Why Should Men Marry?

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]IameAuhSomme-1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]disquietly 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IameAuhSomme 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IameAuhSomme 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chase_75 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Silentpandas -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poopa_scoopa 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AvgGuy101 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomInTexas 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newmobsforall 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]brahman-math 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arizth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arizth 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Evolutionarily, I think it makes sense for women to do exactly what they've BEEN doing: sleeping around /w young, virile, hypermasculine men who can donate big, strong mangenes to her baby factory, then settling down with a caregiver individual, male or female, to raise said babies.

For men, same thing. Sleep around /w young, virile, hyperfeminine women, getting each in turn pregnant. The man is not technically then needed for the birthing and the raising, but he should stick around, lest his/her mother fill his/her ears with bullshit.

I don't like it, but it IS the most likely method of both having strong offspring AND someone to care for them as they develop.

Personally, I think this is all a crock of shit, evolution can piss off because holy shit billion population, and that I'm keeping my dick in my pants and myself well away from this whole mess.

[–]yasw 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]csgardner 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]yasw 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]yasw 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eliasbagley 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]Denisius 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Denisius 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Denisius 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The money is secondary.

In what universe? Certainly not this one. I'm willing to bet that if you sat a woman down and said "Honey, I don't have any money or the future earning potential of making a decent amount but would you marry me?" she'd be out the door before you could blink.

In short MONEY TRUMPS EVERYTHING!!!

Also telling someone I want to be with them is about as secure as me telling a burglar he doesn't want to steal things from my home, I'm just as "secure" now as I was before telling him he doesn't want to steal from me (which isn't very secure at all). No matter what you say, no matter what you do you cannot with 100 percent certainty state that your partner will not try to screw you over. WHY because no one knows what future holds, certainly not you or your "partner". Neither of you has any idea on how future events will shape and change your opinion both of yourselves or each other and therefore you cannot guarantee future security/safety/loyalty/etc.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can accomplish a lot in life without the need to take LIFE-CHANGING gambles. Let me be clear taking CALCULATED everyday risks is healthy. Taking LIFE-CHANGING gambles is not. Which brings me back to an earlier point:

A marriage is a calculated risk?

Is the EXACT reason why there isn't any security in the institution of marriage. a gamble/risk by it's very nature compromises security. It's a security RISK.

RELATIONAL SECURITY. Marriage is a promise to your mate. That promise outside of the confines of a contract, it's between you and your mate. That's the reason for a marriage. The monetary part is secondary.

Also just because a question is loaded doesn't mean it isn't real (it's sitting there on the page after all isn't it). Ask yourself this, what is the number one reason people get divorced? I'm willing to bet it isn't domestic violence.

What's the reason why people get divorced? That's another loaded question.

My point is pretty simple. If you want to be marriage for reasons of taking your relationship to a new level, a full commitment then do it for the relationship. And shore up the finances so if something happens and most importantly know the risks.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A marriage is a calculated risk?

No, it's a Life-Changing gamble. It's hard to call something calculated when one of the variables in your "calculation" is another human being (i.e. your partner). Unless you are that person there is no way for you to know how they would react in any given circumstance (past, present, or future).

RELATIONAL SECURITY

you stated in one of your earlier posts that marriage is a monetary gamble. The fact is if your secure your not at risk, and if your at risk your not secure. Therefore the fact that marriage contains a monetary risk means it is NOT secure.

What's the reason why people get divorced? That's another loaded question.

This question is not loaded, the answer is out there if you google it. And even if it was loaded why do you not at least attempt to answer it?

The monetary part is secondary.

Your repeating yourself. Come up with a better rebuttal.

My point is pretty simple.

Your point is diluted. Getting married is not a cure for anything, it will NOT patch a failing relationship, it will NOT cure all of your problems. Marriage, above all else, is a contract that is signed by two parties. THAT's why it has legal consequences when broken (i.e. divorce).

The real question is why are you so intent on misleading men to believe marriage is such a great deal. Is it because you somehow gain from their ignorance (i.e. a woman/divorce lawyer/etc).

Or maybe it's because your a man that fell for the scam yourself and haven't come to grips with it and can't stand to see other men be warned about the shit you feel into.

Of course this is all conjecture and you could just as easily be a troll hoping to disrupt the dialogue we have started here.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you stated in one of your earlier posts that marriage is a monetary gamble. The fact is if your secure your not at risk, and if your at risk your not secure. Therefore the fact that marriage contains a monetary risk means it is NOT secure.

I said emotional investment and a monetary gamble.

This question is not loaded, the answer is out there if you google it. And even if it was loaded why do you not at least attempt to answer it?

You can't Google "why do relationships fail". That's a completely loaded question. You're trying goad me into a trap, which is a bit funny to me. You should know that, Google doesn't have all the information in the world.

Your repeating yourself. Come up with a better rebuttal.

You're asserting a point that can have no general point. What's priority over another in a relationship? You think it's money. However, psychologists will tell you it's not that simple. Your argument crumbles because you're trying to generalize relational priorities.

Your point is diluted. Getting married is not a cure for anything, it will NOT patch a failing relationship, it will NOT cure all of your problems. Marriage, above all else, is a contract that is signed by two parties. THAT's why it has legal consequences when broken (i.e. divorce)

That's is not the only definition marriage. The history is very long, and it's not based in contracts.

The real question is why are you so intent on misleading men to believe marriage is such a great deal. Is it because you somehow gain from their ignorance (i.e. a woman/divorce lawyer/etc).

Misleading men? The point is clear, in marriage a person must make an emotional investment. Ideally, if the spouse is their complementary opposite, or they can grow together, it's a worthwhile investment even in divorce. married couples live longer The monetary part is something that men should be knowledgeable about, and take precautions if it worries them.

I thought like you at one point. However, in reading about marriages and relationships. I found that for most people marriages improve their lives immensely. Families, in general have a positive effect on relationships. More importantly it's a way for men to grow into complete individuals, and it happens to be a path that has been traveled for centuries.

Your relationship determines if you marry, not anything else. Your relationship determines divorce, not anything else. That's my aim.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can't Google "why do relationships fail"

But you can Google the numerous statistical reports in regards to the number of reasons given as to why they do (i.e. money, growing apart, etc).

That's a completely loaded question. You're trying goad me into a trap.

How is it loaded and in what way am I trapping you?

Google doesn't have all the information in the world.

Maybe not, it's still a very good resource for data.

That's is not the only definition marriage. The history is very long, and it's not based in contracts.

What is a marriage license? Is it not a contract that requires both you and your partner to sign before being sent to the head of state to be officially notarized, sounds rather contractual to me.

I found that for most people marriages improve their lives immensely.

How so?

Families, in general have a positive effect on relationships.

Again How so?

More importantly it's a way for men to grow into complete individuals...

I was a COMPLETE individual when I was born, you can only add enhancements. I don't believe in all that bullshit about finding someone to complete me, that implies that I can never reach my full potential unless I follow someone else's life script (because I'm only half a person and therefore half the potential AND half my value as a human being). More over if my partner leaves me I would feel even worse for the same reasons.

and it happens to be a path that has been traveled for centuries.

So in other words: It's traditional. I don't need to tell you the number of vile things that are/can be justified in the name of tradition. Why don't we (The U.S. army specifically) raid towns, burn villages to the grown, rape women, and genocide and entire culture in war because HEY IT'S TRADITIONAL!!!

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But you can Google the numerous statistical reports in regards to the number of reasons given as to why they do (i.e. money, growing apart, etc).

You're talking about measurement. One concept to understand is lead and lag measures. Focus on one other won't help you understand a problem. Lead vs Lag If you break down a relationship in this manner, you will see that even though the lead measures can be the same, the lag can be different. Especially in relationships. Relationships are difficult cause you have two people who are emotionally compromised deciding on actions based on lead and lag qualitative measurements. So i'd say if you want to get to crux of why relationships fail, you'd being with a psychological diatribe.

I was a COMPLETE individual when I was born, you can only add enhancements. I don't believe in all that bullshit about finding someone to complete me, that implies that I can never reach my full potential unless I follow someone else's life script (because I'm only half a person and therefore half the potential AND half my value as a human being). More over if my partner leaves me I would feel even worse for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, and probably to your dismay, I'm talking about human psychology. WE are social creatures, and it is ingrained us to be social. One of the ways that we complete, or continue, our socialization is through marriage. Even if you like the same-sex, it's the same path(although not widely socially acceptable, it's the same path). It's not really about completing in a romantic sense, it's about connecting and growing as people. If you haven't found someone to help you do this, then you shouldn't be married.

So in other words: It's traditional. I don't need to tell you the number of vile things that are/can be justified in the name of tradition. Why don't we (The U.S. army specifically) raid towns, burn villages to the grown, rape women, and genocide and entire culture in war because HEY IT'S TRADITIONAL!!!

This is an over simplification. Now you're using traditional to compare marriage, which is more or less psychologically positive, to events and actions that are psychologically destructive. Now if you're trying to say the raping women, and genocide is equal to marriage in any acceptable sense, you're just wrong.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm making a comparison on how both warfare and marriage can be considered traditional. Both have occurred for generations if not since the dawn of man. The fact is if you try to use tradition to justify doing something you can use tradition to justify doing just about anything that has occurred in the past.

I'm not denying that we are social creatures, just that we require the institution of marriage. pair-bonding is a part of nature, contractually obligated pairing with legal/social/ and monetary ramifications are not.

essentially everything you have stated (growing as people, connecting, socializing, etc) can all be done without the institution of marriage as it is today. Make no mistake I draw a fine line in the difference between relationships (intimate or otherwise) and marriage (a contractual obligation issued by our society).

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm making a comparison on how both warfare and marriage can be considered traditional. Both have occurred for generations if not since the dawn of man. The fact is if you try to use tradition to justify doing something you can use tradition to justify doing just about anything that has occurred in the past.

I think this point is pedantic at best, however i'm referring human psychology not raw tradition.

essentially everything you have stated (growing as people, connecting, socializing, etc) can all be done without the institution of marriage as it is today. Make no mistake I draw a fine line in the difference between relationships (intimate or otherwise) and marriage (a contractual obligation issued by our society).

This makes sense. You have marriage is the actual ritual of woman losing her maidenhood. Unfortunately, as humans we haven't figure out by in large how to circumvent this nasty ritual. Some people are capable of avoid this ritual, so repeat marriage is based on your relationship. However, If you're saying that marriage as it stands legally is a problem. Then I can't really argue that point. It is unfair for men to have to pay for so much in a marriage. In one sense, you can say that women have to give a lot to be married, etc. However, many women take advantage of this scenario. On the flip side men don't recognize the perils, that's the real heinous part of it all. Men need to know ahead of time, instead of lamenting after the fact. The perils shouldn't deter them from marriage.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The perils shouldn't deter them from marriage.

If someone came to you and said that they had just come from their car mechanic and that the mechanic had stated that the car had a 50 percent chance of exploding every time you started the ignition and then the mechanic elaborated that this was common for at least half the vehicles on the road today would you honestly tell them (in good faith) that this fact should not deter them from using the vehicle -- or any other vehicle for that matter?

The fact is that the major perils DO deter men from marriage AS IT SHOULD. And even if there were absolutely no major perils associated with the institution the rewards for getting married are not quantifiable or guaranteed. Any of the social interactions that occur normally in a marriage can just as easily occur in a standard NON-CONTRACTUAL relationship.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now you're using car analogies..Bad product.. Especially since cars a designed to fail In fact over time, they are all 100% of cars designed to fail or be too costly to upkeep, so that the customer will buy a new car. So are you suggesting that marriages are designed to fail?

As a person you look at marriage like business or an investment. Marriage is like business in many senses. You love is your product and your wife is your partner. Your goal is happiness, and longevity. And one measuring point is your money. You will make an investment of time & money into your business in order to create a better product. There is no guarantee as in every business.
The funny thing about businesses is that they have a bout a 3% success rate over 3 years. People still go into business don't they?

Any of the social interactions that occur normally in a marriage can just as easily occur in a standard NON-CONTRACTUAL relationship.

Untrue, one the most important parts of a marriage is the ritual of maidenhood, which is the marriage. The public commitment means something also in a relationship. Relationship can last without a marriage, for sure. That's why I said as always, marriages are determined by your relationship. Easy is a not a good term because it's difficult to measure challenges in a relationships in the perspective of the parties.

However, if you're saying that legal ramifications of a failed marriage outweigh any benefits. i'd say that's all about how much money is worth to you.

We both more ore less agree. The point of this forum, and article is proceed with caution regardless of the benefits.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So are you suggesting that marriages are designed to fail?

In a way they are, especially when the system gives incentives for one half of the partnership to unilaterally make it fail for profit in the form of child support and alimony.

As a person you look at marriage like business or an investment.

Marriage as a business or investment would fail it's cost/benefit analysis, considering the fact that the thing you are most likely to lose is money regardless of how the marriage turns out (businesses are ALL about money).

Untrue, one the most important parts of a marriage is the ritual of maidenhood.

define this ritual and then explain why this particular social interaction requires a state recognized contract to be considered a valid social interaction.

However, if you're saying that legal ramifications of a failed marriage outweigh any benefits.

quite often it does outweigh any benefits provided by the institution and seeing as how most people (in the westernized world of course) cannot function in their daily lives effectively without money I'd say it's worth quite a lot.

We both more ore less agree.

No we do not. You believe that marriage as a legal contract is necessary in a given social setting, I believe that two people can be just as intimate as a married couple without the blessing (or interference) of the state.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In a way they are, especially when the system gives incentives for one half of the partnership to unilaterally make it fail for profit in the form of child support and alimony.

Your basis us completely monetary. That's not the reason people marry. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage is. The contract is designed to protect each party, as all contracts. The law however is skewed towards the statistically weaker, more likely to be taken advantage of, women. This does allow for abuse. Marriage isn't by any means a statistically designed product, to fail at specific times, like an automobile.

Marriage as a business or investment would fail it's cost/benefit analysis, considering the fact that the thing you are most likely to lose is money regardless of how the marriage turns out (businesses are ALL about money).

You haven't described any benefits? In a marriage actually you are likely to gain money. As in a business at the point of splitting you must split your assets fairly. All businesses aren't about money. Plenty of small business are happy to stay a float and do there function, without crazy profits. In this way marriages are similar to small businesses.

define this ritual and then explain why this particular social interaction requires a state recognized contract to be considered a valid social interaction.

The ritual of marriage is the ceremonial loss of a female's maidenhood. That's why it's so important. Psychologically, this is an important point in a woman's life. It's not a necessary point, for sure. It has function throughout all cultures.

quite often it does outweigh any benefits provided by the institution and seeing as how most people (in the westernized world of course) cannot function in their daily lives effectively without money I'd say it's worth quite a lot.

You're clearly risk adverse. Your opinion is also risk biased. I think you really mean that marriages that don't allow clean asset separation are not wise for men. So really you mean marriages that involve very established people, where the monetary aspect isn't a factor.

No we do not. You believe that marriage as a legal contract is necessary in a given social setting, I believe that two people can be just as intimate as a married couple without the blessing (or interference) of the state.

I believe marriage is necessary, and has a useful function in the western world. The contract is designed to protect both parties. I agree with you that people can be married without a legal contract. Sure.. Why not? Unfortunately, cost savings make this idea a bit unlikely. Maybe the underhanded trick of the legal system, and government. ;)

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The contract is designed to protect each party, as all contracts.

Except when they don't, which quite frankly is a lot based off of the numerous articles you'll find on this sub and elsewhere on the internet describing how this man or that man is getting screwed in divorce court (paying lifetime alimony,ridiculously high child support, etc).

You haven't described any benefits?

That's because there aren't any benefits (for men anyway) which is exactly why it fails the cost/benefit analysis, its just COST.

The ritual of marriage is the ceremonial loss of a female's maidenhood.

So.... Why can't you have the ceremony without a government sanctioned contract? Oh that's right then you wouldn't be able to make an adequate profit off of the poor schmuck that married her by feeding him through the meat grinder known as divorce.

Psychologically, this is an important point in a woman's life

So its important to a woman's psychological well-being to have me bound by a contract that she can terminate at her convenience and reap the rewards of at my expense....... Yeah that's not convincing me that marriage is any better of an idea.

You're clearly risk adverse.

Which is a good trait to have when it comes to life-changing/life altering risks or even just avoiding risk that clearly have more negative consequences attached to them than rewards.

I think you really mean that marriages that don't allow clean asset separation are not wise for men.

No, I do mean all marriages are not a wise choice for men. Even if you completely removed all negative consequences associated with getting married that still leaves you with the fact that there are no quantifiable and guaranteed benefits for men to participate in it. High risk<-> little to no reward.

I believe marriage is necessary.

I don't. The only people who find it necessary are those who use the system to exploit others.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's because there aren't any benefits (for men anyway) which is exactly why it fails the cost/benefit analysis, its just COST.

This is completely fabricated. There are million things read about marriage's benefit of men. The benefits are emotional, increase in income, and life expectancy.

So.... Why can't you have the ceremony without a government sanctioned contract? you can

So its important to a woman's psychological well-being to have me bound by a contract that she can terminate at her convenience and reap the rewards of at my expense....... Yeah that's not convincing me that marriage is any better of an idea.

The ceremony, the contract is more or less ancillary.

No, I do mean all marriages are not a wise choice for men. Even if you completely removed all negative consequences associated with getting married that still leaves you with the fact that there are no quantifiable and guaranteed benefits for men to participate in it. High risk<-> little to no reward.

That's an obtuse view. Your views psychologically, and emotionally defunct. However, the one quantifiable measurement, wealth. Why married people tend to be wealthier: It's complicated The risk is lower than a small business, i don't think that's very high. Most people would take a 50% shake on a gamble, any day of the week. That's not high risk.

I don't. The only people who find it necessary are those who use the system to exploit others.

Marriage as a ceremony is necessary, hard to deny. The contractual obligation of marriage is a reasonable argument. However, to say all marriages, even when money is not a factor, are bad choice. Is inconsistent with your position.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are million things read about marriage's benefit of men.

All of them circumstantial and none of them guaranteed.

So.... Why can't you have the ceremony without a government sanctioned contract? >you can

As if any women would let you get away with that, they know what's at stake if they don't tie you down with a legal contract (money & future earning potential). Even those who are cohabiting are probably doing it in a state that would consider them common law -- not ALL of them as I'm sure you'll remind me -- but most.

The ceremony, the contract is more or less ancillary.

Except no one will officially recognize your "marriage" until you've signed the contract.

However, the one quantifiable measurement, wealth.

Is that before or after the divorce. All that money that you and your "partner" make becomes irrelevant if she leaves after 10 years and then sticks you for alimony. Then your just in a deficit.

The risk is lower than a small business

does a small business force you to pay a good portion of your income for maintenance (sometimes for LIFE) if it goes under? No? Thought not.

Most people would take a 50% shake on a gamble.

Not if that gamble had the net effect of restricting their earning potential for the next 18 or more years.

Imagine someone saying that for a given gamble, in order to win you have to satisfy certain conditions each year for the rest of your life (you would receive the reward annually) but the consequences are arranged in such a way that the longer you go without losing the harsher the penalty for losing becomes.

If you plotted on a graph the number of years you go without losing with the degree to which the consequences become harsher per year you'll end up with an exponential function where the consequences would eventually trump any gains that would have been made by making the gamble in the first place. The only way you could "win" is by dying before you lose the gamble, or you know not play from the get go. And with the system giving incentives to your "partner" to profit from you losing the gamble it become much more likely that you will lose before you die.

However, to say all marriages, even when money is not a factor, are bad choice.

Ok, let's say that in some parallel universe marriage had no major consequences for failure. Being in a relationship I still have to divide my decision making (i.e. consult my partner before making a major decision), Share my earnings, try to keep her happy, etc. That being said who would want to give up a single life of being able to do what you want, when you want, and how you want it for that?

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All of them circumstantial and none of them guaranteed. We are talking relationships, investments, and businesses. They aren't guaranteed! However, I will guarantee that you will grow the most in a committed relationship, than being single.

as if any women would let you get away with that, they know what's at stake if they don't tie you down with a legal contract (money & future earning potential). Even those who are cohabiting are probably doing it in a state that would consider them common law -- not ALL of them as I'm sure you'll remind me -- but most.

Well homosexuals have done so. You asked if it were possible? I will tell you yes it's very possible. Depends on your relationship. Marriages aren't designed to tie you down, they are designed to help you grow. If you feel trapped, maybe you shouldn't be married, or are not ready for marriage.

Except no one will officially recognize your "marriage" until you've signed the contract. This was your question. You asked if marriage could exist without a contract, yes they can. People recognize homosexuals as married, just the government doesn't recognize them as being married. Why would heterosexuals be any different? Regardless, the contract's importance protection of the weaker party.

does a small business force you to pay a good portion of your income for maintenance (sometimes for LIFE) if it goes under? No? Thought not. Another wild generalization. Sometimes yes. Debt can be huge in a small business, sometimes that means putting up your house to begin the business. Same could be said about a marriage, in that a marriage you must must be smart of whom you choose.

Not if that gamble had the net effect of restricting their earning potential for the next 18 or more years

There isn't a restriction of income. Unless i'm missing something. Regardless, the savings that exist artificially increase your net income, without any extra work on earning from either partner.

Imagine someone saying that for a given gamble, in order to win you have to satisfy certain conditions each year for the rest of your life (you would receive the reward annually) but the consequences are arranged in such a way that the longer you go without losing the harsher the penalty for losing becomes. If you plotted on a graph the number of years you go without losing with the degree to which the consequences become harsher per year you'll end up with an exponential function where the consequences would eventually trump any gains that would have been made by making the gamble in the first place. The only way you could "win" is by dying before you lose the gamble, or you know not play from the get go. And with the system giving incentives to your "partner" to profit from you losing the gamble it become much more likely that you will lose before you die.

Why don't you do this plot, or at least write differential equation. Win? I'm not sure understand the definition of victory.

Ok, let's say that in some parallel universe marriage had no major consequences for failure. Being in a relationship I still have to divide my decision making (i.e. consult my partner before making a major decision), Share my earnings, try to keep her happy, etc. That being said who would want to give up a single life of being able to do what you want, when you want, and how you want it for that?

It's not an alternate universe. People that marry when they are established, or older than typical marrying age, get married and they have less "adverse" circumstances.

Your gripe seems to really be an argument on the differences between married life and single life. From a monetary perspective, you marry because the person should help your with your career and life. From an emotional perspective you can gain more growth with a partner versus being single. Your ability to choose a partner will determine your finances should if the marriage fails. Calling marriage a scam is a bit over reaching, the ability choose partner is your actual gripe. Marriage contracts simply protect the weaker party, and not always "fairly".

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why don't you do this plot, or at least write differential equation.

You don't need a differential equation to describe the graph. In fact, you don't even need an exponential function to describe it. Just picture a line horizontal to the x-axis on a graph that represents you and your partners combined annual income (not taking into account promotions, dismissal, etc), then imagine another line with a positive slope to represent the annual increase of risk (where risk equals the amount of money you will pay if the relationship ends depending on the number of years you have been with your partner). The line for risk will eventually intersect and surpass the line for annual income (In other words the the amount you will eventually pay if the relationship ends will exceed your annual income).

The conditions for "victory" as it were is to die while married without ever going through divorce (and losing a significant portion of your assets while living). In that way you "win".

It's not an alternate universe.

So your saying that marriage has no consequences for failure? I wasn't born yesterday.

you marry because the person should help your with your career and life.

SHOULD OF COULD OF WOULD OF. From what we've seen on this sub this is often times not the case.

Marriage contracts simply protect the weaker party, and not always "fairly".

How do you define who the "weaker" party is?

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You don't need a differential equation to describe the graph. In fact, you don't even need an exponential function to describe it. Just picture a line horizontal to the x-axis on a graph that represents you and your partners combined annual income (not taking into account promotions, dismissal, etc), then imagine another line with a positive slope to represent the annual increase of risk (where risk equals the amount of money you will pay if the relationship ends depending on the number of years you have been with your partner). The line for risk will eventually intersect and surpass the line for annual income (In other words the the amount you will eventually pay if the relationship ends will exceed your annual income).

An equation would suffice. If you're going to use math, at least use it don't speculate math. Your description is at best useless..

The conditions for "victory" as it were is to die while married without ever going through divorce (and losing a significant portion of your assets while living). In that way you "win".

Wow that's quite interesting. Victory would be having a successful relationship. If that means no divorce, then 50% of people do that already, not a bad gamble. Now, we're moving into comicbook land. I don't think any married person in the sub, thinks that victory is death. Victory can also be defined as a divorce without adverse financial difficulties. Victory could be a happy family.

SHOULD OF COULD OF WOULD OF. From what we've seen on this sub this is often times not the case.

That's the risk that's taken in any relationship. I'm sure this sub is a good cross section of all marriages. Great!

How do you define who the "weaker" party is?

The weaker party is the party most effect by the dissolving of the contract.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hows this for an equation:

y=2x+1 will eventually intersect and pass x=50,000; where the equation y=2x+1 represents the rising monetary risk and the equation y=50,000 equals your annual pay (not including factors such as unemployment, raises, etc). The X-axis represents the number of years and the Y-axis represents the Risk (in dollars). AND no the equation y=2x+1 is NOT specific to our scenario because you could replace it with just about ANY line with a positive slope and it will eventually intersect y=50,000 given the enough years.

If that means no divorce, then 50% of people do that already, not a bad gamble.

Is betting your life on the flip of a coin (Also 50% chance) also "not a bad gamble"?

Both are life-changing event's that could negatively impact you, few people would be comfortable with letting a coin-flip decide a major life decision/event/etc. The fact of the matter is MOST of them have been lied to and told how wonderful marriage is suppose to be by television, news and media in general. If they had the knowledge we discuss here I'm sure the results would be different (or it would show 100 percent success rate----- for only 10 percent of the population).

That's the risk that's taken in any relationship.

And its a BAD risk.

The weaker party is the party most effect by the dissolving of the contract.

Then it has definitely failed, a good portion of men often times get screwed over in family court cases vs their partners who essentially get everything. If a woman is left with a child she can sue her ex for child support, she can request alimony (sometimes for life) and the husband has to foot the bill or risk jail time. Can a man do any of that? doubtful, the cops probably wouldn't even take him seriously. He'd be lucky if he could even get parental control of the kids due to court bias.

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

y=2x+1 will eventually intersect and pass x=50,000; where the equation y=2x+1 represents the rising monetary risk and the equation x=50,000 equals your annual pay (not including factors such as unemployment, raises, etc). The X-axis represents the number of years and the Y-axis represents the Risk (in dollars). AND no the equation y=2x+1 is NOT specific to our scenario because you could replace it with just about ANY line with a positive slope and it will eventually intersect x=50,000 given the enough years.

Don't talk math if you don't know it's ok.. You're talking exponential function with linear equations.. don't even bother..

Is betting your life on the flip of a coin (Also 50% chance) also "not a bad gamble"? Coin flip? Just because statistics equal coin flip, doesn't mean it's coin flip. I hope you realize divorce doesn't always end relationships. What you're giving here are statistics about relationship outcomes, without even graduating types of relationships. If you want to give knowledge you should teach men how pick a wife, or better yet maintain a relationship. Remember, the macro view doesn't always apply to the micro view. That's also why I brought up lag and lead measures.

Then it has definitely failed, a good portion of men often times get screwed over in family court cases vs their partners who essentially get everything. If a woman is left with a child she can sue her ex for child support, she can request alimony (sometimes for life) and the husband has to foot the bill or risk jail time. Can a man do any of that? doubtful, the cops probably wouldn't even take him seriously. He'd be lucky if he could even get parental control of the kids due to court bias.

It's not really screwed, the court bias towards the person that is most effected by the divorce. Yes a man can get child support even alimony if he can gain custody of the child. The problem is proving that the woman is an unfit mother. The biggest problem with marriage is men don't understand their rights until their in divorce court. The other problem with marriage is that some bias in laws must be in place because every man isn't upstanding, plenty of men are just philanderers.

[–]PIBagent1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kundertaker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since you were having such a hard time with the concept I simplified the type of equation I was using for my example to make my point easier for you to understand. Regardless of which type of mathematical function I use both types will intersect and surpass the given annual pay line. Is that OK with you professor?

If you can do the math, just create an equation. If you can't, just refrain from using math. That linear function doesn't do anything for me. You didn't do a good job.

Student, I think you might get an A for effort, D for points. So you'll pass don't worry.

And clearly women are saints. /s

Nope, they just have fewer opportunities cause of children, and tend to raise children. Men on the other hand tend not to raise children. One unfairness in the legal system is proving that a woman is an unfit mother.

[–]LAMFF 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LAMFF 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PIBagent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]kundertaker -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angryman22 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why Should Men Marry?
Author	standupforacause
Upvotes	84
Comments	88
Date	September 18, 2013 1:09 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mn1fd/why_should_men_marry/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-should-men-marry.1163550 https://theredarchive.com/post/1163550

Comments