It is simple. Power and control, punto finale.


1]The number of young women who look forward to marriage have actually increased.
2]Its not the young women who are reluctant, its the men.

Here are the reasons given by a significant portion of men ,for the statistics:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-smith/8-reasons-men-dont-want-t_b_3467778.html

Here is the opening paragraph of the article:

" *It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested*. *Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.*"


----------



## unbelievable

Laila8 said:


> If a man marries the RIGHT woman, he gets:
> 
> -companionship
> -emotional closeness and support
> -regular sex
> -love and affection
> -someone to pack his lunch
> -someone to cook him a hot dinner
> -someone to support and encourage him
> -someone to cuddle with in bed every night
> -a guaranteed date for every wedding, party, high school reunion, Valentine's Day, New Year's Eve, etc. for the next 40+ years (hopefully)
> -someone to beautify his house and make it into a 'home', not just a cold Bachelor pad
> -someone to run the household
> -someone to plan the social calendar
> -someone to leave him love notes in his briefcase
> 
> And on and on.
> 
> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


That would be a really sweet deal and most of that doesn't require all that much effort, in the grand scheme. A woman like that would make marriage a no-brainer. Honestly, just a tiny smidge of appreciation every once in a while would make all the difference in the world. I don't even need someone to run the household, especially and I don't expect a hot meal every night. I wouldn't turn it down, but I'd be happy with a hug and a sandwich. For a whole bunch of guys, me included, we're not supposed to need, want, or expect anything. It's nice to know some women still do the things you listed.


----------



## Caribbean Man

unbelievable said:


> It's nice to know some women still do the things you listed.


My dear wife does.

But I know lots of men don't get that sort of treatment.
Also I know lots of wives are unhappy.
And it bugs me, that's why I ask the question why?

How could something that was meant to benefit both parties be viewed by so many men as being disadvantageous to them?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Maybe when gay marriage becomes legal from coast to coast, there will be so many marriages as a result, that the decline in young men wanting to marry will be wiped out statistically.


----------



## Catherine602

This is the study and interpretation. As soon as I read that feminism and women having sex outside of marriage are responsible for the destruction of truth and the American way, I stopped reading. The agenda is obvious. 

Its a warning to women. Women have two choices - either give up the control and freedom over our lives to men or be miserable spinsters overwhelmed by life without men. 

There is a third choice - bring up your daughters to respect themselves, use the talents and life God gave them to the fullest and have confidence. Their lives should not rise or fall by the capricious will of anyone. Woman up. Feminazi's unite!

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Young men giving up on marriage: ‘Women aren’t women anymore’


----------



## lenzi

Faithful Wife said:


> Maybe when gay marriage becomes legal from coast to coast, there will be so many marriages as a result, that the decline in young men wanting to marry will be wiped out statistically.


You mean there will be a decline in young gay men.


----------



## Trying2figureitout

It could work but a last he may very well die alone.

He may very well wonder what if?

He may never feel the honor of creating a family and furthering his gene pool.

Life is about choices.


----------



## john_lord_b3

FlyingThePhoenix said:


> Excellent Post ladies!!!!!! An example of me, over the last 15 years, my family / friends have done nothing but bully and belittle me for not marrying because they did, a system I personally, have nothing against. Interestingly some of them are now divorced because they were either cheating on their partners or were so miserable in their marriages they just couldn't handle it anymore so they divorced.
> 
> As for me, there was once a woman I wanted to marry, but she had a Jekyll and Hyde personality, which utterly destroyed me. One day I’ll find that woman without the Jekyll and Hyde personality, who can see right through me and if she manages to push my buttons, that's the woman I'm going to marry. Until then, I'm going to fight for my right, to remain a bachelor. Was that _too much_ ????


:iagree: I don't live in your culture, but from the way you presented your views, I tend to agree. yes, until you are certain that the woman worth the risk, why marry? that is logical.


----------



## Deejo

It's not just men ...

Yahoo! Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs


----------



## john_lord_b3

Lyris said:


> As I said in my post, legally, where I live there is no difference between a marriage and a cohabiting long term relationship, so either carries the same risks, if you want to put it that way.
> 
> And first marriages, that is where both partners have not been married before, have only a 25% chance of ending in divorce rather than the death of one spouse. Even if you take into account all marriages, marriages that end in divorce are less than 50%, therefore the odds are not greater that I will divorce.
> 
> I'm a feminist too. So it's interesting that my marriage as I describe it has been generally accepted as a good one in this thread in spite of my apparent man-hating tendencies.


Mrs. Lyris, you're a good feminist, the one without the misandry


----------



## Faithful Wife

lenzi....what I mean is that when gay marriage is legal, then many gay men WILL want to get married and will get married...to men.

Since statistics counting just "young men wanting to get married" currently only includes people who truly can get married, once gay marriage is legal, then they will have to statistically include all young men, not just straight ones.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

I save about $15k per year in taxes because our tax brackets are doubled. It feels pretty tangible.


----------



## unbelievable

WorkingOnMe said:


> I save about $15k per year in taxes because our tax brackets are doubled. It feels pretty tangible.


$15K? That's a pretty decent, slightly used Harley. Ok, I'm sold.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

You have to have just the right circumstances. I.e. a wife who makes very little money.


----------



## unbelievable

Zero low enough?


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> Assume you are talking to a single, employed male with no particular aspirations of raising children. What, if any, benefits could he expect from marriage?
> 
> If he remains single, his living expenses will be 1/3 or less of that required if he marries.
> 
> If he remains single, he has more discretionary time, more disposable income, and he will exercise 100% control over how he spends both.
> 
> If he remains single and childless, he will incur no risk of losing anything he has or any future earnings due to domestic litigation.
> 
> If he remains single he can have sex as frequently and with as many partners as he chooses.
> 
> If he remains single, he will retain 100% control over his environment, his diet, his funds, his time, his associations, his appearance, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> *How could you sell him on the idea that marriage would benefit him in any way?*


Why would you want to try to sell him the idea? It makes no sense, if someone does not want to marry then it is simple, don't do it.
If he needs to be sold the idea then he is too immature or has not met the right person to marry.

I really cannot see what this has to do with gender, the different scenarios you gave apply equally to men and women.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

unbelievable said:


> Zero low enough?


Sure. On you tax return change the filing status to single and check out what happens to the tax. Ouch.


----------



## unbelievable

Actually, it does make a difference, and no, they don't equally apply. The presence of a father in the home increases academic achievement and it reduces adolescent violence and subsequently criminal involvement. Men are becoming increasingly less likely to marry and and increasing number of kids are being raised in homes without their fathers. There are societal consequences. We're already seeing some of them and they will get worse.


----------



## Wiserforit

Catherine602 said:


> As soon as I read that feminism and women having sex outside of marriage are responsible for the destruction of truth and the American way, I stopped reading. The agenda is obvious.


Since the article said no such thing, you cannot be taken seriously. 

Pretty humorous framing. How can "truth" be destroyed? 



> Women have two choices - either give up the control and freedom over our lives to men or be miserable spinsters overwhelmed by life without men.


Intellectually lazy and arrogant to declare you have not read an article, and then claim to summarize what it says. 




> There is a third choice - bring up your daughters to respect themselves, use the talents and life God gave them to the fullest and have confidence. Their lives should not rise or fall by the capricious will of anyone.


There isn't anyone who would disagree with this generic "Do your best" rah-rah.

But you should not be so hypocritical because if your daughters copy your example of not even reading an article but then claiming to summarize what it says with cartoonish charictarization, they aren't going to do anywhere near as well as they could with intellectual honesty.


----------



## Machiavelli

Lyris said:


> And first marriages, that is where both partners have not been married before, have only a 25% chance of ending in divorce rather than the death of one spouse. Even if you take into account all marriages, marriages that end in divorce are less than 50%, therefore the odds are not greater that I will divorce.


I agree that those numbers are the correct ones, from my own reading a while back.

Now, to answer the OP's original questions, the men who should get married are those who wish to have kids and be involved in their lives. Three out of four will succeed in this mission.

Men with no desire for children should not marry, with one exception. The exception is single men who can not score 3 nights out of the week. Such men will experience an increase in sex when they marry, at least for 4-7 years before the drought sets in. Of course, they have to weigh the value of the sex against the value of their future earnings that will be diverted to the STBX. Consider the old saying, "the screwing you're getting is not worth the screwing you're getting."


----------



## john_lord_b3

Machiavelli said:


> I agree that those numbers are the correct ones, from my own reading a while back.
> 
> Now, to answer the OP's original questions, the men who should get married are those who wish to have kids and be involved in their lives. Three out of four will succeed in this mission.
> 
> Men with no desire for children should not marry, with one exception. The exception is single men who can not score 3 nights out of the week. Such men will experience an increase in sex when they marry, at least for 4-7 years before the drought sets in. *Of course, they have to weigh the value of the sex against the value of their future earnings that will be diverted to the STBX. Consider the old saying, "the screwing you're getting is not worth the screwing you're getting*."


will the legalization of prostitution and better industrial regulations, to ensure the welfare of the workers and customers alike, could be a good answer to this problem?


----------



## john_lord_b3

SimplyAmorous said:


> ...We have 5 sons...We care a great deal that they choose wisely when it comes to women...this could make or break their very futures... their happiness..
> 
> Our 3rd son is still pretty young ... he's got a cheerleader GF who I believe is stringing him along...with a little flirting it up on the side -when he is not around... she is secretive, saw her walking around with 3 guys at a festival yesterday... she wasn't answering her phone when he was calling either .. he knows he's going to have to let her go (again)........ Physically beautiful ...but ...he needs a site more than that !
> 
> He broke up with her last year -over this sort of thing...his brother was furious when he got back together with her.. and here it is happening all over again.... Oh well. They are young, He is learning. Too many red flags with this one.. Our teens do talk to us about this stuff.. they value our input... probably not the norm. But we are thankful .


Mrs. SA, you sounds like my mother when I was younger.. thanks to her input, I have a great wife now..


----------



## john_lord_b3

Wiserforit said:


> ...The professional studies, even by the military itself demonstrate these wars created more enemies than they eliminated...


This I agree.. Especially the Iraq wars. Now there are people in my country who thinks Saddam Hussain is a saintly martyr. The fact is that Mr. Saddam was a despicable tyrant who gassed his own people. But due to the Gulf War, some people _outside_ Iraq thinks he is a saint, an icon of injustice against the Arabs and Islam... This is a crazy world... If only the Gulf War never happened, in the eyes of the world, Saddam Hussain would have remained a tyrant who gassed his own people, and I am certain that someday his people and the Kuwaiti people will raise up and topple him out of their own volition..


----------



## john_lord_b3

Catherine602 said:


> You have had bad experiences so i understand why you feel as you do. You sound like an extraordinary man. You could easily have gotten out of the support of your kids. You certainly are not obliged to support them into adulthood. But yiu are too good to leave them high and dry.
> 
> I an sorry that b!tches did this. They are not as happy and carefree as they seem.
> 
> Its not the children's fault though. I think your actions agree with that.
> 
> So whats to be done? You have had bad experiences so has your daughter. Will making marriage more advantageous to men solve the problem? *Perhaps making marriage a better institution for men and women is an approach that would work*.


Agree 100% :iagree: I believe earlier in the thread, there are good inputs by Mr. Viseral here to that effect

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...here-any-tangible-benefits-3.html#post2878826


----------



## Machiavelli

SimplyAmorous said:


> Or leaves him notes in his rugged old lunch Box - no briefcases here (mine is a blue collar worker) - Love your post .. .he'd vouch for all those.... We've always felt it got better after the
> 's....even with some valley's along the way... just being able to lean on each other... We both look upon each other as the ..."Wind beneath Our Wings"..
> 
> post Laila8
> 
> 
> 
> We have 5 sons...We care a great deal that they choose wisely when it comes to women...this could make or break their very futures... their happiness..
> 
> Our 3rd son is still pretty young ... he's got a cheerleader GF who I believe is stringing him along...with a little flirting it up on the side -when he is not around... she is secretive, saw her walking around with 3 guys at a festival yesterday... she wasn't answering her phone when he was calling either .. he knows he's going to have to let her go (again)........ Physically beautiful ...but ...he needs a site more than that !
> 
> He broke up with her last year -over this sort of thing...his brother was furious when he got back together with her.. and here it is happening all over again.... Oh well. They are young, He is learning. Too many red flags with this one.. Our teens do talk to us about this stuff.. they value our input... probably not the norm. But we are thankful .


I remember you talking about this. As you suggest, better your son learn about this type now than 4 years after the wedding. 

Since we last discussed kids, my younger son, the one girls were always trying to get his attention, who didn't date has started dating an extremely attractive young lady. Both were each other's first date. At age 24. Better late than never.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Wiserforit said:


> That's one of the great things about feminism: not having a definition. It's one of the exact reasons for crossing them off the list.
> 
> Pretending to have your own definition of a term is a demonstration of manipulative nature. Words do not have fixed meanings. Instead they mean whatever we want them to mean depending on what our agenda is.
> 
> For the ones that claim feminism is all about equality and not "radical" feminsim - that's exactly who I am talking about. Cross them off the list. There isn't any point to the term in that case. I could call myself a "masculinist" and say that means the same thing, ie masculanist = feminist = gender neutralist.
> 
> I know to expect disengenuous discussion with such a person, so there is no point to having relationships with them. There are plenty of women worldwide who have not been infected with this, including right here in the USA. But there are many cultures which have far less of it.


Ah, thank you for the elucidation, now I understand a bit better. Yes, it would be difficult to discuss if the definitions are unclear.


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> Actually, it does make a difference, and no, they don't equally apply. The presence of a father in the home increases academic achievement and it reduces adolescent violence and subsequently criminal involvement. Men are becoming increasingly less likely to marry and and increasing number of kids are being raised in homes without their fathers. There are societal consequences. We're already seeing some of them and they will get worse.


But your original premise was


> *Originally Posted by unbelievable
> Assume you are talking to a single, employed male with no particular aspirations of raising children. What, if any, benefits could he expect from marriage?*


If you were talking to a single, employed female with no particular aspirations of raising children then your scenarios are equal for men and women.

There are up and down sides to marriage for both genders, it is an individual case situation, not a men v's women and who gets royally screwed over the hardest.
Let's not forget that many women give up careers or work to raise children and can be in a very difficult situation if they find themselves middle aged, single and with no employment hopes.


----------



## Viseral

What legal/financial obligations do women have to men in marriage?

I can think of quite a few obligations that men have for women, namely:

- ring
- wedding
- support of SAHM
- alimony
- child support
- half the assets
- half 401k
- half of pension
- jail time if men can't pay alimony/child support

Women have children, this is true. However, with birth control women can choose when to have children, and they're legally guaranteed child support payments, married or not.

The only situation I can think of where women might be legally/financially obligated to men is if they earn more money than their husband, and even then it's rare/minimal.

Men appear to carry the lions share of legal/financial risk in the no-fault marriage/divorce system.

Could it be that men are making the rational choice that modern marriage isn't worth the hassle?

Should "the system" not be more balanced so that both men and women equally share the risks and rewards?

Wouldn't a revised system of marriage that offered men incentives to marry, also benefit women?


----------



## Holland

Viseral said:


> What legal/financial obligations do women have to men in marriage?
> 
> I can think of quite a few obligations that men have for women, namely:
> 
> - ring both partners contribute to costs
> - wedding both partners contribute to costs
> - support of SAHM which is far cheaper than paying for a cleaner, house keeper, child care, gardener etc. This is a choice that a couple needs to make together. The courts do and should protect the stay at home parent in divorce, rightly so. In Australia a stay at home parent is viewed as contributing equally to a marriage that involves children which is exactly how it should be.
> - alimony not relevant in Australia
> - child support the courts and CSA (Child SUpport AGency) make fair and equitable decisions on CS based on factors including % of care and income of each parent. Why should one parent be able to go on to have a career while the other is taking on the majority of child care without pay?
> - half the assets a fair % of joint assets are awarded which is exactly how it should be. Just because (generally) a man has been in paid work for the marriage it does not mean that the wife has not contributed. Again the courts recognise that unpaid stay at home parents contribute to the family equally.
> - half 401k don't know what that is
> - half of pension in Aust men and women get pensions, it is not gender based.
> - jail time if men can't pay alimony/child support don't have children if you do not intend to support them.
> 
> Women have children, this is true. However, with birth control women can choose when to have children, and they're legally guaranteed child support payments, married or not.
> 
> The only situation I can think of where women might be legally/financially obligated to men is if they earn more money than their husband, and even then it's rare/minimal.
> 
> Men appear to carry the lions share of legal/financial risk in the no-fault marriage/divorce system.
> 
> Could it be that men are making the rational choice that modern marriage isn't worth the hassle?
> 
> Should "the system" not be more balanced so that both men and women equally share the risks and rewards?
> 
> Wouldn't a revised system of marriage that offered men incentives to marry, also benefit women?


The system here as it stands is fair, it protects the partner that has been a stay at home parent and allows for an equitable spilt of joint assets. 

A man that goes out to work, earns good money is doing it for the family, not simply for his own future.
A parent that gives up work and future career options does it for the family.
The main wage earner is not considered more important, a marriage is supposed to be a equal situation for both so a divorce also needs to be equal.


----------



## Sanity

Holland said:


> The system here as it stands is fair, it protects the partner that has been a stay at home parent and allows for an equitable spilt of joint assets.
> 
> A man that goes out to work, earns good money is doing it for the family, not simply for his own future.
> 
> A parent that gives up work and future career options does it
> for the family.
> 
> The main wage earner is not considered more important, a marriage is supposed to be a equal situation for both so a divorce also needs to be equal.


Anecdotal evidence disagrees with your statement. Time and time again I have seen cases of men "taken to the cleaners" by unreasonable exes that believes a man should keep providing for her after the divorce. Lifetime alimony or long term alimony is the very definition of a parasite and makes the man a wage slave for life. I'm all for very limited rehabilitive support arraignment but lifetime alimony is ridiculous. 

Going back to the topic of this post, if you want men to start seeing marriage as a better choice, its time to reform alimony laws and divorce laws including bringing back at fault divorce. 
Cheating spouses should not get a dime and this should be included in a marriage "contract". Some people have no morals so messing with their money is the only way to keep them honest.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Men, pay very close attention to this discussion. It's what you will find in your real life. I have. You thought it was different for me? No no. It's all the same. The laws change when someone feels disenfranchised and can prove it in a court of law. General ideas seem to be fairly constant with some variation in the intensity of emotion surrounding the issues. Not bad or good, just educational. Responsibilities seem the same. "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine." This is an old saying my mother used to tease us with as kids. Think about it before wholly rejecting it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WorkingOnMe said:


> You have to have just the right circumstances. I.e. a wife who makes very little money.


:lol:
See why I don't trust lawyers and accountants?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sanity said:


> .
> 
> Going back to the topic of this post, if you want men to start seeing marriage as a better choice, its time to reform alimony laws and divorce laws including bringing back at fault divorce.
> *Cheating spouses should not get a dime and this should be included in a marriage "contract". Some people have no morals so messing with their money is the only way to keep them honest.*


I fully agree with this.
Cheating is not simply a private matter between two people. 
If it was , then the betrayed party should have the right to do what they want with the transgressor and not have to suffer financially.
The state's role should be something like an enforcer in a " third party contract." [ lol, obviously I am not a lawyer!]
Breach of that contract should include financial compensation as a penalty.
Both parties involved in the act should be made to pay, financially.


lol, obviously I am not a lawyer , but just my random , layman's musings


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> I fully agree with this.
> Cheating is not simply a private matter between two people.
> If it was , then the betrayed party should have the right to do what they want with the transgressor and not have to suffer financially.
> The state's role should be something like an enforcer in a " third party contract." [ lol, obviously I am not a lawyer!]
> Breach of that contract should include financial compensation as a penalty.
> Both parties involved in the act should be made to pay, financially.
> 
> 
> lol, obviously I am not a lawyer , but just my random , layman's musings


You guys realize that the only people who win in this scenario are the divorce lawyers, right?

You think legal fees are high now? Wait until the lawyers have to prove and defend against charges of adultery. Private investigator fees would become standard. The number of cases that go to trial would skyrocket (now, in the US 95% settle without a trial).

All at-fault divorce would do is make sure that most couples spend most of the money they are fighting over on their lawyers.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nynaeve said:


> You guys realize that the only people who win in this scenario are the divorce lawyers, right?
> 
> You think legal fees are high now? Wait until the lawyers have to prove and defend against charges of adultery. Private investigator fees would become standard. The number of cases that go to trial would skyrocket (now, in the US 95% settle without a trial).
> 
> All at-fault divorce would do is make sure that most couples spend most of the money they are fighting over on their lawyers.


It's no problem.
As long as in the end,
The guilty parties are made to pay!
Justice must prevail for there to be equilibrium.
Why should the innocent party suffer betrayal _and_ also financially in the courts, in cases of adultery?
What is your justification for that?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Has anyone really proven why it is advantageous to get married? I see some, but very little advantage. Some powerful pre-nups or some other contract might just do the trick with anyone you decide to live with for a while. As your life gets better in money and prestige, you can find better and better prospects for marriage. This goes for women as well, so don't think I am ONLY telling men this. 

I see the only advantage as having children and raising them. You have almost a fifty fifty chance that you will raise your own children. Many just pay for their children to be raised by the affair partner or someone else, adding insult to injury. You can't be certain of anything. You may be better off hiring a nanny to be with your child while you are at work. You will pay for her services and she will do her job satisfactorily or you fire her. There doesn't have to be emotion connected due to a sexual bond(with the other parent). You will be able to have the child and family you always wanted. You can get together with other single parents and talk about raising children properly without personal issues coming up. You can distance your fun sex life from your family life. You can have it ALL. I mean this for both men and women.


----------



## Catherine602

Davelli0331 said:


> Ok, so I have some honest questions here.
> 
> 1) If you guys all hate marriage so much, why not just divorce (for those that are still married)? I get that you fear you would be heaping financial ruination upon yourself, but some of you guys sound so angry, miserable, and bitter, wouldn't you rather at least have the peace of being out of the gynocratic institution that you claim marriage to be? Wouldn't it just be better to opt out of the whole thing if you think it's a scam?
> 
> 2) Why do so many of you guys feel the need to push these anti-marriage ideals on a forum dedicated to advice and help for marital problems? That seems incredibly disingenuous to me. Wouldn't all this energy be better spent writing congressman to change the laws you seem to think are so unfair, or joining a PAC dedicated to the eradication of marriage?


:lol::lol::lol: Love it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Men and women need to know these things before going into marriage. If they were better informed, there may actually be less divorces and trouble with marriages. Better to show them what they are up against on a forum. Show them the attitudes that are out there so that they can be certain that marriage is what the want. Instead of them being whipped or goaded into it. 

That is the purpose of these types of threads.


----------



## Faithful Wife

These threads sure make me love my husband more. They also make me feel bad for people who are bitter and burned by bad marriages.


----------



## Cosmos

I agree with the OP. However, here are some benefits, apparently, for a man marrying:-


1. Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.

2. Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.

3. Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.

4. Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.

5. Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.

6. Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.

Read more: Benefits of Marriage: Men's Health

There are pros and cons for both genders electing to remain single. I only really started to notice some of the cons when I hit my 50s.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Davelli0331 said:


> But this is a forum dedicated to giving marriage advice and relationship help to those that are already married. Given your reasoning, wouldn't your target audience be unmarried men? Or confused men already married. and women by the way.
> 
> Wouldn't all this energy be better spent starting a blog, writing editorials to your local newspaper, or lobbying your state lawmakers?I guess I touched a nerve. Sorry.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I come here for support in marital issues, I certainly don't want to be told that I was a sucker for getting married and funding my wife's imminent betrayal, divorce, and theft of 50% of my stuff. Though I don't doubt that *some* people, regardless of gender, use marriage to that end, I certainly don't see it as epidemic. I want actual advice, not finger pointing by what seems to me to be very angry and bitter men.


copy and show me what you believe to be finger pointing dave. I don't see it. I see where folks are missing the point and turning it into a political discussion. Is it political or is it about finding the right partner and knowing if you chose the right partner? Don't you think that when folks are in a positiion that brought them here, it helps to know what they should be looking for in a spouse? Don't you think that will help them to decide whether to reconcile or not? I do. I think they are here because they made a bad choice, just like I did. Due to bad performance on their part or their spouses part or both. Don't you think it helps to see what a good or bad marriage looks like? 

I do see your point. You don't like your nose rubbed into your bad decisions. I have had that throughout my time here. You can't stop people from having a different opinion than you. You have a right to your opinions just as I do. I see your requests as bullying to get your ideas across rather than being open to possiblities. Was that your intention or do you believe everyone's opinion has some validity?


----------



## unbelievable

Davelli0331 said:


> But this is a forum dedicated to giving marriage advice and relationship help to those that are already married. Given your reasoning, wouldn't your target audience be unmarried men?
> 
> Wouldn't all this energy be better spent starting a blog, writing editorials to your local newspaper, or lobbying your state lawmakers?
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but I know that when I come here for support in marital issues, I certainly don't want to be told that I was a sucker for getting married and funding my wife's imminent betrayal, divorce, and theft of 50% of my stuff. Though I don't doubt that *some* people, regardless of gender, use marriage to that end, I certainly don't see it as epidemic. I want actual advice, not finger pointing by what seems to me to be very angry and bitter men.


Luckily for you, there are numerous threads here with a wide variety of topics. Hopping on a public forum is like going into Shoney's and checking out the buffet. There may be some dishes you don't care for and there's no law that requires you to sample them. Maybe you had a taste for chicken. Don't choose the fish and then complain that it isn't chicken. We have chicken out the wazoo. Move on down the buffet and load your plate with whatever suits your fancy.


----------



## unbelievable

1. Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.

2. Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.

3. Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.

4. Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.

5. Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.

6. Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.


This is helpful. I wonder if married men earn more because women are more likely to marry the sorts of men who are likely to be successful. That would seem pretty logical. Women generally tend to marry up and more women than men are getting college degrees. 

The link to accelerated promotions, especially among military officers, makes sense to me. Married men (or women) would be less likely to engage in the sorts of conduct that might interfere with promotion. Married men, especially with kids, may be motivated out of necessity to earn more and, therefore, may work harder. This is a benefit of marriage I really can't debate. Makes perfect sense. Can't really debate the rest of them, either. Thanks!


----------



## Viseral

Davelli0331 said:


> Ok, so I have some honest questions here.
> 
> 1) If you guys all hate marriage so much, why not just divorce (for those that are still married)? I get that you fear you would be heaping financial ruination upon yourself, but some of you guys sound so angry, miserable, and bitter, wouldn't you rather at least have the peace of being out of the gynocratic institution that you claim marriage to be? Wouldn't it just be better to opt out of the whole thing if you think it's a scam?
> 
> 2) Why do so many of you guys feel the need to push these anti-marriage ideals on a forum dedicated to advice and help for marital problems? That seems incredibly disingenuous to me. Wouldn't all this energy be better spent writing congressman to change the laws you seem to think are so unfair, or joining a PAC dedicated to the eradication of marriage?


We're not pushing anti-marriage ideas. We want to improve marriage. The first step is educating people on the current realities of marriage.

I guarantee that 95% of all men never research marriage laws before they enter their first marriage. If/when that marriage fails they get schooled real quick by the laws that are presently on the books.

How would you feel if your wife left you then you had to pay her for the next 20 years? Or if you left, then you had to pay her for the next 20 years? See how it works?

Men concerned with men's issues are not angry resentful men. The pushback on men voicing their concerns is to shame them as angry and resentful for pointing out inequities in the laws that govern marriage and divorce. We simply want a system that's more fair to both genders.

None of this has anything to do with feelings or emotion. It's about the laws that govern marriage and divorce.


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> It's no problem.
> As long as in the end,
> The guilty parties are made to pay!
> Justice must prevail for there to be equilibrium.
> Why should the innocent party suffer betrayal _and_ also financially in the courts, in cases of adultery?
> What is your justification for that?


Well, I'm not necessarily against fault divorce as you describe it. I am a family law attorney, after all.  But sometimes I wonder if the people yammering for it really understand what they're talking about. 

At-fault divorce has the tendency to increase animosity, it increases the stakes, makes people more likely to fight rather than settle their disputes amicably. If children are involved acrimony between the parents makes divorce - an already difficult time for them - 10 times worse for the kids.

There are a lot of logistical tangles. Do emotional affairs count? What about porn use? Will there be "affirmative defenses" available to the defendant? For example, if a man cheats can he claim that he only did it because his wife checked out and didn't have sex with him for 10 years? Will that be allowed to excuse or mitigate the offense? After all, it could be argued that she breached the marriage covenant first in that scenario. Or what if a woman cheats but claims that her husband has been verbally, mentally or emotionally abusing her for years first?

No fault divorce laws didn't spring up out of nowhere, in a vacuum. There were and are very good public policy reasons for it.

This law review article explains the reasoning behind the adoption of no-fault laws:

http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/1991/1/war.pdf

The article also points out the ways no-fault divorce laws have failed to achieve some of their goals. So, I do think that there is a lot of room for reform in our current divorce laws. For example, many states do not allow any evidence of fault. I think that there can be a no-fault divorce - in the sense that one does not HAVE to prove fault in order to obtain divorce - that still allows parties to introduce evidence of fault for property division purposes. (Which is what you describe).

But I wish more people understood that the divorce laws before no-fault adoption were riddled with problems, too. It used to be the courts could not grant a divorce - leaving out property division for a moment - without some proof of statutory grounds such as cruelty, abandonment or adultery. In other words, the court would have to deny the petition and the parties would have to remain married unless they could prove one of the grounds for divorce. But the lawmakers recognized that courts could not force people to live together. People were just remaining married, on paper, to their spouses but going off and living with other people even raising families with other people. Making divorces more difficult to obtain does not make marriages remain intact. People will just find ways around it. They will behave as they want to behave. Fault divorce laws also put a disproportionate burden on lower income people. If they cannot afford a lawyer, their ability to prove the grounds for divorce was almost nil.

I'm not convinced that angry and bitter spouses' desire for revenge and punishment is a good public policy reason for reform. Unless we're talking criminal law, punishment is not a goal of courts. In civil actions, compensation for actual injury is, barring truly egregious situations, the extent of what courts will award. Punitive damages are supposed to be rarely awarded and only for situations that are truly shocking. In normal contract law, you don't get money from someone who breached the contract unless the breach of the contract actually cost you money. The breaching party isn't usually punished for breaching the contract, even though, by definition, they broke their word and 'betrayed' the other party. If they breach the contract, but it doesn't cause any actual (financial) damage to the non-breaching party then the breaching party isn't going to be made to pay anything.

In addition, it seems mostly men who complain about no-fault divorce, because they seem to think this system is disproportionately hurting them. But studies have shown that it is actually custodial mothers and children who are harmed the more under this system than under the old fault divorce system. (See the law review article linked above).

So, I have to say that some of the guys here need to be careful what they ask for. We all know that men and women are equally likely to cheat. Some of the men here seem hell bent on punishing women. Did they stop to think that under at-fault divorce, it is men who will end up being punished?

What I see mostly from angry, bitter men in these discussions is a desire to force women to stay married to them. What they want, it seems to me, is to make divorce so difficult that women will be financially coerced into putting up with abuse and severe unhappiness.

I'm not saying anyone here is thinking that way. I recognize that several of the posters had some really bad situations where their wives were indeed at fault. But I don't think that their stories are representative of the majority.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Faithful Wife said:


> These threads sure make me love my husband more. They also make me feel bad for people who are bitter and burned by bad marriages.



:smthumbup:


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> We're not pushing anti-marriage ideas. We want to improve marriage. The first step is educating people on the current realities of marriage.
> 
> *I guarantee that 95% of all men never research marriage laws before they enter their first marriage. If/when that marriage fails they get schooled real quick by the laws that are presently on the books*.
> 
> How would you feel if your wife left you then you had to pay her for the next 20 years? Or if you left, then you had to pay her for the next 20 years? See how it works?
> 
> Men concerned with men's issues are not angry resentful men. The pushback on men voicing their concerns is to shame them as angry and resentful for pointing out inequities in the laws that govern marriage and divorce. *We simply want a system that's more fair to both genders*.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with feelings or emotion. It's about the laws that govern marriage and divorce.


:iagree: I understand and agree with what you said above, especially your desire to have a system that is more fair to both genders, and thus it is advisable for young people to learn the laws pertaining to marriage before making the decision to plunge into one.:smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

NYnaeve....wasn't NY one of the last states to end no-fault divorce, just a few years ago?


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> NYnaeve....wasn't NY one of the last states to end no-fault divorce, just a few years ago?


I don't know. I'm not from NY.

Nynaeve is the name of a character from a book. It doesn't have anything to do with New York.


----------



## unbelievable

That would help and so would bringing back meaningful employment opportunities for average males. We can't all be high level executives and few women can be proud of or attracted to a man who wears a paper hat and puts fries in a bag. A guy working at Burger King, even if he has an undergraduate degree, can't afford a wife or kids.


----------



## Nynaeve

Davelli0331 said:


> Then call me Rand al'Thor


Lord Dragon. *bow*


----------



## Faithful Wife

New York divorce law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/l24divorce.html?_r=0


----------



## unbelievable

Satya said:


> Hugs. They are tangible.


Yea, but I doubt there are 5 women in the country who believe a husband has a right to expect them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> john_lord, mentioned that in his country their families are more clan like. The model of my family is more clan like than the traditional American family. It is difficult for people to understand and finding the spouse that will adapt to this kind of family will not be easy for our children. However, it is this family model that has ensured that my children have endured a very difficult time. *Their father may now be absent from their lives but they do not lack in male leadership, guidance and love on a daily basis. We have pointed out to our children that in this life they may not be always be able to rely on even their spouse, that is why continuing their bond with each other will be key.*


The same extended family model exist in our culture.


----------



## john_lord_b3

coffee4me said:


> I been thinking about this. Despite the way my 25 year long relationship has turned out I would want my children to marry. I have noticed that I have adapted some of the ideas I was raised with to better equip them in their future.
> 
> Knowing where they stand financially is something I have already discussed and by the time they marry they will be fully aware. They need to know and decide how they will secure their financial future.
> 
> I could say choosing the right person is key and it is however, I don't feel that alone ensures a successful marriage. Things happen, people change understanding that and adapting to make the marriage work or realize it's failure is key.


:iagree:



> john_lord, mentioned that in his country their families are more clan like. The model of my family is more clan like than the traditional American family. It is difficult for people to understand and finding the spouse that will adapt to this kind of family will not be easy for our children. However, it is this family model that has ensured that my children have endured a very difficult time. Their father may now be absent from their lives but they do not lack in male leadership, guidance and love on a daily basis. *We have pointed out to our children that in this life they may not be always be able to rely on even their spouse, that is why continuing their bond with each other will be key*.


:smthumbup: by Allah, despite our differences in nationality and (maybe) religion, we do share similarities too!



> john_lord, you asked about how the elderly are cared for in this country. In my family like yours we care for our own unless it's medically impossible. My grandmother lives with me


That was the normal way of life around here. In fact I remember my great grandmother still living with my grandfather and my parents when I was a little boy. We never have an empty home. I am happy to hear that people from other countries also cares for their elderly. Respect for our elders is universal characteristics of all world's great religion.



> I can't tell you the number of elderly I have met who have said that their children would never allow they to live with them. On my block there are 4 widows all past the age of 85 who live alone, all have children. It's sad that they live the remainder of their years lonely without the love and companionship of family.



 In my country, there is a saying "surga dibawah telapak kaki ibu/al jannatu tahta wa ahkamil ummahati (heaven is at the seat of our mothers). So sorry to hear about those poor women. What had driven their children to abandon their mothers at their old age? Was it economic pressure? Cannot afford to have their mothers living with them?


----------



## unbelievable

I don't believe I project much. I've had a number of women on this forum say a husband has no right to expect sex from his wife. Mating is the absolute minimum performance criteria for anyone in the position of "mate". My entire point, boiled down is this...society has expectations of husbands that are pretty clearly understood and some of these expectations have been codified into actual laws. What duty does a man have to his wife? Almost universally, the idea of providing security would emerge. That duty is independent of his feelings. He's a husband so he works if he is able and he shares the proceeds with his wife, either willingly or the state will see that he does. This duty can extend even beyond the marriage. Now, what duty does a wife have to her husband that is independent of her own free will? If she wants to be supportive, she will. If she wants to work, she should be able to. If she wants to be a SAHM, that's her right. If she wants to have sex, it's her choice. If she doesn't, that's cool. I'm trying to imagine any scenario where I pledge to give at least 50% of my property to someone who agrees to do only what they feel like doing only as long as they feel like doing it. That would be insane but that's what marriage seems to have come to. My grandparents and even my father had a clear understand of what a wife was and did when they got married. Their wives understood and that's exactly what they got. No surprises, no real deviations. It was the same logical contract that had been going on for thousands of years. It no longer exists in reality for most American men.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> The same extended family model exist in our culture.


:smthumbup:

We, you and I, are tropical people, Mr. Carribean. My professor mentioned that in tropical agrarian people, having extended families are for survival reasons. More persons within a clan = more people to work the ricefields and more people to guard the village.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Unbelievable...who would want to hug a cold and prickly man, like what you are projecting of yourself?

Those prickles HURT, like a cactus.

My husband is warm and fuzzy and hugable. Mmmm....


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> I don't believe I project much. *I've had a number of women on this forum say a husband has no right to expect sex from his wife*. Mating is the absolute minimum performance criteria for anyone in the position of "mate". My entire point, boiled down is this...society has expectations of husbands that are pretty clearly understood and some of these expectations have been codified into actual laws. What duty does a man have to his wife? Almost universally, the idea of providing security would emerge. That duty is independent of his feelings. He's a husband so he works if he is able and he shares the proceeds with his wife, either willingly or the state will see that he does. This duty can extend even beyond the marriage. Now, what duty does a wife have to her husband that is independent of her own free will? If she wants to be supportive, she will. If she wants to work, she should be able to. If she wants to be a SAHM, that's her right. If she wants to have sex, it's her choice. If she doesn't, that's cool. I'm trying to imagine any scenario where I pledge to give at least 50% of my property to someone who agrees to do only what they feel like doing only as long as they feel like doing it. That would be insane but that's what marriage seems to have come to. My grandparents and even my father had a clear understand of what a wife was and did when they got married. Their wives understood and that's exactly what they got. No surprises, no real deviations. It was the same logical contract that had been going on for thousands of years. It no longer exists in reality for most American men.


:scratchhead: the bolded parts, eh :scratchhead: does women in your country really behaves like that and expect their husbands to comply? Mr. Unbelievable, I am not saying that I don't believe you, maybe such women exists.. but, surely you talk about extremes, not the norm?

I found a more pleasant (to my ears) explanations here by Mrs. Momtwo and Mr. TAG

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/93290-what-hard-working-husband-worth-12.html#post2904409


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> Project much? Don't you think that's a little extreme?
> 
> Or do you really believe that all but 5 women in the US are evil, conniving, misandrist manipulators figuring out new ways to use marriage to enslave men?


Nah,

I believe that marriage is supposed to be a wonderful , mutually benefiting relationship where two people love and treat each other with respect .
I have been in such a marriage for the past 18 years.
My wife has never cheated ,neither me.
We both respect ourselves and neither one is a doormat.
She has her own bank accounts and so do I.
She has her on property , and so do I.
She can go anywhere she pleases but defers to my opinion.
I can go anywhere , but I defer to her opinion.
We have no kids by choice.
We sometimes disagree and argue,
But there has never been any time in our 18 years of marriage that she has raised her voice at me , neither me raised my voice at her or my hand to hit her.
I cook , I do the laundry , I do the dishes and I take care of all her wants an needs.
In return, she has my back, and respects me as her husband and as a man.

Basically, despite our idiosyncrasies ,like a few others here on TAM,I have a marriage made in heaven, I married the best woman.

But I can understand some men and women were not as lucky as me , and their marriages are living HELL. Some people are better of separated , and if they feel bitter and trapped, that is their right, whether they are male or female.
Who are you to condemn and label them?
Really, who are we to do so?
They have every right to come here and vent their feelings.
I try to understand exactly where they're coming from , allow them space and help if I can.
People express themselves in different ways, I understand this.
It is what has made our marriage successful, freedom of expression or the principle of _radical honesty.
_
That's my projection of our marriage.
What's your projection of your marriage?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My projection of marriage is that people can be very happy and in love and have great sex for decades. It is possible, I live it, I love it.

Like you I'm sorry for others who have a horrid marriage. I had one of those as well (not horrid really but just not like what I have now). I have faith that people will end up where they want to be. Sometimes they do want to stay in a marriage that isn't serving them well, and that is their choice, too.

Cheers, CM!


----------



## Caribbean Man

john_lord_b3 said:


> :smthumbup:
> 
> We, you and I, are tropical people, Mr. Carribean. My professor mentioned that in tropical agrarian people, having extended families are for survival reasons. More persons within a clan = more people to work the ricefields and more people to guard the village.


Historically, yes.


----------



## unbelievable

Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


----------



## Nynaeve

unbelievable said:


> I don't believe I project much. I've had a number of women on this forum say a husband has no right to expect sex from his wife. Mating is the absolute minimum performance criteria for anyone in the position of "mate". My entire point, boiled down is this...society has expectations of husbands that are pretty clearly understood and some of these expectations have been codified into actual laws. What duty does a man have to his wife? Almost universally, the idea of providing security would emerge. That duty is independent of his feelings. He's a husband so he works if he is able and he shares the proceeds with his wife, either willingly or the state will see that he does. This duty can extend even beyond the marriage. Now, what duty does a wife have to her husband that is independent of her own free will? If she wants to be supportive, she will. If she wants to work, she should be able to. If she wants to be a SAHM, that's her right. If she wants to have sex, it's her choice. If she doesn't, that's cool. I'm trying to imagine any scenario where I pledge to give at least 50% of my property to someone who agrees to do only what they feel like doing only as long as they feel like doing it. That would be insane but that's what marriage seems to have come to. My grandparents and even my father had a clear understand of what a wife was and did when they got married. Their wives understood and that's exactly what they got. No surprises, no real deviations. It was the same logical contract that had been going on for thousands of years. It no longer exists in reality for most American men.



I'm really struggling to understand what you think the alternatives should be. Or what the solution to these problems would be.

Do you think it should considered socially unacceptable for women not to work if married? (Do you realize that only about 13% of married families have the 'traditional' single income set-up?)

This makes the least sense to me. Traditional masculine roles are the ones that say men should be the financial providers in the home. The trade-off has always been that men provide the finances and women keep the home clean, make the food and care for the children. And yet, you seem particularly upset that this traditional role is expected of men. Do you think that men should not be responsible for financial provision for their families?

Is it during marriage that you see this arrangement as unfair to men, or only after divorce. I can sort of see the resentment when a guy is still providing financially but no longer getting the meals, cleaning, (unpaid labor) of the woman after divorce. But I don't understand why the unpaid labor of a SAHW is not being credited during marriage. A wife who stays home has the same level of social expectation of certain responsibilities as the man. He is expected to take on the responsibility to make money, she is expected to take on the responsibility of keeping house. Neither is actually _forced_ to do those things. I know several men who remain perpetually unemployed while their wives bring home the bacon. No one is forcing those men to provide for their families.

Do you think it should be illegal for women to say no to sex to their husbands?

Do you think the 'contract' in marriage should be "husband earns money, wife has sex on demand?" Because, I gotta be honest, that's what it sounds like you're arguing for. You seem to see sex as an obligation in marriage. A contractual obligation. Which, tbh, IMHO is seriously devaluing marriage. That's not marriage, that's prostitution.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

unbelievable said:


> Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


ugh.Sex as a duty? Why can't she just WANT it? A wife should WANT to have sex with her husband if he's a good man and does right by her.
A husband should WANT to be a good man and do right by his wife provided she's a good woman and does right by him.

Give and take.Leave the Duty at the door.


----------



## unbelievable

There doesn't need to be any quotation marks around "contract". That's what a marriage is. We sign papers and make promises before witnesses, we need a judge to dissolve the contract.

Ok, there's one who doesn't think a wife has a duty to have sex with her husband. That didn't take long. So, John Lord b3, do you still believe such women don't exist? 
I believe if we tried "cooking" or any other verb, we'd get the same response, only probably quicker. So, husbands do have a duty, wives apparently do not, unless. A duty is something one does because it is the morally right thing to do. You recognize it when you see people doing things they don't want to do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't care if I have a "duty" to f*ck my husband or not. I want to f*ck him because he is f*ckable, period.

If he wasn't f*ckable, I wouldn't want to f*ck him.

Simple.


----------



## unbelievable

That's nice, Faithful, but what about if you didn't want to?


----------



## Starstarfish

> Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband?


You mean do spouses have a mutual duty to create a sexually satisfying marriage, yes? But again, this seems to ignore the endless women on here who are the "HD" partner - does their husband have a duty to have sex for them? 

I mean, once you start sexing sex as "a duty" you've failed already. And how many men legitimately enjoy when they are obviously getting "duty sex?" 

I don't know, the moment we start passing laws about how often people need to have sex, with whom, and the ability to enforce that law with punishments - I'd say we've obviously gotten into full "The Handmaid's Tale" zone. All you need to do is combine it with a full restriction on birth control (which, hmm, no doubt some would agree with).


----------



## Faithful Wife

unbelievable....What are you getting at? Why would I not want to? He is so deliciously f*ckable and all.


----------



## unbelievable

I heard the answer I expected to hear. A poster expressed disbelief that I had been told by wives that they had no duty to have sex with their husbands. He didn't believe such women existed. If one posed that question to most of the earth's inhabitants, they'd get a very quick, very different answer. If one posed that question here in 1960 or even in 1970, they'd get a very different answer.


----------



## unbelievable

Does a husband have a moral duty to financially support his family or aid in their financial support if he is physically capable of doing so?


----------



## Starstarfish

You mean in other countries where it's legal to beat, rape, and kill your wife when she displeases you?


----------



## unbelievable

It was legal to beat, rape, and kill your wife in 1970 United States?


----------



## Faithful Wife

unbelievable said: "Does a husband have a moral duty to financially support his family or aid in their financial support if he is physically capable of doing so?"

No, he doesn't. 

However, I have no moral duty to marry anyone at all. Neither does he. We can choose to partner up and share assets or not. If we choose not to, who cares?

I don't even know what your story is unbelievable...but you just seem to want your sitch to be true for everyone. It is not.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

unbelievable said:


> Does a husband have a moral duty to financially support his family or aid in their financial support if he is physically capable of doing so?


He has a moral obligation to help support children made from his sperm.Same as a woman has a moral duty to help support children she gave birth to in her life.

The rest should only be done if that's what man and woman agreed upon at the time finances were discussed,prior to marriage.


----------



## Starstarfish

Well, it might have been legal to rape her, depending on what state we are talking about - yes - spousal rape wasn't made illegal in all 50 states until 1993. And there are plenty of countries where it is still legal, or is only a crime if you are legally separated.

Marital rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nynaeve

unbelievable said:


> There doesn't need to be any quotation marks around "contract". That's what a marriage is. We sign papers and make promises before witnesses, we need a judge to dissolve the contract.


It's not just a contract, though. And the marriage covenant is much different than most contracts.

A contract has to have performance on both sides in order to be valid. The traditional contract puts "making money" on the man's side and "keeping house" on the woman's side. There are equally valuable responsibilities on both parties.

If a "contract" requires performance from only one party, then it's not actually a contract, legally speaking. If a neither party to a "contract" actually promises performance, then it's not legally a contract. 

When people get married, we don't actually sign contracts. We make vows (sometimes) to love, honor and be faithful to one another. When we sign the marriage license/certificate, there isn't actually a clause that says "the husband hereby promises to be the main source of financial support for the family." Those expectations may be imposed by society, but they do not become a legally enforceable contract. There is no offer, acceptance and consideration for those to rise to the level of contractual obligations. Even if there is an oral agreement, if we're going to apply contract law to the situation, the contract would not be enforceable because of the statute of frauds (which holds that contracts have to be in writing with a few exceptions).

So I put contract in quotes because, legally speaking, marriage is not the same as other contracts. And in fact, most people do not have contracts when they marry. It's a pseudo-contract or an implied contract at best.


Could you perhaps answer the questions I posed, though? 

You seem to avoid such questions. All you do is complain about the responsibilities men have but you never offer solutions. Is it because you know that no one would go for the solutions you offer (because they're unconscionable) or because you just haven't really thought it through?



> Ok, there's one who doesn't think a wife has a duty to have sex with her husband. That didn't take long. So, John Lord b3, do you still believe such women don't exist?
> I believe if we tried "cooking" or any other verb, we'd get the same response, only probably quicker. So, husbands do have a duty, wives apparently do not, unless. A duty is something one does because it is the morally right thing to do. You recognize it when you see people doing things they don't want to do.


You didn't ask whether women think men have a duty to provide financially for them.

I think they don't. Just as women don't have a duty to keep house or have sex, men don't have a duty to their wives to make money.

Now, if you ask whether they have a duty to provide for children, that's different. But I think the duty to provide for one's children applies to women, too.

But women are adults and can have jobs and own property. So women are responsible for themselves. If a husband and wife mutually agree that he will work while she keeps house, then that might rise to the level of self-imposed duty (as all contractual obligations are self-imposed duties). But without that mutual understanding, no, I don't think husbands have a unilateral duty to provide financially.


----------



## john_lord_b3

unbelievable said:


> There doesn't need to be any quotation marks around "contract". That's what a marriage is. We sign papers and make promises before witnesses, we need a judge to dissolve the contract.
> 
> Ok, there's one who doesn't think a wife has a duty to have sex with her husband. That didn't take long. So, John Lord b3, do you still believe such women don't exist?
> I believe if we tried "cooking" or any other verb, we'd get the same response, only probably quicker. So, husbands do have a duty, wives apparently do not, unless. A duty is something one does because it is the morally right thing to do. You recognize it when you see people doing things they don't want to do.


 eh, well, different cultures has different expectations.. so, yes you have proven your point, logically speaking  ... 

I attributed it to differences between cultures (note that I say "differences", not implying one is better than the other or vice versa)..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

unbelievable said:


> Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a *duty* to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


I've never looked upon sex as a DUTY....but a pleasure...if it ever came to feeling like a "duty"... and I was shutting him off....and it was hurting him... causing fights, bad feelings...a distance... I most certainly would feel I was doing WRONG by my husband...that HE deserved so much more. 

Similar to...if a man was falling down on his job, getting fired/ let go ...due to a lousy job performance...wrecklessly wasting his $$ & we had big financial problems...he'd feel I deserved better in a man... 

I think far too few people look at their own hand but look outward to blame ....when one does this...it should compel us to step up, do our part...for the better of our partners/ our marriage, it all comes back to ourselves. *What can WE do to move us to a better place ? *

If I wasn't keeping a clean house, I could expect him to get angry, wanting me to do more while he's at work.. if he was lazy , laying around playing video games while our vehicles needing repairs or our roof was leaking.... I'd feel the same. We all have our roles ....we depend on each other.. 

I feel so strongly about Sex being a vital "life giving" thing in marriage, that if I became a Paraplegic ...I would have to let my husband go... as I would not be able to stand what we lost in this area...if he insisted on staying with me....I'd tell him he could take a lover -since I could no longer give him what I feel I was destined to BE as his wife. 

..He's told me he could never do that....which is very loving. I feel for anyone in such a horrible situation, would never want to see the day. 

I see no excuse to not please your husband... other than abuse/ cheating on his part...or fighting in the moment -where resolution should be sought & make up sex follows.... and if the man has gained so much weight -while the woman has expressed this is a real turn off...he needs to loose it or she needs to let him go -so he can find love with another. 

So long as everything else is running smoothly in a marrraige, not at each others throats...to not please and satisfy a husband...(even after a woman has a baby & during pregnancy)...If her mouth still works to kiss and her hands still work to hold their new born baby..... she can please her husband in other ways...it's a vital part of emotional bonding... Dad shouldn't get put on the back burner... cause we have forgotten about his needs... Shame on us...I say.

I feel this is a very loving/ giving attitude of a woman who cares about her husband, and a man would worship such a woman...if he had this. 

Those are our benefits !


----------



## RoseAglow

Here, I will be one of your feminazi women.

I do not believe that spouses have a "duty" to have sex with each other. My DH does not have a duty to have sex with me when he doesn't want to (such as during that time of the month) and I don't have a duty to have sex with him when I don't want to (such as at 2:30 AM and I've been sleeping for hours.) 

I do believe that there is such a thing as spousal rape. No one is "owed" sex. Getting married is not the equivalent of being owe sex on demand.

That said, if I want to have a supportive, happy relationship, I will get it on with my husband, even if I am not entirely in the mood, most of the time. It is not out of Duty, I don't have a Contract. I do, however, love him and want him. We take care of each other. That is why we got married.

I cannot imagine any kind of happy marriage where both parties do not have free will. I base my decision on how my spouse feels about them, or whether they will help or harm my marriage. But there is no Duty.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Davelli0331 said:


> Project much? Don't you think that's a little extreme?
> 
> Or do you really believe that all but 5 women in the US are evil, conniving, misandrist manipulators figuring out new ways to use marriage to enslave men?


Mwahahhahahaaa... but we ARE!

So, seriously, is there a tangible benefit to everything that we do? 

If I help someone out by listening to them going through a rough time, there's no tangible benefit, so I shouldn't do it using your logic.

I donated my left kidney to a man I didn't know. There was no tangible benefit for me. I should have let him continue on dialysis, I suppose.

There's no tangible benefit for me in marriage either. As things stand presently, I am the breadwinner in my marriage (Hub was for 10 years) so it would likely mean he would get custody (he's a SAHD - who does get laid 3+ times a week), child support and alimony. 

I married my husband because we wanted to commit to each other for life. I wanted to know he'd be there for me through good times and bad. I suppose that's silly and old fashioned but I'll take it anyhow.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Shh - Davelli, don't let the secret out!


----------



## john_lord_b3

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never looked upon sex as a DUTY....but a pleasure...if it ever came to feeling like a "duty"... and I was shutting him off....and it was hurting him... causing fights, bad feelings...a distance... I most certainly would feel I was doing WRONG by my husband...that HE deserved so much more.
> 
> Similar to...if a man was falling down on his job, getting fired/ let go ...due to a lousy job performance...wrecklessly wasting his $$ & we had big financial problems...he'd feel I deserved better in a man...
> 
> I think far too few people look at their own hand but look outward to blame ....when one does this...it should compel us to step up, do our part...for the better of our partners/ our marriage, it all comes back to ourselves. *What can WE do to move us to a better place ? *
> 
> If I wasn't keeping a clean house, I could expect him to get angry, wanting me to do more while he's at work.. if he was lazy , laying around playing video games while our vehicles needing repairs or our roof was leaking.... I'd feel the same. We all have our roles ....we depend on each other..
> 
> I feel so strongly about Sex being a vital "life giving" thing in marriage, that if I became a Paraplegic ...I would have to let my husband go... as I would not be able to stand what we lost in this area...if he insisted on staying with me....I'd tell him he could take a lover -since I could no longer give him what I feel I was destined to BE as his wife.
> 
> ..He's told me he could never do that....which is very loving. I feel for anyone in such a horrible situation, would never want to see the day.
> 
> I see no excuse to not please your husband... other than abuse/ cheating on his part...or fighting in the moment -where resolution should be sought & make up sex follows.... and if the man has gained so much weight -while the woman has expressed this is a real turn off...he needs to loose it or she needs to let him go -so he can find love with another.
> 
> So long as everything else is running smoothly in a marrraige, not at each others throats...to not please and satisfy a husband...(even after a woman has a baby & during pregnancy)...If her mouth still works to kiss and her hands still work to hold their new born baby..... she can please her husband in other ways...it's a vital part of emotional bonding... Dad shouldn't get put on the back burner... cause we have forgotten about his needs... Shame on us...I say.
> 
> I feel this is a very loving/ giving attitude of a woman who cares about her husband, and a man would worship such a woman...if he had this.
> 
> Those are our benefits !


:smthumbup: As always, Mrs. SA, your posts never cease to amaze me. You really should be a teacher for adult education classes, on the topic of "how to build a better marriage"!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Davelli0331 said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...you're saying some women will have sex with their husbands because they love them and want to love them in that most intimate of ways?!
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that there are women out there that actually enjoy sex!


Whoa Whoa Whoa!! We're having a REAL conversation here about REAL women.Not some sexual unicorns,Ok?


----------



## Mavash.

unbelievable said:


> Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


Duty sex is unacceptable. Occasionally it's okay but this should not be the norm. For men sex isn't about scratching an itch its about being desired and wanted.

And there are women who enjoy their husbands fully and to whom sex is never seen as a duty. I feel sad for the men that don't have this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So unbelievable...you would be happy to have sex with a wife who didn't want to have sex with you at all but she felt a duty to do so? Is that what this is all about? :scratchhead:

You wish some judge somewhere would bang a gavel and tell your wife "Mrs. Unbelievable, you have a duty to have sex with your husband so get on it"? And if this occured, you feel it would solve your marital problems?

Unbelieveable, for sure.


----------



## unbelievable

Ok, does a wife have the duty to cook for her husband? I'll happily concede that women will happily have sex if they want to. If I buy a car, hire a contractor, hire an employee, or enter into any other contract, there is an offer, an acceptance, and both parties expect some measurable performance. Nobody would sell me a $20K car on my promise that I'd be emotionally supportive of the salesman as long as I felt loved. He expects specific payments on time regardless of how I feel. My boss wouldn't agree to pay me X amount of dollars every two weeks on the understanding that we care about each other, especially if he understood that if either of us chose to break the contract, he would lose half his business. He expects me to actually do something that benefits him and I expect my pay on time. Surely there must be some universally agreed upon measurable duty that a husband could expect from a potential wife. A commitment to be nice when one feels nice isn't a commitment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can you please answer my question in post # 249?


----------



## unbelievable

I believe I have a duty to attend to my wife's sexual needs. I don't regard it as shocking, disgusting, oppressive or dehumanizing. If I expect her to have sex with only me, it's only common sense that I agree to take care of her sexual needs. If you contract that you will only eat meals at one restaurant, it's implied that they will feed you. 
So, we've established that expectations of sex are over-the-top. What about cooking? What about working outside the home? Does a husband have the right to expect either from a woman who agrees to the position of "wife"? The term has to mean something.


----------



## Mavash.

Same answer as the one I gave you for sex.

I cook for my husband because I absolutely freaking adore him. I love the look on his face as he's enjoying a home cooked meal made by me. My kids laugh and say we make the perfect couple because I love to cook and he loves to eat.

I know it's hard for you to wrap your brain around but some women enjoy taking care of their husbands sexually, domestically, spirituality, its a desire within me not a duty or chore. 

Even as I scrub the toilets I'm grateful for this lovely house my husband worked long hours to buy for me. He's just awesome!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Mavash. said:


> Duty sex is unacceptable. Occasionally it's okay but this should not be the norm. For men sex isn't about scratching an itch its about being desired and wanted.
> 
> And there are women who enjoy their husbands fully and to whom sex is never seen as a duty. I feel sad for the men that don't have this.


The sad thing about this is ... when a woman is naturally lower drive (never masterbated, never feels that urge)...thinks sex is icky ...sexually repressed or whatever, she may have the most wonderful husband who does all he can... and yet SEX to her is like taking out the damn garbage... honesty, if a woman can not get past this mindset, she should never marry a testosterone fueled man...

These man have had to put up with what feels like "duty" at times - just to stay married or keep the family intact. Honestly , I don't know how they can do it. 

If I EVER... even once.... showed "pity sex" to my husband...he is so sensitive here... I swear he would have never touched me again. I asked him that once...and he agreed, he wouldn't!

I have found I am similar though these last 4 yrs...pretty sensitive, I would not be able to stand a man just "doing it" to please me -while he wasn't getting anything out of it.... I caused him some grief questioning his desire for a time, this used to tick him off.



> *Faithful wife said:* So unbelievable...you would be happy to have sex with a wife who didn't want to have sex with you at all but she felt a duty to do so? Is that what this is all about?
> 
> You wish some judge somewhere would bang a gavel and tell your wife "Mrs. Unbelievable, you have a duty to have sex with your husband so get on it"? And if this occured, you feel it would solve your marital problems?
> 
> Unbelieveable, for sure.


 Let me explain this.. In reading a book about the 6 sexual views...I came to learn something about the* Covenant view*, I found it rather sad... but those that hold this view at the very CENTER ...can think very little of Romance... it's all about commitment , honoring vows and doing one's part.. it sounded rather cold to me personally....

Now me, I hold a *Romantic View* at the center, so that would royally pi$$ me off... but really... many arranged marriages in the past held a view similar to this.... and managed to live with it...a woman just does her duty. 

That wouldn't be working for me.... but it may for some. 

I need to dig out the book, find that section and explain a little better...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

What's so hard about the concept of in a relationship you should get your needs met no more and no less than the other person gets their needs met?? Forget the cooking analogy.Forger the restaurant analogy.
It's about what people SHOULD be doing when they're truly and sincerely IN LOVE with their partner.



Treat your relationship as though it's the 69 position.he does me.I do him.We're both happy.

Why people make it so complicated is beyond me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You still didn't answer my question.


----------



## unbelievable

Faithful Wife said:


> So unbelievable...you would be happy to have sex with a wife who didn't want to have sex with you at all but she felt a duty to do so? Is that what this is all about? :scratchhead:
> 
> You wish some judge somewhere would bang a gavel and tell your wife "Mrs. Unbelievable, you have a duty to have sex with your husband so get on it"? And if this occured, you feel it would solve your marital problems?
> 
> Unbelieveable, for sure.


If duty sex keeps the family going, it beats celibacy. I'd prefer to love my jobs every day but if dragging myself to a miserable, disgusting job puts groceries on the table and keeps the family going, that's what'll happen. As I said earlier, I believe I have a duty to care for my wife. That would include her sexual needs, her physical needs, her security needs. Sexual needs are part of being human and if it's not my job to attend to her's, who would I prefer take care of her? I am proud to be the one she depends on. I'm proud to be the one my kids depended on. What's oppressive about it? It's the role I signed up for with both eyes opened. I understood when I got married that I would be doing things I may not like sometimes.


----------



## AnnieAsh

I don't think it is my duty to have sex with my husband and it isn't his to have sex with me. I say that because sex is how I feel connected/loved, but it is not the way he does. Very disappointing to find that out but edifying. It explained a lot of behavior. 

BUT it is my duty as his wife to keep my sexual fires burning and create an environment that makes sex enjoyable and satisfying for both of us. And if I ever feel a pattern developing of ND, I'm obligated to address it and turn it around. We had a blip a few months back and after much agony, we addressed it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So unbelievable...what is the problem? You are all about duty. Are you not getting enough duty sex? Is that what this is all about?


----------



## norajane

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never looked upon sex as a DUTY....but a pleasure...if it ever came to feeling like a "duty"... and I was shutting him off....and it was hurting him... causing fights, bad feelings...a distance... I most certainly would feel I was doing WRONG by my husband...that HE deserved so much more.


I would take this a step further and say *I* deserve so much more. Duty sex is soul-killing for the person giving it if it becomes the norm. I would want more out of my sex life than that. If it came to feel like a duty for me all the time, I'd be examining the entire relationship to figure out why sex had become a duty when it used to be a pleasure.



unbelievable said:


> If duty sex keeps the family going, it beats celibacy. I'd prefer to love my jobs every day but *if dragging myself to a miserable, disgusting job puts groceries on the table and keeps the family going, that's what'll happen. *As I said earlier, I believe I have a duty to care for my wife. That would include her sexual needs, her physical needs, her security needs. Sexual needs are part of being human and if it's not my job to attend to her's, who would I prefer take care of her? I am proud to be the one she depends on. I'm proud to be the one my kids depended on. What's oppressive about it? It's the role I signed up for with both eyes opened. I understood when I got married that I would be doing things I may not like sometimes.


You would have to do that for yourself anyway. It's not like single men and women don't drag themselves to work even though they hate it. You're not going to work purely out of a selfless desire to meet someone else's needs but get nothing out of it - you would do that to take care of yourself.

I never understand that argument. People would all choose to be unemployed if they didn't have families? You'd choose to earn less if you had no family? You wouldn't buy a car, a house, groceries if you had no family? :scratchhead:


----------



## unbelievable

No, I'm married and will be for life. My kids are grown. Two are employed, law-abiding tax payers. One is in university and soon will be. This happened because I grew up with an entirely different set of values than boys are getting today. I grew up seeing actual traditional marriages that made sense to both parties. What we've got now looks like a fool's errand unless the guy is just incredibly lucky. I'll be dead long before this trend completely sends my country to the dung heap forever, so this isn't about me. I do have grand children and I'd like to think they might have something resembling a decent life. We can't financially support or lock up 35% of our children and taxpayers can't financially shoulder the support of a majority of elderly women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Awesome, send us off to the dung heap then, unbelievable! I'll be the first in line with my horrible, horrible marriage. (sarcasm)


----------



## RoseAglow

Back to the original question.

In 2013, what tangible benefits are there for a man, who does not want to have children, to get married?

I don't think there are many tangible benefits. I guess if a man chooses his wife well, he would have a reliable person making his medical decisions for him, if he were to become disabled. He should pay lower taxes (in the US). If something happened to his wife, he would get her Social Security benefits (assuming she worked.) If you go on a vacation and rent a car, you don't need to pay more for spouse to be an added driver. 

Personally, I think it is great that there aren't many tangibles. Approx. half of all adults are not married in the US, and they should not be penalized for that status.

I think there are definitely some intangibles, though. People in general, at least in the US, treat marrieds with more respect than singles or cohabitants, in my experience. 

Some people are just happier being married. I have surprised myself GREATLY by just how much more comfortable and happier I am being married. I didn't think it would really change anything, but it did. I like it.

My DH is much happier being married, or at least that is what he tells me. He married me despite a horrible, horrible breakdown of his first marriage. He chose well this time  He has more money (I make a bigger salary, although not by much these days.) He has a better sex life (and both parties are happy and enthusiastic, no "duty" stuff here.) 

But, mostly, he has a family and a child, both of which he very much wanted. If he didn't want these things, I don't know why he would get married.

There is no shame in not getting married, IMO. To each their own.


----------



## Nynaeve

unbelievable said:


> Ok, does a wife have the duty to cook for her husband? I'll happily concede that women will happily have sex if they want to. If I buy a car, hire a contractor, hire an employee, or enter into any other contract, there is an offer, an acceptance, and both parties expect some measurable performance. Nobody would sell me a $20K car on my promise that I'd be emotionally supportive of the salesman as long as I felt loved. He expects specific payments on time regardless of how I feel. My boss wouldn't agree to pay me X amount of dollars every two weeks on the understanding that we care about each other, especially if he understood that if either of us chose to break the contract, he would lose half his business. He expects me to actually do something that benefits him and I expect my pay on time. *Surely there must be some universally agreed upon measurable duty that a husband could expect from a potential wife. *A commitment to be nice when one feels nice isn't a commitment.


This has been answered several times. IF a husband is the sole source of income in a marriage, it's generally understood and accepted that the wife is responsible for cooking, cleaning and caring for children.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to understand.

The exchange is income for unpaid labor. Both spouses contribute to the family in that way.

Also, has it occurred to you that if you base a wife's "duty" to have sex with her husband on the understanding that it's reciprocal to his duty to provide that you're essentially saying that a wife who also works doesn't have a duty to have sex with her husband? IOW, your argument has a flaw in it, namely, that the duty to have sex disappears as soon as the wife gets a job.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

norajane said:


> I would take this a step further and say *I* deserve so much more. Duty sex is soul-killing for the person giving it if it becomes the norm. I would want more out of my sex life than that. If it came to feel like a duty for me all the time, I'd be examining the entire relationship to figure out why sex had become a duty when it used to be a pleasure.


 I would consider such a couple a pathetic mismatch...Best if they end it...

This WAS my Father & Mother's marriage...My Mom was never in love with my father, should have never married him...his need for sex was more than she cared for...they fought ...and fought some more.. He wouldn't have put up with a "duty" attitude though. 

SHE KNEW she was doing him wrong...she's talked to me about that, always felt he was a good man... him & my step Mom (her best friend ironically)... something sprang between them during all that.... my Mom even told my father to GO TO HER ... yeah.. Crazy... they married within days, a week or 2 after the Divorce... They never fought over sex.. both loved it... happily married for over 36 yrs. 

I wouldn't stay in a marriage like that.... on either side..I'd have to get out ... not worth the hassle.. but that's ME.


----------



## TCSRedhead

unbelievable said:


> Ok, does a wife have the duty to cook for her husband? I'll happily concede that women will happily have sex if they want to. If I buy a car, hire a contractor, hire an employee, or enter into any other contract, there is an offer, an acceptance, and both parties expect some measurable performance. Nobody would sell me a $20K car on my promise that I'd be emotionally supportive of the salesman as long as I felt loved. He expects specific payments on time regardless of how I feel. My boss wouldn't agree to pay me X amount of dollars every two weeks on the understanding that we care about each other, especially if he understood that if either of us chose to break the contract, he would lose half his business. He expects me to actually do something that benefits him and I expect my pay on time. Surely there must be some universally agreed upon measurable duty that a husband could expect from a potential wife. A commitment to be nice when one feels nice isn't a commitment.



No spouse HAS to do anything for their partner. They should WANT to make them happy because they love them and care about their happiness.

Hub has never expected that I cook, clean or f him but he appreciates that I do this. I do these things because I enjoy seeing him happy. 

If we were that miserable in our marriage, I'd hope that we'd just end it.


----------



## Laila8

unbelievable said:


> Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


Yes, I believe a wife has a duty to have sex with her husband. And vice versa.

There are plenty of times when I haven't been in the mood for one reason or another, but I've done it anyway. Because I want to make him happy and I love him.

We all have duties in marriage. You don't get to stop doing something just because you "don't feel like it."


----------



## RoseAglow

unbelievable said:


> Ok, does a wife have the duty to cook for her husband? I'll happily concede that women will happily have sex if they want to. If I buy a car, hire a contractor, hire an employee, or enter into any other contract, there is an offer, an acceptance, and both parties expect some measurable performance. Nobody would sell me a $20K car on my promise that I'd be emotionally supportive of the salesman as long as I felt loved. He expects specific payments on time regardless of how I feel. My boss wouldn't agree to pay me X amount of dollars every two weeks on the understanding that we care about each other, especially if he understood that if either of us chose to break the contract, he would lose half his business. He expects me to actually do something that benefits him and I expect my pay on time. Surely there must be some universally agreed upon measurable duty that a husband could expect from a potential wife. A commitment to be nice when one feels nice isn't a commitment.


If you sell a car to someone and they don't pay you as expected, you can sue them in court and get your car back. You don't have to take action, you can just whine about how terrible that person was who basically stole your car. There is a choice. There is also self-responsibility for making the bad decision to give away the car before having verified funds.

If you hire someone who does not do the job appropriately, you can fire them. You don't have to fire them- you can keep them and watch as your business suffers. You can then blame your employees for the terrible state of things. There is a choice. There is also self-responsibility for hiring a bad employee. 

If you marry someone who does not fulfill the agreements that you two made- whether it is sex, domestics, fidelity- you can divorce them. You don't have to divorce them. You can try to make it work. You can keep them and complain about what a terrible life and terrible wife you have.

I do not believe there is any universally agreed-upon measurable duty that a husband can expect from a potential wife. What husbands want from their wives varies. There are low sex-drive husbands. There are high sex-drive wives. There are husbands who have no issues with their wives bringing in more money they do; there are husbands who don't want it. My husband loves to cook. I do most of the cleaning. We share child care. It works for us. It would not work for all of my friends, and their situations wouldn't work for me. 

In 2013 it is the job of any sensible person to discuss and agree upon what they expect, what they will accept, and what the deal breakers are in a relationship. IMO this is one of the joys of being alive and being an adult in this period of time. It is not One-Size-Fits all.


----------



## unbelievable

If I sue a contractor because he's lazy and doesn't do a damned thing, he doesn't get half my house and my kids. If I'm sold a car in good faith and I use it as a submarine, I don't get to go to court and win half ownership of the dealership. Sure, divorce is an option, but it statistically disadvantages the husband, either way it goes, so husbands have an incentive to put up with miserable conditions because the only available remedy is financial suicide.


----------



## RoseAglow

unbelievable said:


> If I sue a contractor because he's lazy and doesn't do a damned thing, he doesn't get half my house and my kids. If I'm sold a car in good faith and I use it as a submarine, I don't get to go to court and win half ownership of the dealership. Sure, divorce is an option, but it statistically disadvantages the husband, either way it goes, so husbands have an incentive to put up with miserable conditions because the only available remedy is financial suicide.


You are complaining about the terms that you agreed to. You have a much stronger incentive to choose your spouse well than you do a contractor, or employee. 

There are always incentives and reasons to do nothing. It is your choice and your outcome to experience. If you chose to have a SAHM then yes, it is more expensive to divorce.

Your sons ensure a brighter outcome than you are describing by having a prenup and marrying women who want to work. Yes, we are out there! Yay 2013!


----------



## unbelievable

Well, this has been a huge waste of time. Life is too short to be pissing on an electric fence. Life is great, there are no problems. I believe Honey Boo Boo is coming on soon, so you'll have something intellectually stimulating to focus on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is really sad that some people have to be so bitter. Whatever made them that way...I'm sorry for those circumstances. Honey Boo Boo is for you.

And now...on with my fabulous, madly in love, bad-ass marriage and sex life! WOO HOO!!! UNICORNS, UNITE!!!


----------



## Laila8

I'm sad that so many wives apparently treat their husbands like crap and make them suffer in sex and affection starved marriages.  Such a shame.


----------



## AnnieAsh

Laila8 said:


> I'm sad that so many wives apparently treat their husbands like crap and make them suffer in sex and affection starved marriages.  Such a shame.


Sometimes it is the man who treats his wife like crap. It is the man who turns away from a woman willing to do anything for him. It makes me sad that *people* feel they are trapped in situations that cause them great pain. 

Wife = bad, Husband = good isn't always true.


----------



## TCSRedhead

unbelievable said:


> Well, this has been a huge waste of time. Life is too short to be pissing on an electric fence. Life is great, there are no problems. I believe Honey Boo Boo is coming on soon, so you'll have something intellectually stimulating to focus on.


It's a waste of time in your view because people disagree with your viewpoint. It doesn't make sense to post things such as you did on a pro-marriage forum and expect a large consensus on why marriage is bad.

I did ask whether everything you do needs to have tangible benefits/results for you? Do you do nothing for simple want, pleasure, desire? For that matter, do you do things for others without receiving anything in return? 

If not, I do feel badly for you. Some of the moments I treasure most were spent doing for others, not for myself.


----------



## RoseAglow

Davelli0331 said:


> So basically a plurality of men are trapped in sexless marriages from which they cannot escape because their traditional values tell them they shouldn't, not to mention the likely financial ruination that would be visited upon them. All problems would be solved if Ws would give in, willingly or otherwise, to duty sex. Furthermore, such marriages would somehow be to the betterment of society, and it is the lament of men everywhere that women are not required legally to give duty sex to men.
> 
> Somehow this situation is leading our country into the dung heap. Men are not nearly as manly, children are shooting up schools, military enlistment is declining, etc, and all of these things are somehow due to the scam called marriage and the fact that women are not contractually bound to have sex with their husbands.
> 
> Even though these men don't represent all marriages, and likely have much deeper problems than lack of sex, somehow these marriages should serve as shining examples of the evil institution of marriage. Any sane man should assume his marriage will turn out the same and thus avoid it if possible.
> 
> Oh, and lastly, many of these marriages would be completely saved if the W put out regularly, whether she liked it or not.
> 
> Gotcha.


You're close- it is all actually due to Feminism. But it ties in anyway.


----------



## RoseAglow

unbelievable said:


> Well, this has been a huge waste of time. Life is too short to be pissing on an electric fence. Life is great, there are no problems. I believe Honey Boo Boo is coming on soon, so you'll have something intellectually stimulating to focus on.


I poked fun a bit, but overall I am glad you started the thread. We see things differently, but it's all good. (I'll skip the Honey Boo Boo and stick to the internet, thanks.)


----------



## RoseAglow

coffee4me said:


> I never felt obligated to have sex with him. NOR did I use it as a weapon or a reward. It was plentiful and wonderful when he well lived up to his duties. When admiration and repect were mutual. When this was no longer the case and he failed in his duties, I had not interest in sex.
> 
> You look at your wife and she fails in some of her duties and you still want to have sex with her. I looked at my X who failed in some of his duties and had no desire to have sex with him. I wonder if its a male/female thing or if it's the weight of importance we place on the duties. Example: not cooking may be something you can tolerate, ruining our finacial future was not something I could tolerate.
> 
> Your posts do have me thinking....


I definitely think there is a difference for men and women, generally speaking. Women in general, in long-term relationships, don't desire sex without an emotional connection. 

At least one theory of marriage (marriage builders) says that men feel loved when they get sex, and they are happy to do the things their woman needs to feel love. Women are happy to give sex when they feel loved, but not when they don't feel loved. They need other things, like admiration, affection, financial support, quality time, etc before they feel loved.

The set-up tends to be self-perpetuating with a little bit of work. It's great when both spouses are happy and getting their needs met....and awful when the cycle is negatively feeding itself.

Also, per MB, the set-up expects that both spouses care enough to make some changes for the other person. There are selfish people who will just Take, who will just suck up and relish having their emotional needs met, without giving back. MB calls them Freeloaders. I have definitely seen my friends in relationships with freeloaders. UGH. But I digress, other than to hope that OP isn't married to one of them!


----------



## Cletus

Laila8 said:


> The problem is, men marry the wrong women, and then they end up miserable and sexless. Not to be crass, but they pick with their d*cks. And that is a big problem. They need to pick a woman of integrity, character, morals, and substance, and not just a hot rack and a pretty face.


Unfortunately, they need to at least have their d!cks in an advisory role during mate selection, otherwise they wind up with a woman of character, moral integrity, and substance who could give two sh!ts about their d!ck.


----------



## Cletus

unbelievable said:


> 32 Facts That Show How Men Are Being Systematically Emasculated In America Today | Zero Hedge


We need to have a conversation about what constitutes data and evidence and what constitutes opinion and hyperbole.


----------



## Cletus

If you want men to start desiring marriage again, return to chastity.

Men, if I may use the general term for "a lot of them", value one thing above all else in a married relationship. Provide that to them without a ring, but don't then show any surprise when they lose interest in what has historically (meaning for all time until about the beginning of my life) been the only avenue to reliably obtain it.

The old "why buy the cow" isn't the whole story, but it's a really good starting place.


----------



## Starstarfish

> 32 Facts That Show How Men Are Being Systematically Emasculated In America Today | Zero Hedge


Even some of those facts aren't really explaining everything:



> #11 More than half of all health care jobs in America are now held by women.


Depending on which jobs you are counting as "health care jobs" - I'm wondering how many were ever traditionally male jobs. Being a nurse has pretty much always been a female profession. Especially because for a long period of time hospice and hospitals were attached to religious houses and were staffed by nuns. We are only now kind of coming back around to the idea of midwives, another traditionally female profession since the dawn of recorded history. So - I think this statistic is ignoring the fact that I'd guess for basically -all of history- many "health care jobs" were traditionally done by women. 

Even today - a single doctor running his own private practice office might have any number of nurses, receptionists, or office workers, many of whom I'm guessing might be, and likely always have been - women. I'd imagine the real changing factor there is more women becoming doctors of their own right, and thus the possibility of all-female office.



> #30 The United States produces more pornography than any other nation in the world. Men consume far more of that pornography than women do.
> 
> #31 An astounding 30 percent of all Internet traffic now goes to pornography websites, and one survey found that 25 percent of all employees that have Internet access visit sex websites while they are at work.


Uh - how are those emasculating? I mean, truly, all joking aside how did these even get included on this list?



> #32 In the United States today, political correctness reigns, and any reference to the male gender is being stamped out of our language. For example, all over the country the term "manhole" is being replaced with the terms "utility hole" or "maintenance hole".


*-Any-* reference to the male gender, really? Like - "his?" Or ... "Our Country Tis of Thee" singing about "Land where our *Fathers* died?" I think this seems like hyperbole at its best.

Edited to add: I have never, once in my life heard the phrase "utility hole."


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would think men might want us to stop using the word "manhole". I mean....duh, it makes you think of man holes. Emasculating, indeed!


----------



## TCSRedhead

Cletus said:


> If you want men to start desiring marriage again, return to chastity.
> 
> Men, if I may use the general term for "a lot of them", value one thing above all else in a married relationship. Provide that to them without a ring, but don't then show any surprise when they lose interest in what has historically (meaning for all time until about the beginning of my life) been the only avenue to reliably obtain it.
> 
> The old "why buy the cow" isn't the whole story, but it's a really good starting place.


I do not want a man to marry me because he thinks it's the only way to get a piece of @ss.


----------



## chillymorn

Faithful Wife said:


> It is really sad that some people have to be so bitter. Whatever made them that way...I'm sorry for those circumstances. Honey Boo Boo is for you.
> 
> And now...on with my fabulous, madly in love, bad-ass marriage and sex life! WOO HOO!!! UNICORNS, UNITE!!!


I truly hope your marriage continues to be strong,loving and full.

but your throw it in someone face attitude may come back to haunt you. 

DON't take what you have for granted. cherish it with all your heart.

the karma bus dose not discriminate.


----------



## AnnieAsh

chillymorn said:


> I truly hope your marriage continues to be strong,loving and full.
> 
> but your throw it in someone face attitude may come back to haunt you.
> 
> DON't take what you have for granted. cherish it with all your heart.
> 
> the karma bus dose not discriminate.


FW paid her dues and got out of a bad marriage and now is married to a man who suits her and completes her. She's not exactly talking about of her butt here. 

Sorry for chiming in on your behalf, FW.


----------



## chillymorn

AnnieAsh said:


> FW paid her dues and got out of a bad marriage and now is married to a man who suits her and completes her. She's not exactly talking about of her butt here.
> 
> Sorry for chiming in on your behalf, FW.


whatever. still has attitude and throws it in peoples face.

you never know whats around the bend. lot of people thought they were in a great marriage only to find out otherwise much later on.

wishing her and everybody a happy loving marriage like hers.


----------



## Cletus

TCSRedhead said:


> I do not want a man to marry me because he thinks it's the only way to get a piece of @ss.


Understandable. But if you want men to show enthusiasm for the idea of marriage, you might have to make your peace with the notion, at least for someone else 

There is only one thing I get now from my wife that I did not get before we were married, other than the ability to claim another dependent on my W-2. Of course it would be simplistic to say it was the only reason I married her, just like it would be a lie to say that it played no part whatsoever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks for saying that, Annie!

But I will just state loud and clear for chillymorn and anyone else who will listen, I literally say prayers of gratitude for my wonderful husband and marriage every night. And when our relationship was rocky, I prayed for it to get better. When it did get better, I prayed in thanks and I continue to do so. When we hit rough times, we turn toward each other. We never ever lose sight of our gratitude and love...every single day we tell each other that we love each other, sometimes multiple times.

There is never any moment of any day that I don't have his best interests in the front of my mind. I go out of my way to love him, serve him, make him happy...I'm not perfect by any means but my intentions are always all about how to keep him happy and love him the best I can. 

Oh and then there's the whole sex blog I wrote about him too...which between the lines, is also actually about how much I freakin' love this man.

I don't think there is really that much special about us, either (other than that we are each unique special snowflakes kind of thing...)...I think that the kind of love we have can be had by others...maybe not everyone but my point is, LOVE is inside of you...all of you. It is something you have within you that you can spread around or not, as you choose. My love muscles are really toned up from loving him so hard for so long now.

(and nod to Marriage Builders...their plan is all about creating and maintaining romantic love, and we are using those principals and I gotta say, they really do work!)


----------



## Faithful Wife

chillymorn...I do understand I could lose him, or our marriage could fail, things can change, people get sick and die...all kinds of things happen. I have been through a number of tragedies in my life and they do suck. For the things I cannot change that could cripple my marriage, I try to just trust that God will see me through those times if they come to pass like he has in the past.

I'm sorry you see me as throwing things in other people's face. That's the one really sad part about this place...genuinely happy married people seem to rub less happy people the wrong way.


----------



## Deejo

Swore off marriage after my divorce. Sexless marriage. I was a roommate and an ATM. Felt abandoned, and ignored or worse, an annoyance. All the while, solely, providing a home, paying for two cars and struggling to stay on top of bills as my wife simply wouldn't go to work, and I couldn't make her. So I figured I could continue to be an ATM, but didn't need to be a roommate. So I left. Got so bad I walked out on a five year old special needs child and a two year old. She didn't let me forget that for a good long time. And yes, it was unquestionably financial suicide. We couldn't afford attorneys. We used mediation, and thankfully we were able to work through all of it while keeping our dignity intact.

I still don't see an upside to marriage that I cannot have while dating or co-habiting with a partner. I don't much care about statistics or other peoples circumstances for that matter. I care about mine.

I dated. A lot ... for five years. Met some wonderful women. None that changed my mind about partnering long term, let alone get remarried. I don't need a partner to live my life. Certainly don't need to be married to conduct my life happily and successfully.

Paid down all of the debt, got squared away, excelled at my job. Ex and kids are happy and healthy. All's good.

Then I met that person that turns all rationale and logic on it's head. The fog? Maybe ... don't care. Honeymoon phase, endorphins, oxytocin, prolactin ... know about all of it. Doesn't matter.

I never stopped believing in, or being supportive of marriage. At least as how I envision marriage. The tangible benefit to me is actually intangible. It is 'Hope'. It's the possibility that you have met that person who will always have your back. Who sees you across the room and their eyes light up and they catch their breath. They love you, they honor you, they cherish you. And you both flourish as a result. That is what I hope for. That is the benefit I see. And even after having your heart put through the wringer, and financial armageddon, there is this woman in my life that makes me hope.

And for that reason, I want to be married to her.

That's my story ... no sh!t.

I'm not coming down on unbelievable's premise. The reality is that it's happening. Young men are opting out.

I understand that often these discussions end up turning into hills that we are ready to die on, but I don't believe that UB is b!tching just for the sake of it. He's disappointed; for a whole lot of reasons.

I don't believe anyone here is looking to p!ss all over marriage. Quite the contrary, most of us want it to be that very thing that we all HOPED it would be in the first place. A fulfilling, nurturing, supportive loving, family adventure with the one person whom you can't and don't want to imagine your life without.

I can relate.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Deejo said:


> Swore off marriage after my divorce. Sexless marriage. I was a roommate and an ATM. Felt abandoned, and ignored or worse, an annoyance. All the while, solely, providing a home, paying for two cars and struggling to stay on top of bills as my wife simply wouldn't go to work, and I couldn't make her. So I figured I could continue to be an ATM, but didn't need to be a roommate. So I left. Got so bad I walked out on a five year old special needs child and a two year old. She didn't let me forget that for a good long time. And yes, it was unquestionably financial suicide. We couldn't afford attorneys. We used mediation, and thankfully we were able to work through all of it while keeping our dignity intact.
> 
> I still don't see an upside to marriage that I cannot have while dating or co-habiting with a partner. I don't much care about statistics or other peoples circumstances for that matter. I care about mine.
> 
> I dated. A lot ... for five years. Met some wonderful women. None that changed my mind about partnering long term, let alone get remarried. I don't need a partner to live my life. Certainly don't need to be married to conduct my life happily and successfully.
> 
> Paid down all of the debt, got squared away, excelled at my job. Ex and kids are happy and healthy. All's good.
> 
> Then I met that person that turns all rationale and logic on it's head. The fog? Maybe ... don't care. Honeymoon phase, endorphins, oxytocin, prolactin ... know about all of it. Doesn't matter.
> 
> I never stopped believing in, or being supportive of marriage. At least as how I envision marriage. The tangible benefit to me is actually intangible. It is 'Hope'. It's the possibility that you have met that person who will always have your back. Who sees you across the room and their eyes light up and they catch their breath. They love you, they honor you, they cherish you. And you both flourish as a result. That is what I hope for. That is the benefit I see. And even after having your heart put through the wringer, and financial armageddon, there is this woman in my life that makes me hope.
> 
> And for that reason, I want to be married to her.
> 
> That's my story ... no sh!t.
> 
> I'm not coming down on unbelievable's premise. The reality is that it's happening. Young men are opting out.
> 
> I understand that often these discussions end up turning into hills that we are ready to die on, but I don't believe that UB is b!tching just for the sake of it. He's disappointed; for a whole lot of reasons.
> 
> I don't believe anyone here is looking to p!ss all over marriage. Quite the contrary, most of us want it to be that very thing that we all HOPED it would be in the first place. A fulfilling, nurturing, supportive loving, family adventure with the one person whom you can't and don't want to imagine your life without.
> 
> I can relate.


:iagree::smthumbup: Mr. Moderator, well said!


----------



## WorkingOnMe

D, you know where this road ends man. I just hope you think twice before, we'll, you know.


----------



## RoseAglow

Cletus said:


> Unfortunately, they need to at least have their d!cks in an advisory role during mate selection, otherwise they wind up with a woman of character, moral integrity, and substance who could give two sh!ts about their d!ck.





Cletus said:


> If you want men to start desiring marriage again, return to chastity.
> 
> Men, if I may use the general term for "a lot of them", value one thing above all else in a married relationship. Provide that to them without a ring, but don't then show any surprise when they lose interest in what has historically (meaning for all time until about the beginning of my life) been the only avenue to reliably obtain it.
> 
> The old "why buy the cow" isn't the whole story, but it's a really good starting place.


First, how a woman looks- or how a man's d!ick may react, is not a very reliable indicator of a women's behavior in bed...unless a man is turned out by women who appear to be sexual receptive...which is contradictory to saying women should return to "chastity".

At this point in time, in 2013, I suspect that only a very small percentage of men would be in interested in marrying a virgin.

If I were a betting woman, I would bet that the vast majority of adults in the USA (90%+) would value fidelity over virginity.

If you are looking for moral character, I would pass along the best advice that was given to me:

"Choose someone who cares about your pain."

In other words- choose someone who cares about how you feel; choose someone who will make changes if you are unhappy.

This was the most powerful rule-of-thumb I'd come across. It is equal for men and women. It can be tested- and IMO should be tested- across a few situations. I will give you an enormous amount of critical information.

If your partner cares about your feelings, enough to try to understand and make changes, then that is a great start. 

If your partner doesn't care, to me, that is a reason for an End. If your "partner" doesn't care enough about what s/he is doing that hurts you- that is the signal that the relationship is going nowhere. Really, is there anything more you need to know (in dating relationships)?

BTW, while the man may be evaluating the Cow, the woman may be evaluating the Sausage. It goes both ways.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Laila8 said:


> Yes, I believe a wife has a duty to have sex with her husband. And vice versa.
> 
> There are plenty of times when I haven't been in the mood for one reason or another, but I've done it anyway. Because I want to make him happy and I love him.
> 
> *We all have duties in marriage. You don't get to stop doing something just because you "don't feel like it.*"





Laila8 said:


> I'm sad that so many wives apparently treat their husbands like crap and make them suffer in sex and affection starved marriages.  Such a shame.





TCSRedhead said:


> *No spouse HAS to do anything for their partner. They should WANT to make them happy because they love them and care about their happiness.
> 
> Hub has never expected that I cook, clean or f him but he appreciates that I do this. I do these things because I enjoy seeing him happy*.
> 
> If we were that miserable in our marriage, I'd hope that we'd just end it.





AnnieAsh said:


> I don't think it is my duty to have sex with my husband and it isn't his to have sex with me. I say that because sex is how I feel connected/loved, but it is not the way he does. Very disappointing to find that out but edifying. It explained a lot of behavior.
> 
> BUT *it is my duty as his wife to keep my sexual fires burning and create an environment that makes sex enjoyable and satisfying for both of us. And if I ever feel a pattern developing of ND, I'm obligated to address it and turn it around. We had a blip a few months back and after much agony, we addressed it.*





RoseAglow said:


> *...I do not believe there is any universally agreed-upon measurable duty that a husband can expect from a potential wife. What husbands want from their wives varies. There are low sex-drive husbands. There are high sex-drive wives. There are husbands who have no issues with their wives bringing in more money they do; there are husbands who don't want it*. My husband loves to cook. I do most of the cleaning. We share child care. It works for us. It would not work for all of my friends, and their situations wouldn't work for me...


Thank you for all of your valuable inputs. I am sure you're all good women. It's just the word "duty", I think, has different connotation in your countri(es) than here in mine, and thus invite different responses.. 

But I see that you're all agree that both spouses should contribute towards the overall happines of the marriage, whereas one of the contribution should include the efforts to give each other a nice fullfilling sexual life. I hope my conclusions are not incorrect.


----------



## Cosmos

unbelievable said:


> Ok, let's settle this. Women only, please. Does a wife have a duty to have sex with her husband? This ought to be interesting.


I don't like the term "duty" applied to physical intimacy. It implies that it's a chore rather than one of the rewards of being in a committed, loving, emotionally intimate relationship. For me, it is a gift to be freely shared and enjoyed.

I would _never_ think that I had a duty to be physically intimate with my partner, but should the day dawn when it felt like a mere duty _for either of us_ - that would have to be the time for us to part.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Cletus said:* If you want men to start desiring marriage again, return to chastity.
> 
> Men, if I may use the general term for "a lot of them", value one thing above all else in a married relationship. Provide that to them without a ring, but don't then show any surprise when they lose interest in what has historically (meaning for all time until about the beginning of my life) been the only avenue to reliably obtain it.
> 
> The old "*why buy the cow*" isn't the whole story, but it's a really good starting place.





> *RoseAglow said:* BTW, while the man may be evaluating the Cow, the woman may be evaluating the Sausage. It goes both ways.


Yep... 

Now that women aren't so quick to get married these days either....wanting to sow their own wild oats .. the new female version is: "Why buy the whole pig just to get a little sausage?" 

Kinda  this is what our society has come down to....where Love/ companionship/ marriage is no longer the american dream.....Excitement/ freedom, no chains/ personal solo fulfillment is what it is all about...and new bed partners around every computer screen, college campus or night at the bar. 

Seems everything originates with Sex in one way or another...after all this is what creates Life itself......does any act potentially carry more Responsibility ...be more Emotionally fulfilling -even if some may not want this to get in the way of a good time...this can backfire...fooling around & falling in love... Does anything cause as much Jealousy when a Lover is found with another... a cause for Divorce, killings in a jealous rage. 

Everything about SEX is HUGE, INTENSE , it's meaning, it's power, it's responsibility, it's beauty, it's fulfillment emotionally... damn ...I am one who feels it should never be treated lightly. 

My husband would never look at me like a Cow and I would never view him as just a sausage... He respected me more for waiting till marriage... I wanted HIS type...and he wanted MY TYPE ...very old fashioned / Romantic......though you are so right RoseAglow... when you say "* I would bet that the vast majority of adults in the USA (90%+) would value fidelity over virginity.*" One can hardly argue this... the statistics show the reality... It's a new world... 

One where if a man does hold these older fashioned views.... he is made to feel something is wrong with him. I feel this is wrong personally....or a woman - she is belittled. 

Do we really want all of these men to die out.. I know I don't. Nor women who wait for one special man..

The more selfish "wanna just get laid" crowd are lovin' it though... Carry on... makes their life ever sweeter...new variety awaits... and it's all for their taking her home.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WorkingOnMe said:


> D, you know where this road ends man. I just hope you think twice before, we'll, you know.


Now you're beginning to sound like a lawyer!


----------



## TCSRedhead

Cletus said:


> Understandable. But if you want men to show enthusiasm for the idea of marriage, you might have to make your peace with the notion, at least for someone else
> 
> There is only one thing I get now from my wife that I did not get before we were married, other than the ability to claim another dependent on my W-2. Of course it would be simplistic to say it was the only reason I married her, just like it would be a lie to say that it played no part whatsoever.


That sort of scenario seems a bit too prostitute-like for my tastes. I have him my body willingly and without reservation. It was my heart and devotion that he had to win.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Caribbean Man said:


> Now you're beginning to sound like a lawyer!


LOL you know I'm just lookin out for my boy!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Swore off marriage after my divorce. Sexless marriage. I was a roommate and an ATM. Felt abandoned, and ignored or worse, an annoyance. All the while, solely, providing a home, paying for two cars and struggling to stay on top of bills as my wife simply wouldn't go to work, and I couldn't make her. So I figured I could continue to be an ATM, but didn't need to be a roommate. So I left. Got so bad I walked out on a five year old special needs child and a two year old. She didn't let me forget that for a good long time. And yes, it was unquestionably financial suicide. We couldn't afford attorneys. We used mediation, and thankfully we were able to work through all of it while keeping our dignity intact.
> 
> I still don't see an upside to marriage that I cannot have while dating or co-habiting with a partner. I don't much care about statistics or other peoples circumstances for that matter. I care about mine.
> 
> I dated. A lot ... for five years. Met some wonderful women. None that changed my mind about partnering long term, let alone get remarried. I don't need a partner to live my life. Certainly don't need to be married to conduct my life happily and successfully.
> 
> Paid down all of the debt, got squared away, excelled at my job. Ex and kids are happy and healthy. All's good.
> 
> Then I met that person that turns all rationale and logic on it's head. The fog? Maybe ... don't care. Honeymoon phase, endorphins, oxytocin, prolactin ... know about all of it. Doesn't matter.
> 
> *I never stopped believing in, or being supportive of marriage. At least as how I envision marriage. The tangible benefit to me is actually intangible. It is 'Hope'. It's the possibility that you have met that person who will always have your back. Who sees you across the room and their eyes light up and they catch their breath. They love you, they honor you, they cherish you. And you both flourish as a result. That is what I hope for. That is the benefit I see. And even after having your heart put through the wringer, and financial armageddon, there is this woman in my life that makes me hope.*
> 
> And for that reason, I want to be married to her.
> 
> That's my story ... no sh!t.
> 
> I'm not coming down on unbelievable's premise. The reality is that it's happening. Young men are opting out.
> 
> I understand that often these discussions end up turning into hills that we are ready to die on, but I don't believe that UB is b!tching just for the sake of it. He's disappointed; for a whole lot of reasons.
> 
> I don't believe anyone here is looking to p!ss all over marriage. Quite the contrary, most of us want it to be that very thing that we all HOPED it would be in the first place. A fulfilling, nurturing, supportive loving, family adventure with the one person whom you can't and don't want to imagine your life without.
> 
> I can relate.


Beautiful post ,lacking guile, but full of honesty.

People speak from different vantage points . 
I take part in these discussions because I feel that they can be profitable and bring understanding.

But we must first be honest with ourselves.

I don't believe that there is only one " successful model " for a marriage, and people should simply take what works for them and leave what does not.
In the end , everyone wants to and can be happy, whether they are married , or whether they choose to remain single.
_Marriage isn't for everybody._
If you choose to remain single because of prior experiences or your own perceptions, that is your right and just as you can enjoy the benefits, you must be prepared to face the possible consequences.
So the quest is for happiness, not _" political correctness."_
The sooner we all understand this, the more we could learn.

There is an old proverb that says;
_" It is wicked to mock the afflicted."_
There is a German word, loosely translated to mean
" _to mock the afflicted_."
I think its called _schadenfreude._
_" Who the cap fits, let them wear it."_


----------



## Wiserforit

The fact we love our duty does not remove the fact it is one. Strangers have absolutely no rightful expectations about sex with you. 

It is an absurd premise that identifying it as a duty nullifies the enjoyment of it. The fact it is a duty also does not force you to fulfill it. Dereliction of duty is a choice. A duty can also be fulfilled in outstanding fashion or just barely be acceptable. 

An interesting deployment of pejorative wording here:



> I do not want a man to marry me because he thinks it's the only way to get a piece of @ss.


When we want to denigrate sex we call it "piece of @ss". When we want to make it sound wonderful we call it "making love". 

So the same man marrying the same woman in order to get a "piece of @ss" sounds like an awful person whereas marrying so he can "make love" to his wife sounds like a decent person. 

The word "only" is also a minimizer in this context: He _only_ married me for a piece of @ss. See how that cheapens it even further?  As opposed to being one of the many reasons, an important reason, for getting married: to have a person that you regularly make love with, can have that expectation of, and indeed enjoy that mutual duty immensely. 


Oh, the magic of manipulative rhetoric.


----------



## Deejo

WorkingOnMe said:


> D, you know where this road ends man. I just hope you think twice before, we'll, you know.


Sorry if I sounded all doe-eyed for a moment there. Don't get wrong, I support healthy relationships and marriage, but I'm still firmly grounded, and I'm still a ...










Marriage isn't as wonderful as we imagine. Neither is it as awful.
Every marriage is a beautiful snowflake. Every beautiful snowflake is transient, and under the glistening crystal structure is just a dirty water droplet.

It sounded more elegant and romantic in my mind before I typed it ...


----------



## wtf2012

Lyris said:


> Well, I can tell you what my husband gets out of being married to me. I'll also say that in my country, once you've cohabited a certain number of years, you are considered married legally and financially, so marriage = LTR.
> 
> My husband gets to live with someone who adores him, someone who supports him, who does the majority of domestic organisation. He gets to live with someone who he loves, who he enjoys spending time with and who he shares plans for the future with.
> 
> My husband has me to take care of him when he gets sick. He has the security of knowing I'll be there to love him, keep him company and have sex with him for the rest of his life, assuming we align with statistical norms and I outlive him.
> 
> Because he is married to me, my husband will grow old surrounded by people who love him, as he wanted children and I am the one who does the majority of the child raising. He gets to be part of my family, his own is very scattered and dysfunctional, he loves my parents and siblings and they love him.
> 
> Being married to me gives my husband a secure base of absolute love and commitment. For the rest of his life.
> 
> Obviously I get just as much. But you asked what's in it for men, well, that's what is in it for one man at least.


Where could I find someone like you? (Please don't say church)


----------



## Cletus

TCSRedhead said:


> That sort of scenario seems a bit too prostitute-like for my tastes. I have him my body willingly and without reservation. It was my heart and devotion that he had to win.


My wife made me win both. The heart and devotion first and a ring the proof of fealty for the body. She went to great lengths to ensure that she got someone she thought both worth the effort and dedicated to the proposition. I'm pretty sure that she's never felt like a prostitute a day in her life.


----------



## Bottled Up

This thread is exhausting. Those who sit there and pick apart marriage from a negative stance already have their minds made up on the topic. Likewise, those who believe in marriage know in their hearts the tangible benefit of marriage is the incredible love they feel. This will just be an ongoing argument of two sides who never agree with each other... What a waste of energy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TCSRedhead

Cletus said:


> My wife made me win both. The heart and devotion first and a ring the proof of fealty for the body. She went to great lengths to ensure that she got someone she thought both worth the effort and dedicated to the proposition. I'm pretty sure that she's never felt like a prostitute a day in her life.


We will clearly not agree. I find that approach a lot like the women who withhold sex in marriage like a treat for a well behaved puppy.


----------



## Cletus

TCSRedhead said:


> We will clearly not agree. I find that approach a lot like the women who withhold sex in marriage like a treat for a well behaved puppy.


I'm not saying I recommend it - if you knew my history, you'd know quite the opposite in fact.

However, it's entirely possible that the lack of male interest in the institution of marriage combined with the skyrocketing incidence of out-of-wedlock births might just have a lot to do with the increased availability of sex with no such requirement. 

Agree with it or not, reality is relentless.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Cletus said:


> I'm not saying I recommend it - if you knew my history, you'd know quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> However, it's entirely possible that the lack of male interest in the institution of marriage combined with the skyrocketing incidence of out-of-wedlock births might just have a lot to do with the increased availability of sex with no such requirement.
> 
> Agree with it or not, reality is relentless.


There are a number of reasons that neither men nor women want to get married these days. I don't believe chastity, or lack thereof, to be the cause.


----------



## Cletus

TCSRedhead said:


> There are a number of reasons that neither men nor women want to get married these days. I don't believe chastity, or lack thereof, to be the cause.


Oh, I'm just hypothesizing here. I would never make or reject a declaration of causality without some real data.

That said, looser sexual mores are unequivocally contributing to the rising median age of first marriage, which is now in the late 20's for both men and women. Couples wouldn't be waiting more than a decade past sexual maturity to marry if they had no other access to sex.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Cletus said:


> Oh, I'm just hypothesizing here. I would never make or reject a declaration of causality without some real data.
> 
> That said, looser sexual mores are unequivocally contributing to the rising median age of first marriage, which is now in the late 20's for both men and women. Couples wouldn't be waiting more than a decade past sexual maturity to marry if they had no other access to sex.


People have had access to sex before marriage previously. It was a social expectation to get married and have children before you were 25. 

Now, it's perfectly acceptable not to have children, focus on a career and CHOOSE if you want to marry. 

Same with divorce becoming more acceptable.


----------



## Lyris

wtf2012 said:


> Where could I find someone like you? (Please don't say church)


Well I'm an atheist, so church is a poor bet.

To be married to someone like me you need to be as awesome as my husband is. And refuse to accept anything less than devotion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nynaeve said:


> Well, I'm not necessarily against fault divorce as you describe it. I am a family law attorney, after all.  But sometimes I wonder if the people yammering for it really understand what they're talking about.
> 
> At-fault divorce has the tendency to increase animosity, it increases the stakes, makes people more likely to fight rather than settle their disputes amicably. If children are involved acrimony between the parents makes divorce - an already difficult time for them - 10 times worse for the kids.
> 
> There are a lot of logistical tangles. Do emotional affairs count? What about porn use? Will there be "affirmative defenses" available to the defendant? For example, if a man cheats can he claim that he only did it because his wife checked out and didn't have sex with him for 10 years? Will that be allowed to excuse or mitigate the offense? After all, it could be argued that she breached the marriage covenant first in that scenario. Or what if a woman cheats but claims that her husband has been verbally, mentally or emotionally abusing her for years first?
> 
> No fault divorce laws didn't spring up out of nowhere, in a vacuum. There were and are very good public policy reasons for it.
> 
> This law review article explains the reasoning behind the adoption of no-fault laws:
> 
> http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/1991/1/war.pdf
> 
> The article also points out the ways no-fault divorce laws have failed to achieve some of their goals. So, I do think that there is a lot of room for reform in our current divorce laws. For example, many states do not allow any evidence of fault. I think that there can be a no-fault divorce - in the sense that one does not HAVE to prove fault in order to obtain divorce - that still allows parties to introduce evidence of fault for property division purposes. (Which is what you describe).
> 
> But I wish more people understood that the divorce laws before no-fault adoption were riddled with problems, too. It used to be the courts could not grant a divorce - leaving out property division for a moment - without some proof of statutory grounds such as cruelty, abandonment or adultery. In other words, the court would have to deny the petition and the parties would have to remain married unless they could prove one of the grounds for divorce. But the lawmakers recognized that courts could not force people to live together. People were just remaining married, on paper, to their spouses but going off and living with other people even raising families with other people. Making divorces more difficult to obtain does not make marriages remain intact. People will just find ways around it. They will behave as they want to behave. Fault divorce laws also put a disproportionate burden on lower income people. If they cannot afford a lawyer, their ability to prove the grounds for divorce was almost nil.
> 
> I'm not convinced that angry and bitter spouses' desire for revenge and punishment is a good public policy reason for reform. Unless we're talking criminal law, punishment is not a goal of courts. In civil actions, compensation for actual injury is, barring truly egregious situations, the extent of what courts will award. Punitive damages are supposed to be rarely awarded and only for situations that are truly shocking. In normal contract law, you don't get money from someone who breached the contract unless the breach of the contract actually cost you money. The breaching party isn't usually punished for breaching the contract, even though, by definition, they broke their word and 'betrayed' the other party. If they breach the contract, but it doesn't cause any actual (financial) damage to the non-breaching party then the breaching party isn't going to be made to pay anything.
> 
> In addition, it seems mostly men who complain about no-fault divorce, because they seem to think this system is disproportionately hurting them. But studies have shown that it is actually custodial mothers and children who are harmed the more under this system than under the old fault divorce system. (See the law review article linked above).
> 
> So, I have to say that some of the guys here need to be careful what they ask for. We all know that men and women are equally likely to cheat. Some of the men here seem hell bent on punishing women. Did they stop to think that under at-fault divorce, it is men who will end up being punished?
> 
> What I see mostly from angry, bitter men in these discussions is a desire to force women to stay married to them. What they want, it seems to me, is to make divorce so difficult that women will be financially coerced into putting up with abuse and severe unhappiness.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone here is thinking that way. I recognize that several of the posters had some really bad situations where their wives were indeed at fault. But I don't think that their stories are representative of the majority.


Ummmm, Ok.

Just two quick question.

Do you think the present penalty for rape is justified, given the heinous nature of the crime and emotional trauma of the victim and society?
Do you think that more can be done by the state to protect the victim's rights, and to ensure swift apprehension and successful prosecution of the offender, whilst maintaining the dignity of the victim?

If no why?
If yes why?


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> Ummmm, Ok.
> 
> Just two quick question.
> 
> Do you think the present penalty for rape is justified, given the heinous nature of the crime and emotional trauma of the victim and society?
> Do you think that more can be done by the state to protect the victim's rights, and to ensure swift apprehension and successful prosecution of the offender, whilst maintaining the dignity of the victim?
> 
> If no why?
> If yes why?


What do your questions have to do with the topic?:scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nynaeve said:


> What do your questions have to do with the topic?:scratchhead:


Lol,^^^_" plead the fifth?"_

I'm just a layman here, not a legal expert. 
End threadjack.

Proceed.


----------



## chillymorn

back to the original question.

NO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

The real benefits of marriage are intangible.
The feeling of emotional fulfilment, and self actualization.
But human beings are multifaceted complex creatures , and can be conditioned to accept anything,sometimes good and sometimes to their own detriment.

There are no real tangible benefits to marriage , as compared to remaining single, except those provided by the state, or by extended families as in the case of traditional and arranged marriages.

That's why I think that the state cannot and should not remove itself from the institution of marriage, because if that is done , women and children would ultimately suffer the most from the fallout.


----------



## TCSRedhead

Wiserforit said:


> The fact we love our duty does not remove the fact it is one. Strangers have absolutely no rightful expectations about sex with you.
> 
> It is an absurd premise that identifying it as a duty nullifies the enjoyment of it. The fact it is a duty also does not force you to fulfill it. Dereliction of duty is a choice. A duty can also be fulfilled in outstanding fashion or just barely be acceptable.
> 
> An interesting deployment of pejorative wording here:
> 
> 
> 
> When we want to denigrate sex we call it "piece of @ss". When we want to make it sound wonderful we call it "making love".
> 
> So the same man marrying the same woman in order to get a "piece of @ss" sounds like an awful person whereas marrying so he can "make love" to his wife sounds like a decent person.
> 
> The word "only" is also a minimizer in this context: He _only_ married me for a piece of @ss. See how that cheapens it even further? As opposed to being one of the many reasons, an important reason, for getting married: to have a person that you regularly make love with, can have that expectation of, and indeed enjoy that mutual duty immensely.
> 
> 
> Oh, the magic of manipulative rhetoric.


It's not manipulative. It's clear, direct and honest. Change the words and the meaning is the same.

_I don't want a man to marry me because it's the sole way he can make love to me.

I don't want a man to marry me because he wants to have sex with me. _ 

I *do* want a man to marry because he loves me, wants to be by my side for life and be my partner in all ways - in and out of bed.

Perhaps you're used to women being coy, indirect and manipulative but that's not my style.


----------



## Cletus

ScarletBegonias said:


> and as SO's employer proved,more respect and opportunities at work since you're automatically deemed more reliable and stable.


Now that one came as a surprise to me. I have never seen this in my chosen field in the hi-tech industry. What kind of employment are we talking about here?


----------



## Cletus

ScarletBegonias said:


> he's an engineer at a small firm.


Hmm. I'm an engineer in a medium sized firm. Never seen what you mentioned. Something new to learn every day your alive I guess. 

We actively recruit young engineers, male and female, to offset the graying of our staff and to inject new blood. There's no concern for their current or future marital status, and as far as I can tell no barrier to advancement whatsoever. 

Maybe it's a regional thing.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Cletus said:


> Hmm. I'm an engineer in a medium sized firm. Never seen what you mentioned. Something new to learn every day your alive I guess.
> 
> We actively recruit young engineers, male and female, to offset the graying of our staff and to inject new blood. There's no concern for their current or future marital status, and as far as I can tell no barrier to advancement whatsoever.
> 
> Maybe it's a regional thing.


or his boss is just a massive d**khead.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> The real benefits of marriage are intangible.
> The feeling of emotional fulfilment, and self actualization.
> But human beings are multifaceted complex creatures , and can be conditioned to accept anything,sometimes good and sometimes to their own detriment.
> 
> There are no real tangible benefits to marriage , as compared to remaining single, except those provided by the state, or *by extended families as in the case of traditional and arranged marriages.
> *
> That's why I think that the state cannot and should not remove itself from the institution of marriage, because if that is done , women and children would ultimately suffer the most from the fallout.


This is true. It is an amazing thing to have kind and generous extended family. :smthumbup:


----------



## Wiserforit

TCSRedhead said:


> Perhaps you're used to women being coy, indirect and manipulative but that's not my style.


No, I am watching you right now in front of me pretend that words don't matter. Here is your own very carefully worded hypocritical proof in referring to yourself:



> my partner... in.. bed.


You mean your piece of a$$. :smthumbup:

If words make no difference, then that is what you would have said. 

Another manipulative effect you chose was the word "partner". Because with mere words the "piece of a$$", a durogatory reference to sex as a vulgar possession of one person... is turned into a mutual agreement respecting both parties. And it is "in bed", which makes it indirect and removed the vulgarity.

So I am seeing coy, indirect, and manipulative right in front of me and thank you for that demonstration. 


Not a big deal. It's just so interesting to see someone denying that word choice matters while they are so carefully practicing that tactic right in front of us.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank goodness Wiserforit it is here to explain your intentions and thought processes to you, Red!


----------



## TCSRedhead

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank goodness Wiserforit it is here to explain your intentions and thought processes to you, Red!


Clearly I'm too coy to figure it out, oh Wiserforit?

No, *YOU* are the one being manipulative by removing key words in my sentence.

Again, I do NOT agree with your points nor Cletus' but that's not a first nor last I'm sure.

I wish a partner in ALL facets of my life. If it were just about hot sex, well, I could get that a lot of places without marriage.


----------



## wtf2012

Lyris said:


> Well I'm an atheist, so church is a poor bet.
> 
> To be married to someone like me you need to be as awesome as my husband is. And refuse to accept anything less than devotion.


How does a man be awesome in your view? Also thanks to all the women who have posted in this thread. I truly appreciate the perspective and it came at a muh needed time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

TCSRedhead said:


> I wish a partner in ALL facets of my life. If it were just about hot sex, well, I could get that a lot of places without marriage.


So do I. What ever would make you think otherwise?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> If you want men to start desiring marriage again, return to chastity.
> 
> Men, if I may use the general term for "a lot of them", value one thing above all else in a married relationship. Provide that to them without a ring, but don't then show any surprise when they lose interest in what has historically (meaning for all time until about the beginning of my life) been the only avenue to reliably obtain it.
> 
> The old "why buy the cow" isn't the whole story, but it's a really good starting place.


Except for the most part, it isn't the women who are complaining about men not wanting to get married. It's the men. 

So why then should women have to alter their behaviour to "make" men want to marry them? 

I for one have zero interest in "making" anyone want to commit to me, and wouldn't either withhold or put out (or whatever it takes these days) to trap someone into marrying me.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Except for the most part, it isn't the women who are complaining about men not wanting to get married. It's the men.


Men are complaining about men not wanting to get married? I thought the issue was more young women want marriage than their male counterparts.



> I for one have zero interest in "making" anyone want to commit to me, and wouldn't either withhold or put out (or whatever it takes these days) to trap someone into marrying me.



Compare these two situations:
1. Live with the woman of your dreams - cohabitate, possibly raise children together, buy a house, the whole 9 yards.
2. Option 1 plus a marriage license.

That piece of paper with the ability to check "Married filing jointly" at the end of the year doesn't sound like a lot of upside compared to the pain and difficulty involved in an ugly divorce if it doesn't work out. 

No one seems to be complaining that men don't want to be with women, or commit to their long term partners, or do any of the things an otherwise married couple do. Men certainly seem to be fathering children that they then leave in historically unprecedented numbers. They are less interested in option 2 when option 1 comes with everything plus less risk on the back end - for lawyer's fees, alimony, child support, garnished wages...

From a strictly utilitarian view, if you want men to want marriage (it seems someone wants that, given the handwringing over the topic) then you have to make marriage more attractive than non-marriage. Right now, even I, a man married 27 years, can see that the differences are small enough to make a reasonable person pause, reflect, and wait.

The romantics will always want marriage for the sake of marriage. The rest are seemingly doing a calculus that no longer has an obvious answer.


----------



## treyvion

Cletus said:


> Men are complaining about men not wanting to get married? I thought the issue was more young women want marriage than their male counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare these two situations:
> 1. Live with the woman of your dreams - cohabitate, possibly raise children together, buy a house, the whole 9 yards.
> 2. Option 1 plus a marriage license.
> 
> That piece of paper with the ability to check "Married filing jointly" at the end of the year doesn't sound like a lot of upside compared to the pain and difficulty involved in an ugly divorce if it doesn't work out.
> 
> No one seems to be complaining that men don't want to be with women, or commit to their long term partners, or do any of the things an otherwise married couple do. Men certainly seem to be fathering children that they then leave in historically unprecedented numbers. They are less interested in option 2 when option 1 comes with everything plus less risk on the back end - for lawyer's fees, alimony, child support, garnished wages...
> 
> From a strictly utilitarian view, if you want men to want marriage (it seems someone wants that, given the handwringing over the topic) then you have to make marriage more attractive than non-marriage. Right now, even I, a man married 27 years, can see that the differences are small enough to make a reasonable person pause, reflect, and wait.
> 
> The romantics will always want marriage for the sake of marriage. The rest are seemingly doing a calculus that no longer has an obvious answer.


Shared health benefit could save some money.


----------



## Cletus

treyvion said:


> Shared health benefit could save some money.


No doubt precisely what the average 22 year old man-boy is holding out for. "Man, if I could only score me some major medical with a low copay, I'd stuff some wedding cake down that throat"


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Men are complaining about men not wanting to get married? I thought the issue was more young women want marriage than their male counterparts.


According to the article posted earlier in this thread, statistically there are a few more women who say that marriage is important to them than men, but it is only by a few percentage points (6, IIRC). And both are well below 50%.

And as far as I can see most of the hand-wringing about here it is from men, with most women (and of course some men) basically saying that if you don't want to get married, then don't. Simple.

In my jurisdiction, long-term cohabitation is the legal equivalent of marriage, and so anyone who does that is getting married whether or not they throw the party and get the gifts. 

But even if that weren't true, I doubt that it's the piece of paper that's the tangible benefit of being married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> But even if that weren't true, I doubt that it's the piece of paper that's the tangible benefit of being married.


And what do _you _see as the tangible benefits of being married that being single doesn't afford.


----------



## Nynaeve

Cletus said:


> Men are complaining about men not wanting to get married? I thought the issue was more young women want marriage than their male counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare these two situations:
> 1. Live with the woman of your dreams - cohabitate, possibly raise children together, buy a house, the whole 9 yards.
> 2. Option 1 plus a marriage license.
> 
> That piece of paper with the ability to check "Married filing jointly" at the end of the year doesn't sound like a lot of upside compared to the pain and difficulty involved in an ugly divorce if it doesn't work out.
> 
> No one seems to be complaining that men don't want to be with women, or commit to their long term partners, or do any of the things an otherwise married couple do. Men certainly seem to be fathering children that they then leave in historically unprecedented numbers. They are less interested in option 2 when option 1 comes with everything plus less risk on the back end - for lawyer's fees, alimony, child support, garnished wages...



Just because you don't get married doesn't mean you won't have to pay child support or have custody disputes requiring lawyers and court hearings.


----------



## southbound

Any benefits? I suppose it just depends on one's personality. Some can't stand to be alone and crave companionship. For those, I suppose it's a plus. Others have more of a free spirit, and marriage just doesn't work as well for them.

My brother, for example, is in his late 30s and has never been married. He says he does what he wants when he wants. He spends his money as he pleases, etc. He also has a low tolerance for drama and emotional games. If he had to deal with very much drama, he'd probably just jump off a bridge somewhere. So, he is very happy being single.

When I see these "no marriage" topics, I think it equals no LTR, which is what it means to me, but I realize that most just mean no piece of paper.


----------



## Wiserforit

Cletus said:


> So do I. What ever would make you think otherwise?


Some personalities are constantly on the hunt for framing other people's relationship in pejorative terms and she's used some of the most common ones with you. If you can get someone on the defensive with these plays, you "win".

One of them is looking for any opportunity to insinuate your wife a prostitute, which is trivially easy since sex is involved. If sex is an obligation of marriage, and marriage is a contract, then marriage is a contract for sex and your wife is a prostitute. Now, that is clearly false and makes all marriage prostitution. But that's how easy this is for anyone with these intentions. 

Another common framing is to pretend that if you are talking about sex, then that is the only aspect of your relationship. You are on top of this one right here, but you did something these people don't like: instead of blubbering defensively about how sex is not the only aspect of your relationship, you asked a question making her explain why she would insinuate her marriage is so different from yours in that respect.

Tactically, they need to be the standard by which other marriages are trying to live up to and have you in the beta-position of begging them to understand how yours tries to live up to theirs. 

Making these straw men and then saying how they disagree with them is not a sign of acumen, but rather a sign of intentions and it is for that reason annoying and tedious to deal with. (I "disagree" with the false framing I have made of your marriage.) Because someone with these intentions is simply going to find more straw men to make and more insinuations instead of engaging sincerely. For me, the value of engaging is in exposing the tactics involved as opposed to taking them seriously.


----------



## TCSRedhead

I'll break it down in simple terms for you WFI since you clearly like to misconstrue what I write. 

Cletus states that the reason men are reluctant to marry is a lack of chastity in women. 

I stated that I didn't want a man to marry me strictly for sex as that seems like a contractual sexual scenario aka prostitution. 

Cletus responded that his wife didn't feel that way. 

So, he is the one who drew that conclusion. 

You seem to enjoy being the manipulative one while finger pointing at others that they are the manipulative ones. Why is that?


----------



## Thebes

I seriously doubt my son will get married and have children. If he does he will be at that age his kids will run a good chance of having autism.


----------



## Lyris

Being unmarried doesn't get you out of child support where I live. Why would it? And alimony doesn't exist here other, except in exceptional circumstances, such as a SAHM caring for a profoundly disabled child. 

And if men are fathering children and then leaving in record numbers and then not supporting them because no-one's making them, the they are revolting specimens unworthy of being called men at all. 

As to what a man needs to do to be considered awesome to me, my husband is honourable and funny and intelligent and great in bed and generous and supportive. And he will brook no disrespect. If I had ever behaved ******ily or nagged him repeatedly he would have walked away early on. Self-respect is key.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And what do _you _see as the tangible benefits of being married that being single doesn't afford.


TBH, I'm not entirely clear on what counts as tangible vs intangible, but overall I agree with what's been posted here. 

There are many possible benefits to marriage: commitment, love, sex, companionship, support (financial and emotional), connection, tax breaks, shared benefits, social acceptance, approval from one's family or culture, security, someone to bring you tea when you're sick or who has your back when things get rough, another parent for children, someone to challenge you and help you to grow and be a better person, and so on.

I also agree that there's no guarantee that you will in fact get any of these benefits from wedlock and that there are plenty of ways you can get most, if not all, of them elsewhere. 

So, you just have to choose what you think is best for you in your circumstances.


----------



## tobio

Tangible benefit to my hubz is he gets me, all of me, forever. No marriage would have = no more me.

What does he get tangibly from being married to me? (Is that a word? It is now!) 

My physical presence in the house. The mother of his children looking after his children in the family home with him there and us being a family. A wife who takes her role as a SAHM seriously and works hard at it. A fulfilling loving relationship together. The potential for a better lifestyle once I retrain and go back to work which will afford us things we can't have right now.

Now, this is specific to us ^^^ But my main thinking is that with me, hubz couldn't have the benefits of a "longer-term" - ie a permanent cohabiting relationship without getting married... because I wouldn't do it. So the tangible benefits to him getting married is he can remain in a relationship where he gets the things he wants with me, on a permanent basis.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

WorkingOnMe said:


> Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


It happens.It's rare though.Most women don't feel emotionally safe enough to give themselves completely.Sometimes it's the man's fault and sometimes it's her own doing and own issues getting in the way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> TBH,
> So, you just have to choose what you think is best for you in your circumstances.


:iagree:
There you go again.
For the second time this week I actually agree with you.

And that's what's being said in this thread.
More and more young, single men are thinking that marriage is not in their best interests , and the question is why?


----------



## Cosmos

WorkingOnMe said:


> Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


I think this depends on personality types and be non-gender specific. My SO and I prioritize one another, but we will never have 'all' of one another. We're inter-dependent, but separate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> As to what a man needs to do to be considered awesome to me, my husband is honourable and funny and intelligent and great in bed and generous and supportive. *And he will brook no disrespect. If I had ever behaved ******ily or nagged him repeatedly he would have walked away early on*. *Self-respect is key.*


:iagree:
Especially the part underlined.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> There you go again.
> For the second time this week I actually agree with you.
> 
> And that's what's being said in this thread.
> More and more young, single men are thinking that marriage is not in their best interests , and the question is why?


Incentive? If they can get the regular bed mate, extra income, home and kids without a formal commitment, why commit?

A woman, on the other hand, might feel vulnerable having kids etc without a formal commitment. I know I would have...


----------



## Caribbean Man

You make an interest point Cosmos.
But maybe there's more?
It could be cultural.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Cosmos said:


> I think this depends on personality types and be non-gender specific. My SO and I prioritize one another, but we will never have 'all' of one another. We're inter-dependent, but separate.


True. I don't give all of me either because, as SB says, I don't feel safe.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

WorkingOnMe said:


> True. I don't give all of me either because, as SB says, I don't feel safe.


You're definitely not the first man to say that.I've heard a lot say they gave all and then it was used against them.So they no longer give all bc they don't feel safe anymore.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> You make an interest point Cosmos.
> But maybe there's more?
> It could be cultural.


:iagree:

I'm sure culture plays a large part in it, too.

Until 1998 I'd lived in a vastly different culture (South Africa) and, even though I'd been divorced for years, I still used the title "Mrs" and wore my wedding band. As unbelievable as it may sound in this day and age, a divorced mother was more socially acceptable than a never-wed mother, and I didn't want any stigma being attached to my son. Back then I didn't know any women who had had children out of wedlock, and very few couples who were cohabitating. When I moved back to the UK, I saw more couples cohabitating and, perhaps, marrying when there was the pitter patter of little feet.

Perhaps what becomes acceptable becomes the norm?


----------



## RoseAglow

Cosmos said:


> Incentive? If they can get the regular bed mate, extra income, home and kids without a formal commitment, why commit?
> 
> A woman, on the other hand, might feel vulnerable having kids etc without a formal commitment. I know I would have...


The OP's conditions were that the man wanted to remain child-free.

I think parenthood changes the marriage game for both men and women.

If a man wants to live with his child, avoid having other men raise his child (e.g. step-dads/boyfriends), and avoid paying child support, he is better off getting married to the mother of his child. His chances of his girlfriend leaving are higher than his changes of his wife leaving.


----------



## tobio

When I wrote "all of me", I was thinking as in 100% of my love and devotion.

I have always been really sensitive. Sometimes it is hard to give myself for fear of being laughed at, rejected or ridiculed.

Now, I just give, and be me. I dance round the kitchen with my headphones on singing. If he walks in, he laughs. I laugh too. It's funny - I can't sing for toffee. He gets me. He understands me better than I do sometimes. That's intangible though. I have no idea how to explain intangible things to someone, which to me are really valuable.

The tangible things? I suppose what I meant is the OP assumed that a given unmarried male could automatically reap the benefits of a relationship without HAVING to get married. What if he couldn't? What if the girlfriend insisted on marriage as a condition of continuing the relationship? If a young guy has a good woman, how likely is he to ditch her because she wanted marriage even f it wasn't at the forefront of his mind?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john_lord_b3

WorkingOnMe said:


> Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


It's always possible for young people to move to another country where marital duties and obligations of both the husband and wife are still being honored (not having a bad stigma) & find potential spouses there who would take up those duties and obligations gladly.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

john_lord_b3 said:


> It's always possible for young people to move to another country where marital duties and obligations of both the husband and wife are still being honored (not having a bad stigma) & find potential spouses there who would take up those duties and obligations gladly.


Am I reading this wrong or are you suggesting that one would need to leave the country for a desirable mate?


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

Thanks you all for taking the time to share your thoughtful responses. Given some responses I have slightly modified my original post to clarify things. Your collective responses have shed light on this matter and interestingly into others. 

Faithful, 
I totally agree that idea that married people should share all of their fantasies with each other and should be entitled to privacy. Have had heard some people want their partners to put restrictions on their S/O’s thoughts so I agree wholeheartedly with Faithful’s position in this matter. I think this type of thinking is a bit much. 

Hangvine and others pointed out that the attraction to the female form can be totally nonsexual in nature. I guess I was struggling to understand if my wife’s fondness of this type of viewing was intentionally or unintentionally done to create arousal. 

Mrs Davey, 
Thanks for your insight. As a side note your “I am not sure why that matters” can be interpreted in a varitety of different ways ranging from “this is none of your business” (which seems to be faithful’s position that she is entitled to her privacy of thought) to one of empathy and wanting to know so you can help me further. Your follow up seemed to clarify it. I never thought about the idea that opening to a man that you are bi would welcome the undesirable side effects of being threatened or thinking that would open the door to a threesome. None apply to me

Supecting- to claifiy my acronym: SCporn = softcore porn, 
I would image that many men and when withhold thoughts of bisexual thoughts perhaps for good reason. To share I personally find the 

As far as why I have not asked my wife or inquired further I should point out that historically that my wife has in the past has been reluctant to open up. This IMHO has been more an issue of catholic guilt/inhibitions than wanting “private thoughts/activities. As one perfect example was my wife denying her use of enjoying a vibrator years ago. When I asked her she would sheepishly deny using it and wanting to use one. Both were not true. At the time I had seen feedback on TAM directed to another person’s post in a similar situation essentially that ranged from “leave her alone-let her have her privacy” etc. to “just bust it out and see how she reacts” as it is likely that it was likely a guilt thing rather than a privacy thing. I was brought up to believe that the body is a beautiful thing and that we should do what feels good so it is difficult for me to sometimes relate. Given Mr. Davey and Faithful, you both seem to not be very inhibited. It may be difficult for you too to appreciate or understand this type of thinking on her part. Anyway, one night I simply took the vibrator out after she was aroused and she loved it. It is now a fun tool that she enjoys solo and together. I don’t inquire about her solo activity and her thoughts that get her aroused as I respect her privacy in this regard. I have learned much about my wife inadvertently from the others sharing on this forum. This applies to sexual and non-sexual matters. 

My wife is soulmate, lover, partner in parenting and everything else and I pray for strength that I can we can make eachother happy in many ways. However, I am not of the mindset that I should be EVERYTHING to her. I believe she should have relationships (plantonic) that give her satisfaction as well as activities. I also don’t have a problem with her being aroused by things other than me. I only seek to understand them what those things are if she so desires. She was the one that has mentioned (then for some reason been shy about it on other occasions) that the female form is arousing to her. 

Sorry for the long and perhaps redundant post


----------



## john_lord_b3

ScarletBegonias said:


> Am I reading this wrong or are you suggesting that one would need to leave the country for a desirable mate?


We never know what fate has in store for us. A frustated young person who has tried her/his best to find a desirable mate in her/his own country, might find what she/he are looking for in another country. That is not a need, certainly not a requirement, but consider that as an option, a possibility.


----------



## Laila8

Tobio, good point. When my H and I were dating, I held back a bit and didn't give myself 100%. I held back emotionally and physically. Now that we're married, he 'gets' so much more of me than when we were just dating (and not just sexually, but in all ways).


----------



## john_lord_b3

Laila8 said:


> Tobio, good point. When my H and I were dating, I held back a bit and didn't give myself 100%. I held back emotionally and physically. Now that we're married, he 'gets' so much more of me than when we were just dating (and not just sexually, but in all ways).


:smthumbup: I wish my future daughter in law will have the same attitude as you, Mrs. Laila.


----------



## RoseAglow

john_lord_b3 said:


> We never know what fate has in store for us. A frustated young person who has tried her/his best to find a desirable mate in her/his own country, might find what she/he are looking for in another country. That is not a need, certainly not a requirement, but consider that as an option, a possibility.


I have witnessed several "international" couples, although none of them were looking for a spouse from a different culture. 

International couplehood/marriage carries their own inherent risks and stresses. Things like money and family bonds- sending money to family members, having international trips home- can create issues. Things can get more difficult once children arrive. And the risks of being separated from one's child for long periods of time and across distances is vastly more probable in an international couple.

All of these thing can be overcome! Any long-term relationship is going to have similar risks/issues to resolve. But anyone who decides to go looking outside of their country as "easier" route to finding what they want in a spouse should also weigh other less obvious risks.


----------



## john_lord_b3

RoseAglow said:


> I have witnessed several "international" couples, although none of them were looking for a spouse from a different culture.
> 
> International couplehood/marriage carries their own inherent risks and stresses. Things like money and family bonds- sending money to family members, having international trips home- can create issues. Things can get more difficult once children arrive. And the risks of being separated from one's child for long periods of time and across distances is vastly more probable in an international couple.
> 
> All of these thing can be overcome! Any long-term relationship is going to have similar risks/issues to resolve. But anyone who decides to go looking outside of their country as "easier" route to finding what they want in a spouse should also weigh other less obvious risks.


:iagree: Indeed. Also, cultural differences often present an additional challenge. Not insurmountable, but still a challenge. International marriage is an option worth considering, but _consideration_ certainly means weighing all the possible risks as well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WorkingOnMe said:


> Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


 We've always looked upon marriage to be the opening door to every dream, anticipation , the greatest fulfillment even ....it's only grown better over the years...



Laila8 said:


> Tobio, good point. When my H and I were dating, I held back a bit and didn't give myself 100%. I held back emotionally and physically. Now that we're married, he 'gets' so much more of me than when we were just dating (and not just sexually, but in all ways).


 Although we agreed to hold back going all the way.....me & mine couldn't have been any closer* emotionally*....my husband has always always always given me his ...since we met ... his devotion, his time, his faithfulness, his word, his understanding...waiting was something very special to me/ something beautiful ... it represented FOREVER....my giving myself to my husband...just as those vows.... he never belittled me or pushed and still I felt his desire at the same time... 

Emotionally....he just made it easy somehow to just be *ME*....he knew my every fear, we shared every Joy.. It was in how he treated me, what he gave...I wanted to give back so much... this fulfilled something in us both...some things you just know....I'd always be safe in his arms.. long before we walked down the aisle. 

He sure as hell wouldn't have looked upon me as a Prostitute .... I find that demeaning...so foreign to how we look at Love, the special ness of sex... it's meaning to us....some things in life are worth the wait...for the one we want to give our EVERYTHING to.... It represents more than I can even put into words. For me, there is no more vulnerable giving or higher -tied to my emotions. 

I had a Swinger pm for a time... disturbed by my pre-marital views -my thread on what I will teach my daughter....his viewpoint / life experience was totally upside down from MINE .... but he was open to hear me out... I think he wanted to ruffle my feathers but he kept listening... (and I heard him out as well)...... I appreciated that..... by the end of our exchange he told me he would not change who I am.... or my views. That meant something to me...he was open minded...understands we are not all the same. 

What I learned was....for HIM... SEX is easy, he could do that with ANYONE...it's Nothing really...he's ABLE to separate/ hold his emotions from these experiences...but THIS is what he gave his wife..he found this harder somehow...the DEEPER even...in that he doesn't share with anyone else.. But sex....it's easy, it's free... it's abundant ...he shares his body with others and they share with him... Yet in the real world...the vast majority of us would divorce over one having sex with another...it's the ultimate betrayal. It's fascinating all the various views and perceptions surrounding the meaning of sex, it's role... to various people.

Speaking from 2 Romantics...We love being married...it's the foundation for all the Best a man & a woman can give & experience in this lifetime.


----------



## Catherine602

WorkingOnMe said:


> Most men don't get "all of" their wives. Usually they get less after marriage. The prospect of a woman who gives herself completely is the carot, the dream, the myth that convinces men to keep trying. Oh how I wish it were true.


Is it reasonable to expect to get "all of" her? We all get less than we think we deserve. I suspect we give a lot less than we think and get a lot more in return than we deserve. One way or another, the payoff is fair. 

I expect a lot but I try to be realistic. Most of the time, I get my due if not much more, so I cant complain. Can't fault anyone for wanting more though. 

I notice that to get more I have to give more - in the form of mental, and/or spiritual, development. The more I let go of what should be, the more I am liking life. 

I wouldn't continue to throw seeds on a dry land, either amend the soil or search out fertile ground.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Catherine602 said:


> ..I wouldn't continue to throw seeds on a dry land, either amend the soil or search out fertile ground.


Wow:iagree::iagree: very wise words, Mrs. Catherine!


----------



## Caribbean Man

RoseAglow said:


> I have witnessed several "international" couples, although none of them were looking for a spouse from a different culture.
> 
> International couplehood/marriage carries their own inherent risks and stresses. Things like money and family bonds- sending money to family members, having international trips home- can create issues. Things can get more difficult once children arrive. And the risks of being separated from one's child for long periods of time and across distances is vastly more probable in an international couple.
> 
> All of these thing can be overcome! Any long-term relationship is going to have similar risks/issues to resolve. But anyone who decides to go looking outside of their country as "easier" route to finding what they want in a spouse should also weigh other less obvious risks.



Interesting point you made.
I personally have three international couples as business customers/ friends , and the challenges are great.

However I will say without the shadow of doubt that their marriages are the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

One is a Nigerian professor who married an Indian professor. They met in our country , teaching at one of our universities many years ago. They have two beautiful daughters.
The kids [ in their teens ] speak about three or four different languages fluently, and are very culturally adept.

The other is a Dutch woman married to a local businessman friend of mine. They have twin daughters, same thing. The girls [ teenagers now] are very proficient in English , Spanish, Dutch and even the dialects. They grew up and were schooled both here and Holland and have travelled extensively.

The third is a Columbian woman and a local guy. No kids, they met online. He cannot speak Spanish and she cannot speak English well. She has trouble also with our local dialects.
Both of them are highly educated professionals in their respective fields. 

The common denominator between all of these couples , that made their union special IMO, was that when they originally met, their grasp of each pother's language was very limited, but it didn't hamper their communication. They had to trust each other implicitly for survival in a different country with different a culture. 
They had to have each other's backs.
That basically put them in a different category. They had to abandon their own cultural dating/ mating norms and rituals , learn and appreciate a different norm in order to effectively communicate and deal with their partner.
They had to be extremely tolerant in some case of each other's extended family customs and so on.

In other words, their marriage flourished because they HAD to give in everything. Their survival depended on it.

It takes a certain level of emotional maturity and honest to marry cross culture / cross race / internationally and thrive.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Mr. CM, I am curious, what about the Muslims in your country, do they practice exclusive endogamy, or do they allow converts to marry their daughters?


----------



## EleGirl

1. Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.

2. Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.

3. Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.

4. Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.

5. Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.

6. Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.


Read more: Benefits of Marriage: Men's Health


----------



## EleGirl

unbelievable said:


> Right. It'd be far more exciting to be a thankless drone, laboring for 50 years for the privilege of being told what's wrong with you.


Yea, because that's how all women treat their husbands...


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

unbelievable said:


> Right. It'd be far more exciting to be a thankless drone, laboring for 50 years for the privilege of being told what's wrong with you.


THIS!

/thread

Marriage is dead in the water. And this coming from a person that thinks our civilization NEEDS marriage, and places high value upon it. The liberation & celebration of female hypergamy has killed marriage, and it is no wonder Men are beginning to turn away from it. 

I can not see why I would want my son to become married, there are only negatives, with zero positives. I will raise him to be complete within himself, confident, and capable, and to NEVER NEED a woman. In fact I hope he establishes a harem of them, and uses them at his whim, just like they apparently want.

Perhaps I'm jaded. Think what you want. 

Or perhaps I have finally woken up, like many men seem to be doing.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

EleGirl said:


> Yea, because that's how all women treat their husbands...


What ARE the positives in marriage to a young man in this day & age then?

'cause I can not see any.

Edit: LOL at TCSRedhead liking your post, considering she cheated on her husband.


----------



## TCSRedhead

The Cro-Magnon said:


> What ARE the positives in marriage to a young man in this day & age then?
> 
> 'cause I can not see any.
> 
> Edit: LOL at TCSRedhead liking your post, considering she cheated on her husband.


Yes, I did have an EA. I have been forgiven by my H who continues to love me and sees/receives great benefits from our marriage. 

Nice personal attack though. It shows great maturity and insight into your personality.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

TCSRedhead said:


> Yes, I did have an EA. I have been forgiven by my H who continues to love me and sees/receives great benefits from our marriage.
> 
> Nice personal attack though. It shows great maturity and insight into your personality.


Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

You DID treat your Husband like CRAP though, didn't you, despite liking the post that implied it was wrong to think that women were out there treating their husbands like crap, even though you yourself had done so, demonstrating better with your actions than I could with words the doublethink you women seem to operate on.

But whatever, I am more concerned about the principle than you personally. Perhaps just have me flagged and get me banned again.


----------



## TCSRedhead

The Cro-Magnon said:


> Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.
> 
> You DID treat your Husband like CRAP though, didn't you, despite liking the post that implied it was wrong to think that women were out there treating their husbands like crap, even though you yourself had done so, demonstrating better with your actions than I could with words the doublethink you women seem to operate on.
> 
> But whatever, I am more concerned about the principle than you personally. Perhaps just have me flagged and get me banned again.


I haven't ever reported you before so I'm assuming you either had a different username or treat others poorly. 

To answer the question, no. I did not behave the way your cohort describes or my husband would have divorced me without question even without an EA involved. 

I understand you've obviously had some bad experiences. I wish you better luck in the future but I would suggest counseling to address the anger and baggage you carry.


----------



## hookares

unbelievable, marriage works well for many.
You just aren't likely to hear from them on this forum.
In my case, I'm in full agreement with your opening post.


----------



## Caribbean Man

john_lord_b3 said:


> Mr. CM, I am curious, what about the Muslims in your country, do they practice exclusive endogamy, or do they allow converts to marry their daughters?


Yes and no.

Our society is a complex mixture of races and religions.
Muslims comprise a significant portion of our population, but even within that bloc, there are different sect such as Sunni , Shi'a , Ahmaddiyas , and so on.Then there's also the contemporaries who dress in normal Western clothes , the females only wear the Hijab or Burka when they attend the Mosque to Juma. So there are many divisions based on their country of origin of their ancestors.

Some came from Syria and the Middle east, some came from Pakistan and some came from Africa , [ Nigera.]

The fundamentalist practice exclusive endogamy. But the mainstream [ contemporary ] Muslims marry _anybody,_ not just converts to Islam.
Hindus and Muslims marry. Muslim and Christians marry. So there are situations where a person might have a Christian name but they are a practising Muslim . 
I have a female friend who's a Hindu devotee but she married a Muslim man and took on his last name, Mohammed. Her first name is that of a Hindu deity. Her daughters are marrying age, and one is getting married soon to a Christian man, but she insists on being married under Hindu rites. Her fiancee has no problems.

Her other daughter's fiancee is a practising Muslim, does the Haaj as often as he can , but both of are deeply in love. She's a practising Hindu but she has tattooed Bismillah in Islamic calligraphic style , and his name on the inside of her left wrist, he has done the same with an Om symbol and her name in Sanskirt, on the inside of his right wrist.
They are like Romeo and Juliet, they met and fell in love at university.
This is not the exception , its the norm.
It cuts right across race and religion .

My wife parents are Hindu but I am , well just me. [lol!]


----------



## Caribbean Man

Maybe we could look at the question from another angle.

What tangible benefits do women generally see in marriage that they cannot get from outside of marriage? I am not thinking of third party benefits. [ Tax rebates, etc.]

What are women seeing in marriage that benefits them personally in a tangible way?
Or is it that both genders put different values on the benefits in marriage.
Men put more value on the tangibles, and women tend to value the intangible [ romantic , family wedding etc] more?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Maybe we could look at the question from another angle.
> 
> What tangible benefits do women generally see in marriage that they cannot get from outside of marriage? I am not thinking of third party benefits. [ Tax rebates, etc.]
> 
> What are women seeing in marriage that benefits them personally in a tangible way?


The more interesting question here, though, isn't about what women think. So far, women have listed all kinds of benefits (tangible and intangible) and seem quite happy with them as reasons for getting married.

It's the men who have declared marriage valueless and "dead in the water". If it's really that bad, why do they bother? Why not just get out and stay out?

Or, if they feel it's much too late for them, since they've already lost everything and all opportunity for happiness, why not move over to the dating sites and start warning young men *before* they get hitched? Why hang out here with all these married folks?


----------



## hookares

always_alone said:


> The more interesting question here, though, isn't about what women think. So far, women have listed all kinds of benefits (tangible and intangible) and seem quite happy with them as reasons for getting married.
> 
> It's the men who have declared marriage valueless and "dead in the water". If it's really that bad, why do they bother? Why not just get out and stay out?
> 
> Or, if they feel it's much too late for them, since they've already lost everything and all opportunity for happiness, why not move over to the dating sites and start warning young men *before* they get hitched? Why hang out here with all these married folks?


You are probably right in saying some of us really don't belong here. However, it would be a waste of time trying to relate how matrimony offers no hope for many potential candidates.
young people seldom listen to their elders.


----------



## AlphaProvider

hookares said:


> You are probably right in saying some of us really don't belong here. However, it would be a waste of time trying to relate how matrimony offers no hope for many potential candidates.
> young people seldom listen to their elders.


Did the elders know that marriage and it's original intent and purpose was being destroyed? Or did they feel it was always a bum deal?

My mom and dad really like each other. After 35 years, my father is working out of state and he came home last weekened and enjoyed a long and lazy bubble bath with his wife...


----------



## AlphaProvider

Caribbean Man said:


> Maybe we could look at the question from another angle.
> 
> What tangible benefits do women generally see in marriage that they cannot get from outside of marriage? I am not thinking of third party benefits. [ Tax rebates, etc.]
> 
> What are women seeing in marriage that benefits them personally in a tangible way?
> Or is it that both genders put different values on the benefits in marriage.
> Men put more value on the tangibles, and women tend to value the intangible [ romantic , family wedding etc] more?


A woman can lock in a great mate, and if it doesn't work out she can take a nice rip out of him.

While they are engaged in the "marriage", she can use societal and shame tactics to manipulate her spouse to her liking.

She can lock in this great and masculine man, and then decide to stop feeding him the proper attention and have outside affairs to get a great and stupendous amount of lift.


----------



## always_alone

AlphaProvider said:


> A woman can lock in a great mate, and if it doesn't work out she can take a nice rip out of him.
> 
> While they are engaged in the "marriage", she can use societal and shame tactics to manipulate her spouse to her liking.
> 
> She can lock in this great and masculine man, and then decide to stop feeding him the proper attention and have outside affairs to get a great and stupendous amount of lift.


A man can do the same, no? Last I heard, men cheat as often as women do, and are certainly not above shaming, manipulation, or ignoring her needs.

Do a few bad apples wreck the entire institution for everybody?


----------



## AlphaProvider

always_alone said:


> A man can do the same, no? Last I heard, men cheat as often as women do, and are certainly not above shaming, manipulation, or ignoring her needs.
> 
> Do a few bad apples wreck the entire institution for everybody?


I think it's a bunch of us BS's in the same watering hole. Thinking everyone is bad. Of course there is a good percentage of bad, but there is a good percentage of good too.

We need to salve our wounds, either repair our existing relationships and or move forward with our lives, taking these lessons forward and not focusing on the negative.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It's the men who have declared marriage valueless and "dead in the water". If it's really that bad, why do they bother? Why not just get out and stay out?


Lol,
So,isn't this^^^the original premise of this discussion, that men are no longer getting married like before because they view it as 
_" dead in the water?"_

Can't you see that if this trend increases, that marriage will cease to exist?
And if men are no longer interested , where does that leave women?
Lol, your logic sounds kinda circular to me.:scratchhead:

Helen Smith: 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married

" _It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested.* Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent*_."

Seems to me that its not formerly married , " bitter " men deciding that marriage is futile.
Looks like eligible bachelors are no longer interested. lol.
They already have the benefits of marriage _outside _of marriage.
And they're not interested in risking & losing anything. They are "cake eating." lol.

Ever heard single women say:
_" There are no more good men left.."_ in reference to marriage?
Or
" Eternal bachelor / serial monogamist ?"
Well the figures suggest that its becoming a trend.

Hence my question to the women.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Or, if they feel it's much too late for them, since they've already lost everything and all opportunity for happiness, why not move over to the dating sites and start warning young men *before* they get hitched? Why hang out here with all these married folks?



Nope.
Men don't troll dating sites looking for * _marriage partners._ *

They are primarily looking for sex, especially married men or men in bad relationships.

Online Dating Statistics | Statistic Brain

Reasons for Online Dating - Why People Date Online - Marie Claire


----------



## AlphaProvider

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> So,isn't this^^^the original premise of this discussion, that men are no longer getting married like before because they view it as
> _" dead in the water?"_
> 
> Can't you see that if this trend increases, that marriage will cease to exist?
> And if men are no longer interested , where does that leave women?
> Lol, your logic sounds kinda circular to me.:scratchhead:
> 
> Helen Smith: 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married
> 
> " _It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested.* Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent*_."
> 
> Seems to me that its not formerly married , " bitter " men deciding that marriage is futile.
> Looks like eligible bachelors are no longer interested. lol.
> They already have the benefits of marriage _outside _of marriage.
> And they're not interested in risking & losing anything. They are "cake eating." lol.
> 
> Ever heard single women say:
> _" There are no more good men left.."_ in reference to marriage?
> Or
> " Eternal bachelor / serial monogamist ?"
> Well the figures suggest that its becoming a trend.
> 
> Hence my question to the women.


As the husband has been reduced to literally a "prop", he sees no sane reason to willingly engage in marriage.


----------



## 2ntnuf

The single men outside of TAM have not all learned that they would prefer staying single due to this thread. They have decided from real life events they have witnessed and/or lived through. 

Maybe the "brains of TAM" need to get together and try to solve the real issues behind why these men don't want to get married instead of telling them they are wrong for thinking the way they do?

It's a losing battle to try to tell these guys they have advantages in getting married they do not have in the single life when they are told to have their own life during a marriage. Many marriages don't want to combine incomes. There is nothing wrong with that. The thing is, there is then more expense within the marriage for each partner than being single. A single man can live better with less guilt than he can being married or a committed relationship. There is little advantage in that area.

Children can be and are raised in many cases by a step-parent. The non-custodial spouse is basically just a money tree and will have a difficult life trying to go and see the very child he fathered. He will become a second class father once the mother remarries. It is almost inevitable. It rips a man's heart in two and affects other relationships. 

It's not good all across the relational map. It's sad that it has to be this way. It is necessary in many cases. It does make a great case for staying single.

There are many other reasons for staying single or in a semi-committed relationship. What are some of the solutions? The value placed on these benefits listed do not seem to be enough for many men to consider marriage. What then, can be done?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Why do we care if others are deciding against marriage as long as we're happy in our own marital or cohabitation situation? It sounds selfish but the only thing we can control is our own happiness.There's no point in worrying about convincing someone why they should or should not want to be married.
People are going to do what they want to do regardless of advice from others.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I take that to mean, if you are here, you are not happy. I suppose what you are trying to tell me is there are enough men out there who want to get married that you don't consider it an issue? That's all I can make out of your statement. It is a selfish way of thinking. It is a good thing within a marriage to be selfish toward the commitment. It is something different on a marriage and relationship forum where marriage and committed relationships are promoted.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

You've misunderstood my ENTIRE post.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

2ntnuf said:


> I take that to mean, if you are here, you are not happy. I suppose what you are trying to tell me is there are enough men out there who want to get married that you don't consider it an issue? That's all I can make out of your statement. It is a selfish way of thinking. It is a good thing within a marriage to be selfish toward the commitment. It is something different on a marriage and relationship forum where marriage and committed relationships are promoted.



1.If you and your spouse made the choice to be married,it's obvious you believe in marriage.Why get all bent out of shape because others aren't making that same choice? If you're happy with your choice,good for you! Don't expect others to make the same choice.Don't sit there and try to find reasons for why they should make the same choice. If they want tangible reasons,let them figure out what reasons work best for them.
2.It doesn't matter if there are men out there who want or don't want to get married.It has no bearing on my personal happiness if some dude down the road doesn't want to marry the woman he's dating.
3.Never once did I say people are wrong for promoting marriage here.I just don't see the point in having a multi page debate on why they should or shouldn't when they're going to do what they see fit for themselves anyway.


----------



## TCSRedhead

2ntnuf said:


> I take that to mean, if you are here, you are not happy. I suppose what you are trying to tell me is there are enough men out there who want to get married that you don't consider it an issue? That's all I can make out of your statement. It is a selfish way of thinking. It is a good thing within a marriage to be selfish toward the commitment. It is something different on a marriage and relationship forum where marriage and committed relationships are promoted.


Many people are on here that ARE happy in their marriage. You're really just jumping to assumptions on a number of levels.


----------



## AlphaProvider

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope.
> Men don't troll dating sites looking for * _marriage partners._ *
> 
> They are primarily looking for sex, especially married men or men in bad relationships.
> 
> Online Dating Statistics | Statistic Brain
> 
> Reasons for Online Dating - Why People Date Online - Marie Claire


They may look for marriage partners to have sex with, so they don't have to worry about taking care of her or entertaining her.


----------



## Caribbean Man

There is a societal aspect to marriage.
If two people alone existed on an island , then there would be no reason for them to get married. They could bear children and there would be no question of, whose kids are those?

The primary reason for marriage is for the procreation and proper upbringing of offspring.
Societies are organized around families, and without a proper family structure , society crumbles.

In poorer countries, many people don't get married , have kids for multiple partners , the state then has the burden of caring for these kids. They become a liability to the state.

This is the main purpose of marriage, as a form of population control, and a preventative measure against deviant behaviour and social upheaval.

A society cannot progress without first harnessing its most important resource, 
Human resource .


----------



## AlphaProvider

2ntnuf said:


> The single men outside of TAM have not all learned that they would prefer staying single due to this thread. They have decided from real life events they have witnessed and/or lived through.
> 
> Maybe the "brains of TAM" need to get together and try to solve the real issues behind why these men don't want to get married instead of telling them they are wrong for thinking the way they do?
> 
> It's a losing battle to try to tell these guys they have advantages in getting married they do not have in the single life when they are told to have their own life during a marriage. Many marriages don't want to combine incomes. There is nothing wrong with that. The thing is, there is then more expense within the marriage for each partner than being single. A single man can live better with less guilt than he can being married or a committed relationship. There is little advantage in that area.


Even though I've done my share of describing the doom and gloom in these situations, there are some advantages in a marriage if both of you put into it and don't take advantage of the other:

1. Shared payment of redundant expenses ( rent/mortgage, food, furniture, etc )
2. Tax benefits
3. Health Care benefit ( $300-$500 saved by running on same policy )
4. Split and shared chores
5. Don't have to look for romantic or sex partner ( don't have to worry about diseases, being robbed, etc )
6. Built in emotional and other support

So it's not all bad. These are benefits when both put in equally into the relationship.




2ntnuf said:


> Children can be and are raised in many cases by a step-parent. The non-custodial spouse is basically just a money tree and will have a difficult life trying to go and see the very child he fathered. He will become a second class father once the mother remarries. It is almost inevitable. It rips a man's heart in two and affects other relationships.


Society is making the male a useless prop and has really trashed the father role.



2ntnuf said:


> It's not good all across the relational map. It's sad that it has to be this way. It is necessary in many cases. It does make a great case for staying single.
> 
> There are many other reasons for staying single or in a semi-committed relationship. What are some of the solutions? The value placed on these benefits listed do not seem to be enough for many men to consider marriage. What then, can be done?


I gave some good reasons for marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,
So things have become so * censored * on TAM that consenting adults IN HAPPY MARRIAGES cannot AMICABLY discuss current social trends relating to marriage?
lol,
I am very happy in _my_ marriage and nothing anybody here says about marriage can make me unhappy about our marriage.

Soooo,
Because our marriage is happy, am I hearing that I am not supposed to discuss this trend?

Nobody's forcing anybody to participate in this thread.

You agree, state your point.
You disagree , state your point.
The general rules of TAM apply.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> So things have become so * censored * on TAM that consenting adults IN HAPPY MARRIAGES cannot AMICABLY discuss current social trends relating to marriage?
> lol,
> I am very happy in _my_ marriage and nothing anybody here says about marriage can make me unhappy about our marriage.
> 
> Soooo,
> Because our marriage is happy, am I hearing that I am not supposed to discuss this trend?
> 
> Nobody's forcing anybody to participate in this thread.
> 
> You agree, state your point.
> You disagree , state your point.
> The general rules of TAM apply.


Never said you aren't supposed to discuss the trend.

I was simply expressing confusion over why everyone cares so much about what someone else is or isn't doing.


----------



## vi_bride04

I never saw tax benefits of being married without children. 

My ex and I always owed the government around $2k every year for taxes. Now if we had kids, that would not have been the case but it seems that getting married and NOT having kids incurs a "marriage pentalty" from Uncle Sam. Anyone else experience this?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> Never said you aren't supposed to discuss the trend.
> 
> I was simply expressing confusion over why everyone cares so much about what someone else is or isn't doing.


To me,it's not about_ someone else._
Its about a social trend which is presently affecting the apple cart of monogamous marriage, albeit , negatively.

I live among society, I am part of it.
It affects me just like domestic violence , rape , sexual abuse of minors , drug and alcohol abuse and so forth.

I have never raped a woman, hit a woman ,had sex with a minor , used illegal drugs or alcohol , and I have been involved for decades in helping people who are victims of these social ills.

Are we supposed to put our heads into the ground like ostriches and disregard it?
What about the next generation?
What does this trend spell for them?


----------



## boysmakegoodpets

coffee4me said:


> ...the men married women who would assist and push them to maximize their true potential in life. Both men would say that they would not have the success in life that they enjoyed had it not been for their wives.


committed partners can do the same without any kind of legal bond. deep love and support can and do exist outside the bonds of matrimony; indeed, those things thrive outside those bonds and many would say marriage more often kills them off than fosters them. i can think it's sweeter and more beautiful when a human partner sticks with you in the absence of any sense of obligation - when they're kept there by love alone - than when they're there mostly because they vowed that they would be at another time, when circumstances were different.

for me, the appeal of marriage is purely sentimental and sexy. i'm my primary partner's submissive, we're very much in love right now, and it's a turn-on for both of us to think of Her making me legally Her own and gradually taking more and greater control over my life, my finances, and so forth. we have an open relationship and i'm allowed to, and do, see other women with my Queen's permission, She sees other men, and i'm sure we'd choose an open model of marriage that would allow both of us to keep enjoying that freedom. it remains true, though, that when i step back and think about marriage purely in objective, analytical terms, the "what-ifs" can creep in and make the whole proposal (pun semi-intended) seem somewhat less appealing. and in the end i guess a couple or group that wants to marry needs to consider the factors presented by both heart and head before deciding whether it's right for them.

my Love and i are taking it slow, and i imagine if we still want to be married some years from now, we'll talk about it more seriously.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Our society is a complex mixture of races and religions.
> Muslims comprise a significant portion of our population, but even within that bloc, there are different sect such as Sunni , Shi'a , Ahmaddiyas , and so on.Then there's also the contemporaries who dress in normal Western clothes , the females only wear the Hijab or Burka when they attend the Mosque to Juma. So there are many divisions based on their country of origin of their ancestors.
> 
> Some came from Syria and the Middle east, some came from Pakistan and some came from Africa , [ Nigera.]
> 
> The fundamentalist practice exclusive endogamy. But the mainstream [ contemporary ] Muslims marry _anybody,_ not just converts to Islam.
> Hindus and Muslims marry. Muslim and Christians marry. So there are situations where a person might have a Christian name but they are a practising Muslim .
> I have a female friend who's a Hindu devotee but she married a Muslim man and took on his last name, Mohammed. Her first name is that of a Hindu deity. Her daughters are marrying age, and one is getting married soon to a Christian man, but she insists on being married under Hindu rites. Her fiancee has no problems.
> 
> Her other daughter's fiancee is a practising Muslim, does the Haaj as often as he can , but both of are deeply in love. She's a practising Hindu but she has tattooed Bismillah in Islamic calligraphic style , and his name on the inside of her left wrist, he has done the same with an Om symbol and her name in Sanskirt, on the inside of his right wrist.
> They are like Romeo and Juliet, they met and fell in love at university.
> This is not the exception , its the norm.
> It cuts right across race and religion .
> 
> My wife parents are Hindu but I am , well just me. [lol!]


Congratulations Mr. CM, you have successfully destroyed my ego as a Southeast Asian   All this time I thought only us Southeast Asian who has this kind of tolerant Muslim attitude to marriage. Apparently your country does too! And seems like you're much more tolerant than us, as we still practice exclusive exogamy (though we still allow our daughters to marry converts), and our marital laws for now still does not allow provisions for inter-religion marriage..to a certain extent. But we allow our interfaith couple to get married in Singapore and return here as a couple, we would still register this marriage as valid in our civil records...

Let us talk more about this in private, and for now let us go back to our regular scheduled debates


----------



## john_lord_b3

AlphaProvider said:


> Even though I've done my share of describing the doom and gloom in these situations, there are some advantages in a marriage if both of you put into it and don't take advantage of the other:
> 
> 1. Shared payment of redundant expenses ( rent/mortgage, food, furniture, etc )
> 2. Tax benefits
> 3. Health Care benefit ( $300-$500 saved by running on same policy )
> 4. Split and shared chores
> 5. Don't have to look for romantic or sex partner ( don't have to worry about diseases, being robbed, etc )
> 6. Built in emotional and other support
> 
> So it's not all bad. These are benefits when both put in equally into the relationship.


That is all very interesting and fair, especially if there is actual legal backing. Is there any legal obligation for number 5 and 6 stated explicitly in your National Law?


----------



## AlphaProvider

john_lord_b3 said:


> That is all very interesting and fair, especially if there is actual legal backing. Is there any legal obligation for number 5 and 6 stated explicitly in your National Law?


There's no obligation. These would be advantages to doing a mutually benefitual "union"...


----------



## john_lord_b3

AlphaProvider said:


> There's no obligation. These would be advantages to doing a mutually benefitual "union"...


I see. Thank you for the insight. If your list 1 to 6 is an "advertisement", then it should come with a little footnote below it "specifications may vary, there are no guarantees that point 5 and 6 are applicable"  

Your opening word is actually already very very wise: 



> there are some advantages in a marriage *if both of you put into it and don't take advantage of the other*.


----------



## Caribbean Man

How old is this institution / construct called marriage anyway?
Marriage actually pre dates written history.

Fact: One of the earliest known civilizations, Mesopotamia, had laws governing marriage , adultery and yes , divorce.
Interestingly,much of what was constituted a legal marriage back in Mesopotamia still applies today.
The institution of marriage has not changed much.

Our attitude towards marriage is what has changed, drastically.

The only tangible benefit to marriage is, and always has been , a family. Husband , Wife and kids, and that is the MOST IMPORTANT BENEFIT of marriage, everything else is peripheral .
Joint accounts, property , vehicle,tax incentives , social mobility ,financial opportunities, everything else is incidental and secondary.

The intangibles are what makes people want to get married.
Unlike animals, human beings operate on the basis of free will , hence we have these constructs like, politics and religion, whose benefits are largely, intangible. They are not entirely rational, but they make us feel a certain way.

Many people are disenchanted with what goes on in politics , but I have yet too see a better way to govern ourselves.

Many are disenchanted with what goes on in religion, but I am yet to see any construct that can replace the function religion has played in societies throughout the annals of history. Culture , in many instances is closely linked to religion.
People's thoughts determine how they act, ideas have _consequences._

The idea behind marriage is the belief in a higher power than ourselves , that is why the marriage vows are considered
" sacred."
Sacredness being derived from an external source , considered higher than ourselves.
The _consequence_ of the idea of marriage , is what we are all benefiting from today, a civilized world with societies structured on strong family bonds and values based on those sacred , marriage vows.
That the institution of marriage seems to be taking a severe beating today is not a problem of the institution itself ,that institution was built and modified over time to last. 
But is a function of the malaise that is eating out the souls of modern man , and is manifested in selfishness , a false sense of entitlement and the inability to distinguish between the sacred and profane.
Marriage is not " dead in the water ,'" IMO, it never can be.
As long as people have free will, there will always be ,
Politics, Religion and ,
The institution called monogamous marriage.


----------



## lenzi

AlphaProvider said:


> Even though I've done my share of describing the doom and gloom in these situations, there are some advantages in a marriage if both of you put into it and don't take advantage of the other:
> 
> 1. Shared payment of redundant expenses ( rent/mortgage, food, furniture, etc )
> 2. Tax benefits
> 3. Health Care benefit ( $300-$500 saved by running on same policy )
> 4. Split and shared chores
> 5. Don't have to look for romantic or sex partner ( don't have to worry about diseases, being robbed, etc )
> 6. Built in emotional and other support





AlphaProvider said:


> I gave some good reasons for marriage.


Except for possible tax breaks, you gave none.

Except for some possible tax breaks, all of those benefits (including health insurance between domestic partners thanks to new Federal laws) can be found in a committed exclusive relationship between two people that are not married.


----------



## AlphaProvider

lenzi said:


> Except for possible tax breaks, you gave none.
> 
> Except for some possible tax breaks, all of those benefits (including health insurance between domestic partners thanks to new Federal laws) can be found in a committed exclusive relationship between two people that are not married.


good to know.


----------



## lenzi

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up some common misconceptions.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

vi_bride04 said:


> I never saw tax benefits of being married without children.
> 
> My ex and I always owed the government around $2k every year for taxes. Now if we had kids, that would not have been the case but it seems that getting married and NOT having kids incurs a "marriage pentalty" from Uncle Sam. Anyone else experience this?


When both spouses make a similar amount there can be a marriage penalty in some cases. If one spouse makes substantially more then there is a marriage benefit. I make about 10 times more than my wife so I get a sizable tax break.

Also, what you owe has nothing to do with whether you have a marriage benefit or penalty. I owed $12k last year but it would babe been substantially more if I were single. Even with the kids.


----------



## Viseral

Caribbean Man said:


> How old is this institution / construct called marriage anyway?
> Marriage actually pre dates written history.
> 
> Fact: One of the earliest known civilizations, Mesopotamia, had laws governing marriage , adultery and yes , divorce.
> Interestingly,much of what was constituted a legal marriage back in Mesopotamia still applies today.
> The institution of marriage has not changed much.
> 
> Our attitude towards marriage is what has changed, drastically.


CM, respect for an awesome post. 

However, how can you say the institution of marriage hasn't changed much?

No-Fault divorce, plus about a dozen other laws passed over the last 50 years governing marriage, have removed the consequences for immoral behavior, provided financial incentive for divorce, and made marriage the riskiest decision men will ever make.

Even Mesopotamia had laws governing adultery, but now it's perfectly legal to cheat on your spouse and profit from it in a divorce.

Under current laws, married men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Viseral said:


> CM, respect for an awesome post.
> 
> However, how can you say the institution of marriage hasn't changed much?
> 
> No-Fault divorce, plus about a dozen other laws passed over the last 50 years governing marriage, have removed the consequences for immoral behavior, provided financial incentive for divorce, and made marriage the riskiest decision men will ever make.
> 
> Even Mesopotamia had laws governing adultery, but now it's perfectly legal to cheat on your spouse and profit from it in a divorce.
> 
> Under current laws, married men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.


You are correct.
I said that the institution hasn't changed much , because the marriage vows forbids adultery.
That's why in the line after my statement, I said what has changed is our [ people's ] attitude towards marriage.
And that attitude is one that replaces the sacred vows of marriage with an amoral attitude [ idea] , the profanity of adultery, and the selfish feeling of false entitlement that goes with it. [ In the last paragraph.]

But most of all I want people to understand that _ideas have consequences,_because your ideas shape your actions, personally , and collectively as a society.

My thoughts were that for argument sake, I removed the laws governing divorce from the institution of marriage.

So the institution of marriage is good, and has mostly remained the same. But selfishness and the absence of morality is messing it up.

Lol, my thoughts were all over when writing that post.


----------



## lenzi

Viseral said:


> Under current laws, married men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.


That sums it up rather nicely, although it does sometimes happen that the woman is the breadwinner who marries some loser guy and ends up having to support him, but I think that's about 3% of the time, most often it's the guy who gets shafted.


----------



## AlphaProvider

lenzi said:


> That sums it up rather nicely, although it does sometimes happen that the woman is the breadwinner who marries some loser guy and ends up having to support him, but I think that's about 3% of the time, most often it's the guy who gets shafted.


Some of those "loser" men live like kings off of these women. Literal taken care of and pampered kings, who don't have to work.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> So,isn't this^^^the original premise of this discussion, that men are no longer getting married like before because they view it as
> _" dead in the water?"_
> 
> Can't you see that if this trend increases, that marriage will cease to exist?
> And if men are no longer interested , where does that leave women?
> Lol, your logic sounds kinda circular to me.:scratchhead:
> 
> Helen Smith: 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married
> 
> " _It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested.* Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent*_."
> 
> Seems to me that its not formerly married , " bitter " men deciding that marriage is futile.
> Looks like eligible bachelors are no longer interested. lol.
> They already have the benefits of marriage _outside _of marriage.
> And they're not interested in risking & losing anything. They are "cake eating." lol.
> 
> Ever heard single women say:
> _" There are no more good men left.."_ in reference to marriage?
> Or
> " Eternal bachelor / serial monogamist ?"
> Well the figures suggest that its becoming a trend.
> 
> Hence my question to the women.


My logic isn't circular, I just don't really see why anyone would care so much about preserving an institution that they don't think offers any advantages. Or are we trying to return to the glory days when women (and children) were property and did as they were told? 

Now that's tangible benefit!

But, you're right: it's also worth asking women. After all, apparently they aren't all moping around wondering where all the good men went. Even after a massive spike, it's still only 37% that see it as one of the most important things in their lives. What are the other 63% saying?

With all this rejection of marriage, what I see is most people assuming that they will still have all of the benefits of a committed monogamous relationship, just without the piece of paper and all of the downsides. 

But truth is, the piece of paper never has and never will solve relationship woes such sexlessness, infidelity, and nagging.


----------



## jay_gatsby

Caribbean Man said:


> How old is this institution / construct called marriage anyway?
> Marriage actually pre dates written history.
> 
> Fact: One of the earliest known civilizations, Mesopotamia, had laws governing marriage , adultery and yes , divorce.
> Interestingly,much of what was constituted a legal marriage back in Mesopotamia still applies today.
> The institution of marriage has not changed much.
> 
> Our attitude towards marriage is what has changed, drastically.
> 
> The only tangible benefit to marriage is, and always has been , a family. Husband , Wife and kids, and that is the MOST IMPORTANT BENEFIT of marriage, everything else is peripheral .
> Joint accounts, property , vehicle,tax incentives , social mobility ,financial opportunities, everything else is incidental and secondary.
> 
> The intangibles are what makes people want to get married.
> Unlike animals, human beings operate on the basis of free will , hence we have these constructs like, politics and religion, whose benefits are largely, intangible. They are not entirely rational, but they make us feel a certain way.
> 
> Many people are disenchanted with what goes on in politics , but I have yet too see a better way to govern ourselves.
> 
> Many are disenchanted with what goes on in religion, but I am yet to see any construct that can replace the function religion has played in societies throughout the annals of history. Culture , in many instances is closely linked to religion.
> People's thoughts determine how they act, ideas have _consequences._
> 
> The idea behind marriage is the belief in a higher power than ourselves , that is why the marriage vows are considered
> " sacred."
> Sacredness being derived from an external source , considered higher than ourselves.
> The _consequence_ of the idea of marriage , is what we are all benefiting from today, a civilized world with societies structured on strong family bonds and values based on those sacred , marriage vows.
> That the institution of marriage seems to be taking a severe beating today is not a problem of the institution itself ,that institution was built and modified over time to last.
> But is a function of the malaise that is eating out the souls of modern man , and is manifested in selfishness , a false sense of entitlement and the inability to distinguish between the sacred and profane.
> Marriage is not " dead in the water ,'" IMO, it never can be.
> As long as people have free will, there will always be ,
> Politics, Religion and ,
> The institution called monogamous marriage.


And I thought it was because humans need 9 months to gestate a baby and 18 years to raise it... like other animals that require long care periods from the parents, it was necessary for the adults to stay together to make sure the offspring not only survive, but thrive... 

Imagine if we were like fish... females lay a million eggs, and males spray a billion sperm to fertilize them... all in a matter of seconds... and then leave them to fend for themselves.... Would marriage be needed in our society?


----------



## always_alone

AlphaProvider said:


> As the husband has been reduced to literally a "prop", he sees no sane reason to willingly engage in marriage.


I don't get this at all.

I get that men are upset because they believe that women are just marrying them for the divorce payout, and are planning on lying and cheating our way through our time served until we can finally file.

And if that really is all marriage is about, then okay, I do understand. This would make me furious and unlikely to marry too.

But do y'all honestly believe that's what it's about? That women care nothing for you as a person, that we don't worry about your feelings, that we are purely cold, calculating monsters who care only about our own pleasure? 

I have this sudden sense of deja vu, except the tables are turned slightly ...

I swear, women have feelings too. We love you and we *do* appreciate all that you bring! It's not less valuable at all; it's just different!


----------



## WorkingOnMe

It's hard to believe. We listen to actions not words.


----------



## john_lord_b3

always_alone said:


> I don't get this at all...


Yea, this is also a brand new world to me.. most probably due to differences of culture.



> I get that men are upset because they believe that women are just marrying them for the divorce payout, and are planning on lying and cheating our way through our time served until we can finally file.


:iagree: That's my impression also of what many men in this thread are trying to say.



> And if that really is all marriage is about, then okay, I do understand. This would make me furious and unlikely to marry too.


Ah, it means, now you understand what those men were trying to say! :smthumbup: 



> But do y'all honestly believe that's what it's about? That women care nothing for you as a person, that we don't worry about your feelings, that we are purely cold, calculating monsters who care only about our own pleasure?


I think generalizations are not good. In fact they are often incorrect. That is why, I already stated earlier that the kind of women you described certainly not the norm but representing an extreme. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...here-any-tangible-benefits-5.html#post2883305

Still, you cannot deny that such women exists, and many men here at TAM could testify through first-hand experiences.

(BTW, I hereby state that some men also behaves badly as well... being heartless is not the monopoly of women..though the existence of bad men certainly does not negate the painful experiences felt by other men)



> I have this sudden sense of deja vu, except the tables are turned slightly ...


Now this part I don't understand 



> I swear, women have feelings too. We love you and we *do* appreciate all that you bring! It's not less valuable at all; it's just different!


:iagree: Thank you for the nice words and sympathy.. *I* personally understand that, as I have a reasonably warm loving married life with the woman of my choice.

But for many other men in this board, especially those who has been stung badly by women in their lives, those words may be a bit "unbelievable", and some may seemed to exhibit "hatred for women".. 

It's the same with some women who has been stung by men in their lives, they are a bit prone to exhibiting "misandry". 

From my personal observations..

It's hard to remain objective when their feelings are hurt, and those pain are very easily being escalated into "gender wars".. 

When entering public forums such as TAM and reading some awful words written by persons which we thinks exhibiting "misandry" (or "misogyny"), it is important not to allow those emotions shown to trigger our own. Those are words of persons whom are hurt, offended, confused, maybe even scared... Rather than feeling offended and blasting back..it is better to take a step back and observe deeper.. In fact, a little sympathy, like what you have shown, Mrs. AlwaysAlone, is always welcome, it will open more doors and facilitate better discussions.


----------



## Viseral

always_alone said:


> I don't get this at all.
> 
> I get that men are upset because they believe that women are just marrying them for the divorce payout, and are planning on lying and cheating our way through our time served until we can finally file.
> 
> And if that really is all marriage is about, then okay, I do understand. This would make me furious and unlikely to marry too.
> 
> But do y'all honestly believe that's what it's about? That women care nothing for you as a person, that we don't worry about your feelings, that we are purely cold, calculating monsters who care only about our own pleasure?
> 
> I have this sudden sense of deja vu, except the tables are turned slightly ...
> 
> I swear, women have feelings too. We love you and we *do* appreciate all that you bring! It's not less valuable at all; it's just different!


It's not women. 

It's the laws that make it probable for men to be financially devastated in a divorce. The laws that govern marriage, and by extension divorce, have been changed drastically in recent decades to target men where it hurts the most, in the wallet.

Marriage and divorce have become a legal way to forcibly transfer wealth from men to women.

Laws are power. And when one spouse has the power to ruin the other merely on a whim, it creates imbalance in the relationship, and therefore unwillingness for men to sign into the contract of marriage.

This has never been about feelings, or distaste for women. I wish people would get that. Men love women more than can be imagined.

It's about a system of laws that removes consequences for negative behavior, financially incentivizes divorce, and makes marriage a very risky proposition. 

Men want agency over their own lives. This is possible in a dating relationship, where consequences for negative behavior can be enforced, but not in the system of marriage where one partner has so much power over the other.

Under current laws, men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.

How do we move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0, where balance, and therefore contentment between the genders, can be achieved?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Viseral said:


> It's not women.
> 
> It's the laws that make it probable for men to be financially devastated in a divorce. The laws that govern marriage, and by extension divorce, have been changed drastically in recent decades to target men where it hurts the most, in the wallet.
> 
> Marriage and divorce have become a legal way to forcibly transfer wealth from men to women.
> 
> Laws are power. And when one spouse has the power to ruin the other merely on a whim, it creates imbalance in the relationship, and therefore unwillingness for men to sign into the contract of marriage.
> 
> This has never been about feelings, or distaste for women. I wish people would get that. Men love women more than can be imagined.
> 
> It's about a system of laws that removes consequences for negative behavior, financially incentivizes divorce, and makes marriage a very risky proposition.
> 
> Men want agency over their own lives. This is possible in a dating relationship, where consequences for negative behavior can be enforced, but not in the system of marriage where one partner has so much power over the other.
> 
> Under current laws, men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.
> 
> How do we move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0, where balance, and therefore contentment between the genders, can be achieved?



I see your point here.

But we cannot blame women for the way the divorce laws are
" apparently" skewed, although the may very well be the main beneficiaries.
Lol, my guess is that those laws were drafted by men.
I wonder what was the presumption behind the drafting of the particular clause?

If a husband is at fault then he should be made to pay. But if a wife is at fault, then why should the husband be made to pay extra money for her indiscretions?
Almost like rewarding her bad behaviour.
I think it needs to be reformed.

I don't live in the US , but I think our laws are a bit different, with regard to adultery. Most divorce cases I know of were settled amicably.
The big issue our men here have with divorce proceedings is the custody issue.
Many men loose their kids , but presently there are lobby groups , and even some feminist groups trying to reform the system to bring equilibrium.


----------



## AlphaProvider

always_alone said:


> I don't get this at all.
> 
> I get that men are upset because they believe that women are just marrying them for the divorce payout, and are planning on lying and cheating our way through our time served until we can finally file.
> 
> And if that really is all marriage is about, then okay, I do understand. This would make me furious and unlikely to marry too.
> 
> But do y'all honestly believe that's what it's about? That women care nothing for you as a person, that we don't worry about your feelings, that we are purely cold, calculating monsters who care only about our own pleasure?
> 
> I have this sudden sense of deja vu, except the tables are turned slightly ...
> 
> I swear, women have feelings too. We love you and we *do* appreciate all that you bring! It's not less valuable at all; it's just different!


I don't think all women are like this, but surprisingly more than most men are willing to accept are. It's quite a bit more than 1%. 

The one's who have decided to be "good" usually cannot believe the depths that the others will go and the sheer amount that have gone the other way.


----------



## unbelievable

Caribbean Man said:


> How old is this institution / construct called marriage anyway?
> Marriage actually pre dates written history.
> 
> Fact: One of the earliest known civilizations, Mesopotamia, had laws governing marriage , adultery and yes , divorce.
> Interestingly,much of what was constituted a legal marriage back in Mesopotamia still applies today.
> The institution of marriage has not changed much.
> 
> Our attitude towards marriage is what has changed, drastically.
> 
> The only tangible benefit to marriage is, and always has been , a family. Husband , Wife and kids, and that is the MOST IMPORTANT BENEFIT of marriage, everything else is peripheral .
> Joint accounts, property , vehicle,tax incentives , social mobility ,financial opportunities, everything else is incidental and secondary.
> 
> The intangibles are what makes people want to get married.
> Unlike animals, human beings operate on the basis of free will , hence we have these constructs like, politics and religion, whose benefits are largely, intangible. They are not entirely rational, but they make us feel a certain way.
> 
> Many people are disenchanted with what goes on in politics , but I have yet too see a better way to govern ourselves.
> 
> Many are disenchanted with what goes on in religion, but I am yet to see any construct that can replace the function religion has played in societies throughout the annals of history. Culture , in many instances is closely linked to religion.
> People's thoughts determine how they act, ideas have _consequences._
> 
> The idea behind marriage is the belief in a higher power than ourselves , that is why the marriage vows are considered
> " sacred."
> Sacredness being derived from an external source , considered higher than ourselves.
> The _consequence_ of the idea of marriage , is what we are all benefiting from today, a civilized world with societies structured on strong family bonds and values based on those sacred , marriage vows.
> That the institution of marriage seems to be taking a severe beating today is not a problem of the institution itself ,that institution was built and modified over time to last.
> But is a function of the malaise that is eating out the souls of modern man , and is manifested in selfishness , a false sense of entitlement and the inability to distinguish between the sacred and profane.
> Marriage is not " dead in the water ,'" IMO, it never can be.
> As long as people have free will, there will always be ,
> Politics, Religion and ,
> The institution called monogamous marriage.


I guess I'm going to have to disagree with some of your statements. Marriage offered very real tangible benefits for men and women for thousands of years. Women got security and protection for herself and her offspring, she sometimes got social status and wealth. Women weren't able to own property throughout most of our history. Men got someone to give them children, feed, clothe, and education the kids, and manage the household. A guy couldn't work all day in the fields and be home taking care of 8 kids at the same time. Males of fighting age were expected to go to war (or to round up suspected criminals) when called upon. Someone had to look after the family and property during these absences. A man who owned land also needed a wife and some descendants to leave the wealth to. 
Marriage, especially for a woman, was a matter of survival. During our early colonial period, it wasn't uncommon for new immigrants to have a 50% mortality rate in the first year. Look at the marriages. These widows and widowers got remarried within a couple of months. They didn't fall in love first. They married whoever was available within their tiny community because they wanted to live and they just made the marriage work. 
We didn't have a federal income tax until the Civil War, so tax advantages wasn't a consideration. Until the Industrial Revolution, wealth in North America meant land ownership and that required children to help work the land and to leave it to.
Marriage was an obvious "win" for both parties and in most cases they were contracts agreed upon mostly due to the tangible benefits to both parties.


----------



## Viseral

AlphaProvider said:


> I don't think all women are like this, but surprisingly more than most men are willing to accept are. It's quite a bit more than 1%.
> 
> The one's who have decided to be "good" usually cannot believe the depths that the others will go and the sheer amount that have gone the other way.


Women, I believe, have good intentions when it comes to marriage, as do most men.

However, feelings are like the weather. They change all the time.

So, it's very easy for people to find themselves in situations they wholly didn't anticipate.

Men and women should share equal risk and equal reward when it comes to marriage. The laws need to be changed to reflect the new gender roles that currently exist in our culture.


----------



## Sanity

Viseral said:


> It's not women.
> 
> It's the laws that make it probable for men to be financially devastated in a divorce. The laws that govern marriage, and by extension divorce, have been changed drastically in recent decades to target men where it hurts the most, in the wallet.
> 
> Marriage and divorce have become a legal way to forcibly transfer wealth from men to women.
> 
> Laws are power. And when one spouse has the power to ruin the other merely on a whim, it creates imbalance in the relationship, and therefore unwillingness for men to sign into the contract of marriage.
> 
> This has never been about feelings, or distaste for women. I wish people would get that. Men love women more than can be imagined.
> 
> It's about a system of laws that removes consequences for negative behavior, financially incentivizes divorce, and makes marriage a very risky proposition.
> 
> Men want agency over their own lives. This is possible in a dating relationship, where consequences for negative behavior can be enforced, but not in the system of marriage where one partner has so much power over the other.
> 
> Under current laws, men are just one female whim away from living in a cardboard box.
> 
> How do we move from Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0, where balance, and therefore contentment between the genders, can be achieved?


Fantantic post and pretty much sums up my thoughts. I love the institute of marriage but hate how the law has been manipulated into destroying men just because they can. 

Rick Scott here in Florida had a chance to make it right by banning lifetime alimony and setting an equal playing field for child custody disputes. Too many times you have one spouse causing problems because they can. The judicial system should be equally fair and demand that both parents be financially and personally responsible for the children. 

Ultimately men are wising up to these laws and giving the institution of marriage the kick in the ass it deserves. I hope men in droves tell women "I'm not a meal ticket, help carry this water so we can both drink".


----------



## john_lord_b3

I am happy to see this thread has gone a step to the right direction: Understanding that this is not a gender war, but a gentle protest against a certain aspect of your National Law which are perceived to be biased against men in marriage. I wish you all good luck in your noble quest to campaign for the amendment of your National Law.


----------



## RoseAglow

Sanity said:


> Rick Scott here in Florida had a chance to make it right by banning lifetime alimony and setting an equal playing field for child custody disputes. Too many times you have one spouse causing problems because they can. The judicial system should be equally fair and demand that both parents be financially and personally responsible for the children.
> 
> Ultimately men are wising up to these laws and giving the institution of marriage the kick in the ass it deserves. I hope men in droves tell women "I'm not a meal ticket, help carry this water so we can both drink".


I am a breadwinner wife; I am one of those women who just have to work to feel OK about my world. 

I have no issue with the abolition of alimony laws- except for in the case of Stay At home Moms or Dads. 

Men and women both take a huge risk when one spouse stays at home. Workers take the risk of Alimony, and the At-Homers take the risk of having a poverty-stricken time post-divorce, in the case of sudden death of spouse, in the case of life altering accident of spouse, etc. 

Right now, the trends in the US show more women joining the workforce and more women going into college. I am not so sure that divorce laws will change before the demographics change. In 2023, chances are most men and women will be working, and there will be much more equality between men and women breadwinners.


----------



## TiggyBlue

RoseAglow said:


> I am a breadwinner wife; I am one of those women who just have to work to feel OK about my world.
> 
> I have no issue with the abolition of alimony laws- except for in the case of Stay At home Moms or Dads.
> 
> Men and women both take a huge risk when one spouse stays at home. Workers take the risk of Alimony, and the At-Homers take the risk of having a poverty-stricken time post-divorce, in the case of sudden death of spouse, in the case of life altering accident of spouse, etc.
> 
> Right now, the trends in the US show more women joining the workforce and more women going into college. I am not so sure that divorce laws will change before the demographics change. In 2023, chances are most men and women will be working, and there will be much more equality between men and women breadwinners.


:iagree:


----------



## john_lord_b3

RoseAglow said:


> I am a breadwinner wife; I am one of those women who just have to work to feel OK about my world.
> 
> I have no issue with the abolition of alimony laws- except for in the case of Stay At home Moms or Dads.
> 
> Men and women both take a huge risk when one spouse stays at home. Workers take the risk of Alimony, and the At-Homers take the risk of having a poverty-stricken time post-divorce, in the case of sudden death of spouse, in the case of life altering accident of spouse, etc.


:iagree:

This is very logical. Off course, it's not applicable to my country and maybe in many other countries in the world, but in modern developed countries, maybe this will happen, and also means that the argument of "marriage will become less attractive for young men" still stands.


----------

