[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

But this has no connection with marriage and getting into a lasting relationship.

It does. It shines light on the motivation of relationships themselves.

After reading through your rant about nice guys, I realized that I sort of screwed up on interpreting the phrase. I didn`t really know there was a whole category and set behavior for a "nice guy" - I was taking it at literal value as an honestly nice guy.

The definition is in the context which it came up in this thread. Acting nice to get with girls.

This doesn`t matter whether they are into jerks

Maybe not, but that’s the crux of this point. They are into them, never mind assumptions about fakers. They like drama. It doesn’t matter what fake nice guys have or have not done. The girls will pick the jerks first because that’s what they are inherently attracted to and this is what young guys need to understand and use to their advantage. They are not into femme acting guys that listen to them except as pets to talk to about all the jerks they have banged. All the idealist talk is a big fat lie against this point. And that’s my one and only main point with the nice guy stuff.

But still, I really get the feeling that you`re up in arms about women and who they choose to have sex with - not anything about long term relationships and marriage.

I’m not up in arms about it, I’ve accepted the reality and am pointing it out. If I'm up in arms about anything, it's anyone trying to deny it. It does have to do with marriage and relationships because it has to do with what women want and how guys should not let them run anything, as the American ball and chain types have done while destroying marriage in the process. I guess my main point is to let guys understand that taking female BS is neither necessary nor the best thing for society. Put them in their place, so to speak.

The dynamics of relationships that are not serious or that are only physical are worlds away from those of serious relationships.

No, they aren’t. They share prerequisites. Attraction being at the top.

They suggest that relationships that don`t commit to marriage last longer than those that do? Where does that figure come from?

No, the figure is that marriage is failing, that’s all. And legal marriage is screwing the guys in general, so there’s no need to get into it. What advantages does it have? Why should anyone bother with it? Tax breaks? Is that worth getting screwed in divorce? And even while it does last, it was my point about American wives which too many are not doing anything in a marriage.

Even without legal backing of a commitment NOW (marriage), mothers can secure financial support from fathers. Long term partners can receive settlements when the relationship ends.

They can get whatever they want from their fathers (of any children, I assume). Child support? Fine. Alimony? Hell no. The legal backing in marriage is the problem because it’s abused. Anything besides that is between two people. There’s really no need for a state marriage, the presumed advantages don’t come close to meeting the risks. If it’s all about love, etc., why such insistence on making a legal contract about it? Isn’t a relationship supposed to be about trust?

Obviously the divorce rate would go down as "divorce" wouldn`t be necessary. But the problem would still be there with another name.

Or maybe people would respect the union more than as a court backed contract. These are all assumptions.

Btw, no, I don't necessarily think state marriage should be abolished. I just think any guy that gets into it (in America with an American woman) is a fool.