Marriage and aging: A generalization.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by 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?

You would be shocked at how many successful marriages are arranged.

Western thinking is that as long as there is love, nothing else matters and love conquers all. However, this is not a universal way of thinking, and looking at the divorce rates in Western countries, may not be the best way of thinking.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

That's what it says in the UK divorce stats as well. Which, apparently has dropped to be as low as it was 26 years ago. So much for constantly rising divorce rates.

I wonder what the honey-trapper's wife thought of it all. Do you think she knew what her husbands job was?

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by clintjm

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

The divorce system in Japan requires both parties to agree to the divorce, or for there to be evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either side. Even if a wife or husband hates their partner with a passion, if the partner does not agree to a divorce or there is no wrongdoing on their part... getting a divorce is VERY hard and very expensive. You essentially have to sue your partner for the right to a divorce.

Those services, along with private investigators, provide the evidence needed to get a one-sided divorce.

As a side note, I found the pronunciation key in that article for wakaresaseya absolutely hilarious...

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by 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?

You lose all logic when you fall in love. Same if you are horny. Using your brain and finding your best friend first and then falling in love slowly is the best way. Trust me, I fell in love the first marriage and it didn't last and my second I married my best friend and fell in love with her slowly over time. It's a great thing.

[manganimefan227]

Yep, Just like in the Animes

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by MMM

"As a whole" is a bit misleading, as it doesn't paint a detailed picture.

Well, that's debatable, and we could be here all day back and forth to no avail. Glass half empty, glass half full.

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.

They're good odds if you're just into odds for the sake of odds. But I'm not going to dismiss the hot-lead of the other 10%. Not to mention that these statistics may be incomplete, as I comment below.

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.

The ceremony is, perhaps. The contract is just a contract in my view.

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.

That's between the two people. I don't see any reasonable thinker believing that an adult couple needs a contract to slap their hand with a ruler in case they want to cheat. Cheating is something a person decides, not something that comes their way externally due to lack of posted signs.

Men cheat 4 times as much if they are living together, but not married, and cohabitating women cheat 8 times more than married women.

I'll really take these stats with a grain of salt. I'll also return the argument of "misleading". The only way to really test my theory wrong would be to end marriage in an experimental world and see how much cheating happens in couples who pledge themselves to each other without the state getting involved. Short of that, it's just flawed precisely because the existence of the marriage contract taints the results.

So there is SOMETHING about the institution of marriage that either has an effect on society, on the participants, or (more than likely) both.

And I'm calling attention on the bad things.

Again, this is extremely cynical. What you are striking at is the fundamental structure of society itself.

One of the good things about American society is the significant encouragement of self-criticism which ideally leads to adapting to changing situations. When this gets snuffed out, said society pretty much has nothing.

Marriage rates are dropping,

They're not really dropping as a fact. It's only speculated so far that many of those marriages over 30 will last for life. The precedence and trend weakens that argument, imo. What if many of those people get divorced in their 50s or later and it's still just as bad if not worse. That is beyond the time table we can analyze today.

Besides all that, I haven't seen a sensible and tangible argument in favor of the tangible marriage contract itself, other than one person bringing up economic reasons. Not unless tradition and "love celebration" are tangible reasons, which I don't think they are. If we argue tradition, then every violent or absurd tradition we have in our history might as well be valid just for the sake of being tradition. So basically, in a nutshell, the argument in favor of the marriage contract I'm seeing here is "because it's tradition and because of economic reasons". Not strong enough reasons to offset the risks.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by MMM

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....

For one, I'm viewing it from the female perspective, where a marriage (contract) is desirable. For another, and more importantly, I'm not really focusing on the fact that they're not married but sleeping around. I'm focusing on the fact that in most such cases they are unplanned pregnancies most likely for the mere fun of sex.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I don`t recall even once saying marriage was necessary,

Well to a reasonable observer you might at least be inferring so by defending it and by arguing against saying it's not necessary.

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...

I'm saying it translates that way in the context of modern society. To put it another way, I'm saying that what females find attractive is no more based on thought than what males find attractive, and I'm pointing towards the general area. That's one of the main things I wanted to get through.

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.

Sure, in the same sense that 'people steal stuff' but not all people are thieves. That's why we lock our doors and our stuff despite not everyone being a thief.

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.

At any rate, I can assure you that overall the legal system in divorce laws or enforcement of such doesn't particularly cater to women in those lands.

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.

Even assuming this is 100% accurate, which I don't think it is, that still leaves marriage without a strong list of tangible advantages while having deep, tangible risks.

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.

Well, no matter what you say, somebody somewhere will take offense to it.

And this is different in what way from a woman leading a man on if the end result is one side getting screwed over?

It's different because it's the man doing it.

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.

Look, I'm not presuming to be the love guru. I'm just stating some general philosophies I consider accurate towards the guys it would make sense. The psychological strategy you're advocating is just an arbitrary choice, same as mine.

Let me put it another way. You're not going to debate or preach idealism against human nature and win. You can try, and you can even arbitrarily select some point of evidence as support for the superiority of your strategy. My strategy is to work with human nature, not against it. I can assure you most guys want to get laid and not be made a fool of in "love". And many of them would live more successfully through the notion that some things don't just matter because somebody says they do, such as the notion that what women want is something that particularly matters. Actions speak louder than words. (And their own love lives are their own love lives)

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Columbine

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.

Potato, potatoh. I think it would be better put that they don't find the obsequious, brainwashed charmers of today very interesting at all, hence not attractive.

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?

You miss the point. I was talking to men, not women. I know how women think.

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.

It's not my place to preach somebody else's idealism.

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

What backpedal? You presented women you know as that speculative evidence, and I presented same women as this speculative evidence. I was trying to make a point that we were both just speculating about each of our points.

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.

I never said it was necessarily that (although child support applies regardless of marrige). My focus was on their selection in sex partners. If not jerks, certainly not nice guys.

if they're screwing men over for money, it tends to be outside of the marriage contract.

It doesn't matter. It refers to the same motivation and the same thinking, or lack thereof.

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.

Well, you just made my point for me. It also doesn't matter what the long term intentions are, if any. Being a jerk works for the lightside as well.

Single motherhood is stressful, frugal and often romantically lonely.

Then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. And listen, I'm not advocating that deadbeat dads are any better here. They should lose their shirt over it if necessary.

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.

This helps the single mom, sure. But I wouldn't recommend any eligible bachelor ever get involved with a single mother, esp. if she has more than 1 child. Not under any circumstances.

Show me some data if you really think single women only date jerks.

They slept with men who were too jerk-like to stay or too jerk-like to be a tolerable presence for long. The data is in the subjects themselves.

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?

Truth sets people free. Also keep in mind my brainwashing powers are very weak at best. People who this makes sense to will agree with it and these are the only people I'm talking to. The greater point is that guys shouldn't actually care about what women want. I already think I'm sounding preachy enough by saying they should rather care about the truth, first (and then working from there).

Your advise so far? "Don't get married cause girls are so mean,

I would define what I've said more as them being dangerous, not mean.

Don't be nice-

Not unless you mean it. Which is not true when being nice to a pretty girl because you like her.

be a jerk so you'll get laid,

If they want to, which all do.

harden your heart,

I'm not speaking about the heart. That's a private matter for each person.

be feckless with your relationships, screw around,";

No, I never advocated anyone screw around if they don't want to. I only pointed towards the general direction of how to do it well if that's what they want. Because it's better than seeing pathetic nerds failing at it and then not even cashing in on it in the case of having earned it after much toil. Anyone and everyone is free to be whatever lapdog feminist they desire at their leisure.

Great practical advice there. How does that work in the long term?

In my opinion, it's bound to work, and the more successful the man the better it will.

You've put yourself on a pedestal as the saviour of vulnerable men but you're not helping anyone.

No, I haven't. I just put out there what was on my mind inspired by seeing a friend get made a fool of.

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.

Like I said in above posts, it still leaves contractual marriage relatively defenseless from tangible attack.

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.

Ok, then I'm sorry if somebody took it personal, but it was directed towards the choice itself more than anything not towards every single married person -- which I've never met.

[MMM]

Well, that's debatable, and we could be here all day back and forth to no avail. Glass half empty, glass half full.[/quote]

I am not sure how you can argue that general statistics is debatabley better than more detailed statistics...but that seems to be the foundation for your argument, regardless.

Originally Posted by xyzone

They're good odds if you're just into odds for the sake of odds. But I'm not going to dismiss the hot-lead of the other 10%. Not to mention that these statistics may be incomplete, as I comment below.

No, they are good if you are person that doesn't believe the fundamental argument of this entire thread: that marriages fail and men lose. I am saying 90% of marriages that happen after the couple is the age 30 do not end in divorce. I posted my sources. Now if YOU don't want to get married...if those odds (assuming you look at odds like that before getting married) are too intimidating, no one is forcing you to do it. Just don't deny the facts.

Originally Posted by xyzone

The ceremony is, perhaps. The contract is just a contract in my view.

In your view. But I bet if you ask 100 married couples if they saw their marriage as simply a legal contract and nothing more, you would get 100 answers "no".

Originally Posted by xyzone

That's between the two people. I don't see any reasonable thinker believing that an adult couple needs a contract to slap their hand with a ruler in case they want to cheat. Cheating is something a person decides, not something that comes their way externally due to lack of posted signs.

This is what you don't understand, and is why I am not going to spend too much more time on it.

A marriage doesn't make a relationship or change the people in it. It is the opposite:

The people in the relationship MAKE the marriage. It is much more than simply a "legal contract" as you want to call it, but a BOND between two people.

The reason people that aren't married cheat on each other at higher rates is not because they aren't married, but because they aren't as committed to each other.

The reason marriages between younger people end in divorce at higher rates is because usually they are too immature to know themselves well enough to know if they are ready to get married.

Originally Posted by xyzone

And I'm calling attention on the bad things.

No need to remind us.

Originally Posted by xyzone

So basically, in a nutshell, the argument in favor of the marriage contract I'm seeing here is "because it's tradition and because of economic reasons". Not strong enough reasons to offset the risks.

Said by a happy bachelor. I don't think you are getting it. No man sees the benefits of getting married, until he meets the right mate and feels that level of commitment. Then marriage makes perfect sense.