If you're a guy woud you get married today?

[Larson]

Quote from PAPA ROACH:

The saddest thing I see as I get older, are the friends that chose not to marry. They are getting older now, and the dating pool as you age is not what it once was; plenty of divorcee women with kids in tow.........someone elses kids, or scallywags that have been passed around till their like a baseball bat in a trash can.

You should know if the woman you're with is the right one or not, and none of them are perfect, just like none of us are.

Give me a break. If the guy is halfway successful in life and knows what he is doing and is not some sort sort of neurotic fool the pool is vast. Only problem is weeding out the dross, and that my friend takes experience.

 

[my7tvette]

Ironically, I started another thread today seeking advice on how to sell a slightly used wedding ring set.

My wife and I were together for about 11 years, married for 7. For my part, I really liked being married. It felt like I finally belonged, and could officially settle down. The wedding ring and the marriage license didn't really mean all that much to my wife; she always felt like we worked harder at our relationship and took less for granted when we weren't married.

Now that it is all over, I'm not sure what that marriage license really mean't. It seems as though its main purpose has very little to do with the couple (except for certain legal purposes, taxes and such) and much more to do with creating a certain appearance for the rest of the world. It didn't change things much between my wife and I in a positive way. I had already made it very clear that I wasn't planning on going anywhere. Obviously, having that license in hand did nothing to keep us together except provide a minor inconvenience once the breakup was decided upon.

Whether or not you decide to get married, my best advice is to do everything you can, whenever you can, to appreciate and show your appreciation for the important people in your life. You just never know what tomorrow will bring.

As I said, I enjoyed marriage. I'm pretty sure that I won't ever do it again. Who knows, maybe I'll look up this thread in a year and my mind will have totally changed. The person that changes my mind will have to be pretty damned awesome though!

 

[nitro]

Yes.

 

[jinxu]

Quote from my7tvette:


Now that it is all over, I'm not sure what that marriage license really mean't. It seems as though its main purpose has very little to do with the couple (except for certain legal purposes, taxes and such) and much more to do with creating a certain appearance for the rest of the world. It didn't change things much between my wife and I in a positive way.

I'm surprised with how fast this thread took off and the results of the poll is spitted at 50-50 which mirrors the 50% divorce rate in the USA.

I suppose I might as well post this:

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

Source: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

 

[jinxu]

Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :

1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.

Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Indian civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.

Source: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

 

[guy990opl]

jinxu ,


thank you, that's a fantasic piece and it should really answer the question of the OP.


In case you are a successful healthy make I would like to add this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_divorces

The guy who is not married can do the very same things the married guy does minus the headaches.

Why do you need to go to the city council and sign a contract that later might bite you in the ass ? You should not sign anything if you want to love a woman, live with her or have kids with her. If you want to give her 1/2 of what is yours you can always do that, but at least you will not be forced to do it.

If you are a man who is making good money with marriage you have absolutely nothing to gain. Don't do it.

 

[acronym]

Would I get married today?



Heck no, to short a notice.
At least plan for a "soon" weekend or something.

 

[PAPA ROACH]

This is actually a good social exercise. I would be interested in knowing if those that responded not to get married came from broken home backgrounds (parents divorced), and those that responded yes to marriage, have parents that stayed together.

I for one believe in the responsibility of providing a strong family backbone for my 3 children; a nuturing home life and moral support. This is a crazy world that seems to go more Sodom and Gomorrah each passing decade. Look at the mockery that Hollywood has created.

My parents were married for almost 60 yrs, (my father passed away this past May). The example they set and childhood received has given me a solid foundation for life in numerous aspects. Am I alone in this thought? I don't think so, many of my friends that had divorced parents have struggled a little more with various life skills and relationships.

The generations seem to get a little more "entitled" as time goes on. Very selfish behavior and an "It's all about me" attitude.

Bottom line is, nobody should get married to someone just to be married. But if you find the right person and plan on a family, it is a moral responsibility, because it is NOT just all about you anymore. Your actions will have large implications in the lives of your children.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from PAPA ROACH:

This is actually a good social exercise. I would be interested in knowing if those that responded not to get married came from broken home backgrounds (parents divorced), and those that responded yes to marriage, have parents that stayed together.

I for one believe in the responsibility of providing a strong family backbone for my 3 children; a nuturing home life and moral support. This is a crazy world that seems to go more Sodom and Gomorrah each passing decade. Look at the mockery that Hollywood has created.

My parents were married for almost 60 yrs, (my father passed away this past May). The example they set and childhood received has given me a solid foundation for life in numerous aspects. Am I alone in this thought? I don't think so, many of my friends that had divorced parents have struggled a little more with various life skills and relationships.

The generations seem to get a little more "entitled" as time goes on. Very selfish behavior and an "It's all about me" attitude.

Bottom line is, nobody should get married to someone just to be married. But if you find the right person and plan on a family, it is a moral responsibility, because it is NOT just all about you anymore. Your actions will have large implications in the lives of your children.

I don't think anyone is doubting the benefits of sharing your life with someone, providing a stable family/home life for your children, etc. That's all lovely and beautiful. For me, the question is why go through the actual process of getting married? Why can't two people spend their lives together, have children, be great parents etc. without actually getting married? What is the difference? Besides legal (taxes) and religious reasons.

 

[r-in]

I was thinking about this topic, instead of trading, so someone owes me a days pay. I listed friends by ones I grew up with, and ones I worked with over the years and still know. I don't have an explantion, but the ones I worked with over 50% have been divorced, and a couple twice. My friends from grade school and high school that I still know there is only 1 divorce. In the work group quite a few screwed around with someone they worked with and that led to divorce. The 2 who are divorced twice both married the woman they screwed around with at work, and that didn't work either.
From the group growing up only 1 I know for sure had parents who divorced, and he actaully just got married last year at 45 years old. His brother has been married for a long time, as well as his 5 sisters. I know his parents divorce really bothered him when we were kids(I lived next to him from 3 years old on), and I have no doubt that is why he wasn't married earlier. Probably good too. After college he was with the woman he thought would be his wife until one day. He lived in Boston and was riding the train home with chicken soup for his girlfriend who was sick at his place. On the train out of the blue some guy offered him tickets to a Bruins game. Long story made short, he took the tickets, gave the guy the chicken soup, went to the game instead of home. He has a 2nd butthole to this day, but more importantly realized he wasn't as committed to that woman as he had thought and ended it.