Marriage and aging: A generalization.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Again I ask, why is a legal contract necessary to "reaffirm" love? And do you ignore the divorce rate and the fate of men in most divorces? They lose.

True, I was in Austria months ago and I was surprised to know some friend of mine (much older than me), never married and he had a 10 year old kid. They were living fine as a family, no real difference.

To him, it had advantages actually, plenty of women want to screw you over and go away with all your money. This is also why they go with nerds in the end, because nerds have more money.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

True, I was in Austria months ago and I was surprised to know some friend of mine (much older than me), never married and he had a 10 year old kid. They were living fine as a family, no real difference.

My parents divorced from a marriage contract when I was an infant. My dad ended up living with a different woman and they're still together to this day. They never got legally married.

plenty of women want to screw you over and go away with all your money.

Virtually all the ones that can.

This is also why they go with nerds in the end, because nerds have more money.

And nerds need to understand not to get used like that. They need to play the waiting game, which is on their side. As they age they will gain value while the women looking to screw them over lose their value. At that point it's the nerds that get to screw over the younger bimbos trying to pull a fast one.

[Nyororin]

You know, I`m having a really hard time figuring out whether you hate women, hate marriage, hate women who get married, hate men who get married, or what exactly.

If all women are gold diggers only attracted to jerks and looking to screw men over (except for the "exceptions")... How would abolishing marriage change anything?

I`ve seen plenty of divorces, and while the divorce itself is most often instigated by the woman... I`d say that the reasons for the relationship failing have been split pretty much 50/50. For every woman who sees a divorce as an easy way to get a free ticket through life, there is a man who sees a wife at home with a new baby as a free ticket to screw his secretary. In both of these cases, I`d say that it`s much much more likely that the wife is going to be the one filing for divorce... but in the latter, I think it would be hard to say that the woman is the one in the wrong.

Unless, of course, you blame her for falling for the type of jerk who would do that to her to begin with. A nice little way to make everything the woman`s fault. If the guy falls for the type of woman who will screw him over, sure - he should have done things differently, but it`s the woman`s fault for doing that to him. If the woman falls for a jerk who screws her over, even if he was being a "nice guy" and hiding his inner jerkiness (deceiving her, in other words) - that is her fault too because he has been brainwashed and misguided to do so. You`re even approving of men screwing women over so they can sort of get back at them (because the woman is the bad one here).

Very convenient, don`t you think? It`s kind of funny that you brought up mercedesjin earlier in the thread because you`re dropping into the same type of territory. Anything that doesn`t follow your opinion is clearly either an exception or anyone thinking that way has been brainwashed and forced by society to feel that way.

I actually agreed with a chunk of what you were saying at the very beginning, or at least what I thought you were saying. I agree that divorces favor the woman too much in a lot of cases, and that husbands and fathers get the short end of the stick way too much. But you`ve deteriorated into just spewing hate for women and encouraging guys to screw them over because it`s nature and they deserve it for not being attracted to better guys.

You continually go on about all women wanting to screw men over - and if they do not it`s only because they cannot... Regardless of whether this is true or not - it really has NOTHING to do with marriage. Nothing. You say it does, but it does not. Why? Because it`s about relationships. A relationship is STILL a relationship without a marriage license. You have stated this. You ask why a relationship needs legal backing - clearly a relationship can exist without it, right? Abolishing marriage - or making it unnecessary - would do nothing to change the dynamics of a relationship. Jerks will still be jerks, gold diggers will still be gold diggers, ad infinitum. "Marriage" is little more than a tool - in it`s absence, people who were/would be misusing it to screw their partners will just find another way.

I really don`t care all that much what you think, or where your ideas come from... But I do feel a bit sad that you`ll probably never be able to be involved in a relationship founded on trust - as it is pretty clear that you do not trust women at all.

[manganimefan227]

Abolishing marriage might decrease the number of Gold digger kind of relationships when they know that they won't get money support when they divorce and be most likely in financial trouble. So abolishing marriage just may decrease the unemployed percentage.

These good points people have brought up lead me to say that marriage seems more about throwing a big party to celebrate a so called "strong" relationship to make a now-a-days seemingly weak commitment (From how common it is for relationships not working out)

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Exactly. The trouble with daring to state this fact is there's always someone who will jump in assuming it has anything to do with personal preference. Also, there's always exceptions to anything, but that's not what we're talking about. To deny women like aggressive jerks is like denying guys like boobs; it wouldn't matter how many goofballs jumped in to chime in how they prefer women's feet.

I'd say it's more social than you're trying to portray. This phenomenon is recent; the last 100 years or less- the human body hasn't evolved that much in that time. Jerks often appear confident and charming; that's appealing, not the bad behavior. They're also more likely to approach women and try it on; they're more likely to act deceitfully and hide their real thoughts about women until after they've hooked one in. Sometimes the women see right through it but it becomes a misplaced salvation thing; "If I act how he wants and love him enough, he'll change and be nice to me" It's not just about some women preferring jerks, it's about jerks being more predatory in their initial dating techniques.

Originally Posted by xyzone

You mean the armies of sitcoms and TV shows that show marriages and people staying married? Everyone is married and staying that way because TV said so. Never mind the truth that about half of marriages end in divorce - and rising. Of course, even when divorce does happen in happyland, it's just that "it didn't work out" and is the most normal thing in the world. It's like a high school break up. Move on and start dating again while the kids dress you and give you dating tips. All's well.

I concede I didn't really explain that properly or think it quite through. It's not really about marriage in the media per se; but there IS a general perception and a huge all-encompassing pressure from the media that girls need to act in certain ways to attract men; but those ways (forms of dress and so forth) tend to only attract certain types of men, generally those looking for sex and perhaps not much else. Jerks, in short. So they cave to those pressures, attract jerks and the intention only reinforces the problem. You say that men are brainwashed, well so are women.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Maybe those women you know take what they can get. Most people do. Because it's funny how the women with the most options, the cheerleader models, etc., strangely, we never see them with "nice guys". Never happens. We see them with aggressive "jerks". Not to mention the fact that I never said women consciously seek sex-based relationships to get used. They fall into them due to being physically attracted to jerks.

Oh, that's wonderful. I love the assumptions here. All I said that most of the women I knew were looking for decent guys, perhaps I should have mentioned that a fair proportion of them have also been successful. I love how you seem to automatically assume that the people I know who make such choices must be desperate singles, insecure, perhaps not physically attractive or successful, emotionally fulfilled people. And I love how you assume the decent guys they are seeking (and dating) must be EXACTLY the same, because of course, any man who is decent is therefore a physically unattractive looser. Or a rich nerd.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Besides that, personal bubbles don't really prove anything and I never presumed to say my personal experience alone proves anything I said. We could have a war of he said she said, or we could look at tangible data instead, like the divorce rate and the amount of single mothers. The fact those single mothers were attracted to jerks is strongly evident if not obvious.

Where? Where's the data that says "Single mothers only date jerks"? If anything, single mothers tend to be MORE picky about their partner's behavior; particularly if they intend to introduce them to their kids. If they aren't, then they have some deep-seated problem and shouldn't be jeopardizing their children's welfare by exposing them to such people.

Originally Posted by xyzone

All facts. Party girls become some old guy's or some dumb, yet successful nerd's trophy wife once she had her fill of hot jerk guys.

But why are these women suddenly the poster face of ALL women. That's my issue with your comments; a lot of women despise behaviour like this just as much as men do; especially when it's used to represent all of us as a whole so thoughtlessly. I'm sick of being told women only want abusive and/or solely sexual relationships (and let's face it, that's what dating a jerk IS), and that if we say otherwise, we're either lying, deluded, too stupid to know better, skanky gold-diggers trying to cover up our shame or conversely desperate or prudish.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Again I ask, why is a legal contract necessary to "reaffirm" love? And do you ignore the divorce rate and the fate of men in most divorces? They lose.

It isn't; but then no one is arguing that it IS. Just that it has a place in society and people who want to marry and believe in it as an important part of their relationship shouldn't be told they're stupid. The problem isn't marriage; it's the number of people in bad relationships thinking it's an easy fix for their problems. Or being pressured into it for the wrong reasons. I don't think it's fair for men to always get the short end of the stick in divorce proceedings, and I do think that should be changed, and I think there should be more protection for both sides so that no one gets financially devastated by a divorce. At the same time, I think it's a little naive to expect there to ever be a 50-50 split of men and women taking on the children as the main custodian. There are always going to be more women taking the children.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

If all women are gold diggers only attracted to jerks and looking to screw men over (except for the "exceptions")... How would abolishing marriage change anything?

Divorce financial advantages, or in more rare cases, death of husband so they can get all money for themselves, and more often trying to subdue the husband to give the money to her some way or another (ALSO via the child, which usually are given to the wife after a divorce).

Yeah, marriage isn't really needed.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Divorce financial advantages, or in more rare cases, death of husband so they can get all money for themselves, and more often trying to subdue the husband to give the money to her some way or another (ALSO via the child, which usually are given to the wife after a divorce).

Yeah, marriage isn't really needed.

It may not be needed, but I really don`t think that it has that big of an effect - to be quite honest.

I grew up with a party girl mom, the type who did gold dig, who did leap in bed with jerks for the thrill while sucking cash out of nice guys on reserve.

And one thing I can say with 100% certainty - not being married to any of them certainly didn`t change a single thing. In fact, the only relationships that DIDN`T end up with her taking the car and home were her two marriages. At least if she`d been married there would have been a fighting chance of the kids going to their fathers, which is better than the total lack that was reality.

I do not believe that legal marriage is the culprit. It is entirely the attitudes regarding relationships. Those need to change. Without change there, abolishing legal marriage wouldn`t mean a thing.

[xYinniex]

Originally Posted by xyzone

All facts. Party girls become some old guy's or some dumb, yet successful nerd's trophy wife once she had her fill of hot jerk guys.

'Party Girls', please define this term. Are you saying all 'good' women stay at home? And they all desire to be trophy wives, of course *dripping sarcasm.*

Originally Posted by xyzone

Might as well check off the list of clichéd punishments for me bringing this up.

- fail at relationships
- can't get women to begin with
- gay
- misogynist... wait there it is:

Hey, I didn't say any of that, but if you want to pin all that onto yourself, go right ahead.

Originally Posted by xyzone

I already conceded that I'm willing to not call for abolishing it. I ask in return that I can rightfully call men who get into those contracts fools without me being called crazy, et al.

Never heard of prenup 'av ya? You're calling them 'fools' because they love someone enough to pledge their life with them, and is this to all men or just the old and the dumb/successful men? be specific!

Originally Posted by xyzone

Again I ask, why is a legal contract necessary to "reaffirm" love? And do you ignore the divorce rate and the fate of men in most divorces? They lose.

In what way do they lose? you can't apply that to all marriages. Marriage is a milestone for most people and perhaps reaffirming their love through contract is one way of showing their love, do they have to run it by you? And plus, if you take away one state institution like marriage, you might as well take away housing laws and property law because contracts in your eyes mean nothing.

Abolishing marriage won't change a thing. The thing is, marriage don't ruin relationships, people ruin relationships.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by xyzone

It doesn't matter. The point you're trying to make is like saying ~ 1 in 6 people in the world starving is not that bad because a lot of people get to eat in Africa.

These are random figures, at best. If you have some substantive economical stats, then I would love to see them.

[Salvadori]

I've been married for 2 years now. I am not sure, if I am really happy. Sometimes I am. Sometimes it is routine. Oh well... It is life.

In my country (Lithuania, Eastern Europe) there are many people living just like that, not married, but having children, acting like wives/husbands. Some of them are happy, some of them are not. And you know what, I don't think it's all about marriage. It is not at all, actually. The thing is the foundation of your relationship. If it is love, you will state you don't need any documents or other prooves to confirm it. BUT if the female fall in love with the other guy, then... sorry... That is the foundation! If relation was grounded on it... Then the female (or male) follows her (his) love. But if you love, respect, feel responsible for your would-be family, you can feel in your heart you need more than just living with the person. You need some affirmation. I don't say my thoughts are the truth, I just give an example, how the marriage can be understood and how generally it is understood in Eastern Europe. It is still something special and magic in here. The relations after marriage is the other question. You have to listen to your heart, if it is serious.