Marriage and aging: A generalization.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by MMM

So, without marriage how can a person show his dedication to his or her mate that doesn't allow him or her to shove off at the drop of a hat?

The way you phrase it cuts to the heart of this rationale, that you must be kept hostage by an external institution, that your own will is meaningless and that you are an animal that must be herded. This is another thing I was arguing in itself weakens marriage, it weakens the motivation for it. "Everybody's doing it, so if we don't, we're strange and don't fit in", then you're stuck with a gun to your head. What sort of motivation for "love" is that? None worthy to me.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Columbine

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.

Regardless, this jerk/confident behavior, whatever you want to call it is what women inherently find attractive. I was never arguing conscious decision, as in what women say they want, somebody "charming", for one. This is what "nice guys" are trying to be and failing at.

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.

Hey, I agree with you, with your general point. But I can best speak from the male perspective, so as such can only advise other young men on what strategy to adopt.

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.

No, my point was that we could just speculate forever and reach no ultimate truth in this. We have to work with what we know first.

Where? Where's the data that says "Single mothers only date jerks"?

Most single mothers, esp. in the case of never-married single mothers, it can't be assumed are making wise, conscious decisions. This bracket better represents people acting on more instinct than thought. This trend of single mothers is rising higher among the lower classes than anywhere else. If you want to argue these single mothers are making thoughtful choices that turned out to be mistakes, that's fine, but I don't see that as having much impact.

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.

In most of the cases of single mothers, this would seem like merely tremendous rationalizing.

But why are these women suddenly the poster face of ALL women.

Never said it was. I wasn't focusing on hating women, even if it looks that way to some. My focus is on advising the male perspective on a real and very significant trend.

It isn't; but then no one is arguing that it IS.

Well, MMM and Nyororin seem to be, for one.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by xYinniex

'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.*

No, but the girls who are told by society they are a prize become motivated to become such. It's just common sense.

Never heard of prenup 'av ya?

A lot of people would consider that not a true marriage. Some women would be insulted by that. I'm all for it, though. But at the end of the day, it's really quite meaningless if the prenup allows for an clean split without any economic consequences (other than child support, if it applies). Why even get legally married in the first place? Just social pressure and habit, I guess.

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!

I'm calling them fools for signing a legal contract that typically gives half their assets away to someone over success-probabilities that are like a minefield. Not to mention the potentially nasty trouble of the legal proceedings.

In what way do they lose? you can't apply that to all marriages.

They lose a lot, starting with money. And no, not to all marriages, just to if not most, then many of them. Those odds are not great and the risk looks unnecessary.

Marriage is a milestone for most people and perhaps reaffirming their love through contract is one way of showing their love,

"Perhaps" being the key word.

do they have to run it by you?

No. When did I say they did?

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.

If you're arguing the economic reasons, that's fine. That's a valid argument. If two people have an economic interest in getting married, it seems like something legitimate to consider. Just don't try to talk about "reaffirming love" or anything of the sort, because that is, realistically, quite meaningless and reeks of social engineering.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Where did you get this from? Regardless, even considering various sources, the divorce rate as a whole for first marriages is 41-50%. Even assuming your stat is correct, that's still 1 bullet in the 10 chambers.

Divorce Rate : Divorce Rate In America

"As a whole" is a bit misleading, as it doesn't paint a detailed picture. The divorce rate for first marriages is about 41%. The divorce rate "as a whole" is closer to 50%. The reason for this is, people who get divorced once tend to get divorced again when they get married. There are people who are married 7, 8 and even more times, which drives those divorce rates up, but aren't that revealing unless looking at it in context.

As a whole the average American has one boob and one testicle. But in reality that is true for nobody, so it is important to look closely at the numbers.

So you say "1 bullet in 10 chambers" but that also means you have a 90% chance of living your life through a happy and successful marriage (if you wait until 30). It is hard to deny those are pretty good odds.

Originally Posted by xyzone

That's an opinion. It could just as well be seen as what it tangibly is: a legal contract. The ceremony can be had. That is no problem. And I think people will figure out you're off the market when you're living and having children with someone in a home. With that I could just as well say the contract is a superfluous and outdated at best. But this from us both are just opinions, certainly.

No, actually my statement that a marriage is a religious and spiritual contract isn't just my opinion, but is true for the majority of marriages in the US. I am sure you have heard the vows each party generally says in a marriage ceremony.

And maybe cohabitation tells society "I am off the market" but society isn't listening. People that cohabitate rather than get married tend to cheat on each each other more.

American Thinker: The Differences Between Marriage and Cohabitation

Men cheat 4 times as much if they are living together, but not married, and cohabitating women cheat 8 times more than married women. So there is SOMETHING about the institution of marriage that either has an effect on society, on the participants, or (more than likely) both.

Originally Posted by xyzone

The way you phrase it cuts to the heart of this rationale, that you must be kept hostage by an external institution, that your own will is meaningless and that you are an animal that must be herded. This is another thing I was arguing in itself weakens marriage, it weakens the motivation for it. "Everybody's doing it, so if we don't, we're strange and don't fit in", then you're stuck with a gun to your head. What sort of motivation for "love" is that? None worthy to me.

Again, this is extremely cynical. What you are striking at is the fundamental structure of society itself. In American society these days marriage is for the most part a choice (this isn't true in some parts of the world, and for some families). So instead of being "held hostage" to this institution of marriage, Americans celebrate it. To go from being single to being married is seen as a event worth celebrating with all of one's friends and family.
Again, I can understand why a younger person wouldn't be interested in marriage, but that is normal. Young people aren't supposed to be interested in marriage...and divorce rates for those in their 20s tell the tale.

Marriage rates are dropping, and people are (smartly) waiting to get married, so I don't think that "everyone's doing it" is as real as you might think. Certainly there are people to get pressure from friends and family if they stay single longer than most, but there are also certainly life long bachelors and bachelorettes out there, too.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Most single mothers, esp. in the case of never-married single mothers, it can't be assumed are making wise, conscious decisions. This bracket better represents people acting on more instinct than thought. This trend of single mothers is rising higher among the lower classes than anywhere else. If you want to argue these single mothers are making thoughtful choices that turned out to be mistakes, that's fine, but I don't see that as having much impact.

I don't get this. So if women don't get married, they are unintelligent, but if men get married they are unintelligent.

This seems to be a contradiction for me, as if people have children outside of marriage, they are making "mistakes" but you are advocating for the abolishment of marriage as an institution, are you also saying people shouldn't become parents? Being a father can also be an expensive proposition for a man....

[Nyororin]

First;

Well, MMM and Nyororin seem to be, for one.

I don`t recall even once saying marriage was necessary, or even that it held inherent meaning other than that of a legal contract. However, I have said a number of times that I do not think that marriage is the cause of the issues you cite - and that I don`t really think abolishing marriage would have an effect on those problems.

I never said that. I said the ones who can be tend to be, and that the current system of legal contract union (marriage) encourages this. I'm also only talking about in America. I know for a fact that other countries such as in latinamerica are not so lavish towards women in a divorce and the divorce rate is lower. Coincidence? Let the people decide.

You have basically said that, even if it`s not your intention. You have stated that it is natural for women to want jerks, to make that choice for a mate... And that women like this are those who will screw men over if given the chance. It adds up to all women (minus exceptions) ready to screw men over if the opportunity is given to them.

In the case of Latin America - marriage is much more religious, with a large majority of people having very strong beliefs about the consequences not just in this life but in the next. I don`t think that the differences in the legal end of the procedure have that much of an effect.

The difference is that I have presented some tangible evidence while the they have presented "works for ME" and "I don't like it, you're wrong", opinions. And even if their experiences count as evidence, then so do mine and I presented those, too.

You have presented the divorce rate as evidence. This doesn`t necessarily add up to what you are saying. It doesn`t say that women are screwing over men any chance they get. It doesn`t say how many marriages ended in a huge ball of flames. It also doesn`t tell how many marriages were "messed up at a chapel in Vegas" either. (Nevada doesn`t have the highest divorce rate in the US for nothing...)
Getting married has become easier, as has getting divorced. The attitudes toward both have changed drastically. Unless those attitudes change, I don`t think much would even if "marriage" was abolished.

I agree that the system favors the woman but this is not going to change so the source must be attacked, that being the marriage contract, and since I know it's not going to change, my advice against marriage stands.

You are completely welcome to choose not to get married and to advise others against it based on your figures and experience. I don`t think that anyone is going to tell you that you shouldn`t. But people DO take offense at being told they were stupid for agreeing to a marriage. People do take offense at others expressing disgust at their life choices - particularly if those choices are working for them and making them happy.

And it's not hate, it's love, if anything. Because clearly the women are screwing themselves by acting stupidly without direction after all the supposed freedoms feminism has earned them. I encourage the guys to seize control of the situation through whatever relatively ethical means available; that's what most women inherently prefer anyways. Or to put it another way, if women can put on fake eyelashes, the guys should put on fake attitudes. Besides that, things will work themselves out once the delusions are discarded by enough individuals. The actual actions are flexible.

And this is different in what way from a woman leading a man on if the end result is one side getting screwed over? I very much doubt there are women out there (healthy ones with a normal mental state) who want to have a man screw them over. The result we should be aiming for is a solid relationship founded on trust and love, not one side in control of the other through deception.

ETA;
My personal feelings on marriage, as there seems to be some misunderstanding of them here...
I believe that it is a legal contract for financial purposes and for stability. It isn`t necessary to reaffirm love, but without love it would be a pain to uphold.
To me it falls in the same category as stable housing - both things I consider prerequisites for having a child.
Marriage being a guarantee that - even if I trusted him completely not to do so - my husband could not just up and leave without legal consequences. Also a guarantee that I would have some level of support after giving up a career to have a child even if he did decide to do so. With that comes the right to part of the household - bought mostly with money he earned.
You may see that as an open invitation for me to screw him over - that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is, for the most part, an agreement designed to protect the side contributing less to the partnership in terms of money (in most cases the wife as she is far more likely to be the one staying at home or earning less). I also imagine it would be quite a burden to upkeep an agreement without a trusting and loving relationship.

The fact is, I would never agree to give up a huge chunk of my future for raising a child if there was not some sort of guarantee that I wouldn`t be left with nothing should the father decide he no longer wants a family. From a female perspective, this is common sense. Love just reaffirms that agreement, and leads people to decide to enter into it in the first place.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Regardless, this jerk/confident behavior, whatever you want to call it is what women inherently find attractive. I was never arguing conscious decision, as in what women say they want, somebody "charming", for one. This is what "nice guys" are trying to be and failing at.

They don't 'inherently' find the bad behaviour attractive though, which is what you were implying. They find the by-products of jerk insensitivity and deceit (confidence, flattery) attractive.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Hey, I agree with you, with your general point. But I can best speak from the male perspective, so as such can only advise other young men on what strategy to adopt.

So stop putting words in women's mouths then. If you can admit have no idea what women think, why bandy about as if you do? ADVISE men to beware of gold-diggers, jerk girls and the legal pitfalls of marriage , of course, but don't hyperbolize that women are all conniving bitches who want nothing more than their heads on a silver salver and their assets in a grab-bag.

Originally Posted by xyzone

No, my point was that we could just speculate forever and reach no ultimate truth in this. We have to work with what we know first.

Nice back-peddle function you have there. Does it also dig holes?

Originally Posted by xyzone

Most single mothers, esp. in the case of never-married single mothers, it can't be assumed are making wise, conscious decisions. This bracket better represents people acting on more instinct than thought. This trend of single mothers is rising higher among the lower classes than anywhere else. If you want to argue these single mothers are making thoughtful choices that turned out to be mistakes, that's fine, but I don't see that as having much impact.

Right, because pregnancy means your brains leak out. Never-married single mothers cannot possibly be using marriage as a tool to leech off of men, so they have no place in this discussion. Divorced single mothers are less likely to re-marry than divorced single women, so their dating choices post divorce don't have much impact on your 'marriage is dumb' argument either; if they're screwing men over for money, it tends to be outside of the marriage contract. Which brings us back to the divorce itself; which in america probably IS stacked in the woman's favour, but then women are still more likely than men to have given up work to rear children than men. For married couples, a stay-at-home parent is often more economic than paying for child-care. That's a smarter choice than retaining financial independence, particularly if at the time the decision is made, divorce isn't on the radar. So yes, I think these women are making conscious moves that turn out to be mistakes if they date jerks, but then they're also more vulnerable to jerk tactics. Single motherhood is stressful, frugal and often romantically lonely. They aren't living the highlife you seem to imagine them living! Of all demographics, they're going to be looking for the nice guy, because they're not just interviewing for a partner anymore. He's got to also step up and play dad and that takes some serious thought as to if he's a jerk or not.

Originally Posted by xyzone

In most of the cases of single mothers, this would seem like merely tremendous rationalizing.

Maybe the ones you know, but then I thought we weren't getting into personal observations any more. Show me some data if you really think single women only date jerks.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Never said it was. I wasn't focusing on hating women, even if it looks that way to some. My focus is on advising the male perspective on a real and very significant trend.

You're quite blind if you think you don't come across the way you do. As I said, advise by all means, don't rant about how you think american women are all vicious scavenging bimbos and men should just take advantage of any weaknesses they can find and be abusive. How is THAT going to make anything better for anyone?

Your advise so far? "Don't get married cause girls are so mean, Don't be nice- be a jerk so you'll get laid, harden your heart, be feckless with your relationships, screw around,"; Great practical advice there. How does that work in the long term? If you're concerned about men's welfare then where's the actual advice; the "How to avoid getting in a bad relationship" stuff; the "How to spot if a girl isn't genuine" advise? You've put yourself on a pedestal as the saviour of vulnerable men but you're not helping anyone. You're just venting bile and throwing around a few figures on a bias that don't actually have any real impact on anyone personally. If 50% divorce, then that's still half of all marriages succeeding, and I highly doubt people get married on the basis of "ooh, the divorce rate has dropped, we should get hitched!" It's irrelevant. Other factors cause divorces, not the rate of divorce itself.

Originally Posted by xyzone

Well, MMM and Nyororin seem to be, for one.

No, as they've already answered, they both said it has a place and shouldn't be reacted to as if it's dog dirt or that only morons get married. They didn't say to have a relationship you MUST be married.

[clintjm]

The US divorce rate isn't as high as it appears. The 50% figure includes everyone who gets married in a certain year but also includes many people who are getting married for the second, third, or fourth time. That means that 50% of people who marry for the first time are NOT getting divorced. Also 50% or all people who have ever married for the first time are NOT divorced. The ability of people to stay married is actually much better than 50% because the figure is being loaded by people who are constantly jumping from marriage to marriage. If we really want to know what the divorce rate is then find a study that focuses on first time marriages only.

Apparently the divorce rate in Japan isn't high enough as they have these crazy agencies:
Japanese murder exposes world of hired marriage wreckers - Times Online

[bELyVIS]

Marriage is good if you find the right person and think with your brain and not your heart or with anything below your belt.

[manganimefan227]

Your brain? Isn't that how we get this divorce norm to begin with? You're saying that you should just go with whoever seems like a good person according to mental logic but what if you don't have any romantical interest?

You get the same problem!

And isn't that last part part of the reason we get bad marriages?