Being married sucks! (couple, clothes, different, bachelor)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm one of the most outspokenly pro-marriage ppl you'll find here, but the poster below also makes a huge, ginormous amount of logical sense as well
Marriage as an institution is no longer balanced, either in terms of power-sharing or in level of expectations, gender-wise -- it is decidedly and heavily weighted in favor *against* men
Quote:
Originally Posted by celcius
I have to admit to skimming the replies past the OP but so far I have yet to see anyone really nail this issue of male marriage disenchantment.
Frankly, the men coy about marriage are not selfish, but wise. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with marriage, but the past 20 years has resulted in a paradigm shift never before seen in human history. For the first time literally ever, the incentives for men to get married have dwindled to little more than an altruistic fantasy.
Look at the statistics and modern TV shows. Look at the laws. Add some personal stories from friends and acquaintances. The result is a snowballing expectation of marriage as a sexless, monotonous grind, where the man surrenders his control, possessions and virility for the women he loves, but whom is now armed with the ultimate power to ruin him. He can also expect complacency, scrutiny, sexual rejection and an extra inch to the waistline every month.
The bonus round? Getting out can predictably leave him near-bankrupt, homeless, emotionally devastated and void of priceless youth.
The bottom line is that marriage is, very simply put, a poor decision for men now. It places them in an exceptionally vulnerable position; the rewards marginal and risks considerable. And for detractors thinking it's all about money & business, I challenge you to find a divorce that didn't leave emotional baggage in its wake.
This is not to say men are afraid of long-term committed relationships, but they're now realizing this can be done without marriage. The world works on incentives, and men are waking up to this grievous imbalance.
I'm one of the most outspokenly pro-marriage ppl you'll find here, but the poster below also makes a huge, ginormous amount of logical sense as well
Marriage as an institution is no longer balanced, either in terms of power-sharing or in level of expectations, gender-wise -- it is decidedly and heavily weighted in favor *against* men
I disagree. Many women not only have to support the household and work F/T, but they do the majority of housework, are in charge of the running of the home, have and care for the children and essentially have a second child-husband to care for in the way of responsibility. Nothing about that is against men. Those are some of the reasons I waited until I found a good man. He's one in a million.
I disagree. Many women not only have to support the household and work F/T, but they do the majority of housework, are in charge of the running of the home, have and care for the children and essentially have a second child-husband to care for in the way of responsibility. Nothing about that is against men. Those are some of the reasons I waited until I found a good man. He's one in a million.
I understand what you mean -- my concern though, and as I think the earlier poster touched on well, is that the modern marriage laws are fundamentally stacked against men. We live in a society where (rightly or wrongly), a woman can divorce a man, and also financially destroy him if she elects to, by literally taking him to the cleaners financially. Never mind that the odds are that she's also working herself. So we still apply pre-equality era, 1950s-ish laws to men (men are liable for paying alimony, entitlement to an ex-husband's retirement account, etc. to a divorced spouse), whereas women who *are* fully equal now are getting the benefit of pre-equality era laws, and even if they are also working.
I understand what you mean -- my concern though, and as I think the earlier pioster touched on well, is that the modern marriage laws are fundamentally stacked against men. We live in a society where (rightly or wrongly), a woman can divorce a man, and also financially destroy him if she elects to, by literally taking him to the cleaners financially. Never mind that the odds are that she's also working herself. So we still apply pre-equality era, 1950s-ish laws to men (men are liable for paying alimony, entitlement to an ex-husband's retirement account, etc. to a divorced spouse), whereas women who *are* fully equal are getting the benefit of pre-equality era laws, and even if they are also working.
I think you are getting to many of your "facts" from some of the men that post on these threads. I think you'll find that things aren't as stacked against men as some of them make them seem. I've known lots of divorced people. Divorce is hard on everyone. And a man can take a woman to the cleaner's, too. That's why it's important to find the right person to share your life with.
I think you need a break from all the woman - haters on C-D. It's starting to rub off on you!!!
I think you are getting to many of your "facts" from some of the men that post on these threads. I think you'll find that things aren't as stacked against men as some of them make them seem. I've known lots of divorced people. Divorce is hard on everyone. And a man can take a woman to the cleaner's, too. That's why it's important to find the right person to share your life with.
I think you need a break from all the woman - haters on C-D. It's starting to rub off on you!!!
22% of couples have a higher earner spouse be the woman. So the argument that women are do-it-all pillars of the American household is factually incorrect. Men are still the preponderance of breadwinners. Which makes them, because of that fact [higher earning], losers in the gauntlet of marital dissolution. Women can get taken to the cleaners too, provided they are the higher earning/saver spouse. Which statistically speaking they are still NOT, by a large margin. Ergo, men stand much more to lose in marriage, for a benefit they can attain [companionship] without having to sign that certificate in the first place. It's not about woman hating. As I've said before, sign that prenup sweetie, and I'll quit my banter. Equal is equal.
22% of couples have a higher earner spouse be the woman. So the argument that women are do-it-all pillars of the American household is factually incorrect. Men are still the preponderance of breadwinners. Which makes them, because of that fact [higher earning], losers in the gauntlet of marital dissolution. Women can get taken to the cleaners too, provided they are the higher earning/saver spouse. Which statistically speaking they are still NOT, by a large margin. Ergo, men stand much more to lose in marriage, for a benefit they can attain [companionship] without having to sign that certificate in the first place. It's not about woman hating. As I've said before, sign that prenup sweetie, and I'll quit my banter. Equal is equal.
I don't have you on ignore but I also don't read your posts. You once equated wives to prostitutes. In my book, you have nothing to say that I find of value. Only someone extremely bitter and angry would say such a thing and I have nothing to learn from someone like that.
I think you are getting to many of your "facts" from some of the men that post on these threads. I think you'll find that things aren't as stacked against men as some of them make them seem. I've known lots of divorced people. Divorce is hard on everyone. And a man can take a woman to the cleaner's, too. That's why it's important to find the right person to share your life with.
I think you need a break from all the woman - haters on C-D. It's starting to rub off on you!!!
(Responding to bolded part above) I don't disagree with you -- my own father completely destroyed my mother's marriage to him (as the reasons for the divorce were solely *his* fault). I'm not saying that men can't or won't be the cause for a marriage failing. All I'm saying is, that the actual current divorce laws themselves aren't exactly kind to men in general.
I am certainly not a woman-hater -- I *love* women! I think they're beautiful and lovable and adorable At the same time though...current divorce laws can clearly be abused by one party at times, whether it be the woman or the man doing so
I don't have you on ignore but I also don't read your posts. You once equated wives to prostitutes. In my book, you have nothing to say that I find of value. Only someone extremely bitter and angry would say such a thing and I have nothing to learn from someone like that.
Ad hominem attacks don't bother me. I defend the 1st amendment every day I go to work. What I AM interested in gathering is what specifically you find objectionable or inaccurate about the drawing of parallels I make between a prostitution construct and the implicit or explicit "understanding of remuneration" present in the vast majority of marriages.
I find the assertion that a lesser earning party is entitled to a higher earning party's livelihood solely on a loose assertion of "emotional support and provider of companionship", sexual companionship SPECIFICALLY, rather offensive. Divorce laws support this claim in a very punitive manner I might add.
In my experience women gauge their willingness to marry someone largely in their ability to materially provide for them and future children. This is not a romantic interest at all, it is one of survival and primacy. I find it offensive. But you seem to be indignated over the semantics of the word "prostitute". If the latter is not the main course for your indignation, I'd love to hear your argument for which my assessment of the current state of marital unions is not accurate. If it's just your sensitivity towards my adjudication that modern marriage is a textbook QUID PRO QUO, of which prostitution is a classical textbook example of, then you're just gonna have to put me on ignore after all, for I find it accurate. I'm not trying to flame bait you, I honestly have observed these dynamics.
Ad hominem attacks don't bother me. I defend the 1st amendment every day I go to work. What I AM interested in gathering is what specifically you find objectionable or inaccurate about the drawing of parallels I make between a prostitution construct and the implicit or explicit "understanding of remuneration" present in the vast majority of marriages.
I find the assertion that a lesser earning party is entitled to a higher earning party's livelihood solely on a loose assertion of "emotional support and provider of companionship", sexual companionship SPECIFICALLY, rather offensive. Divorce laws support this claim in a very punitive manner I might add.
In my experience women gauge their willingness to marry someone largely in their ability to materially provide for them and future children. This is not a romantic interest at all, it is one of survival and primacy. I find it offensive. But you seem to be indignated over the semantics of the word "prostitute". If the latter is not the main course for your indignation, I'd love to hear your argument for which my assessment of the current state of marital unions is not accurate. If it's just your sensitivity towards my adjudication that modern marriage is a textbook QUID PRO QUO, of which prostitution is a classical textbook example of, then you're just gonna have to put me on ignore after all, for I find it accurate. I'm not trying to flame bait you, I honestly have observed these dynamics.
I only read the first few sentences - honestly, I see no point in reading your posts. I'm not attacking you at all - I'm being honest. Personally, I see no value in anything you have to say. If you can't see the difference between a wife and a prostitute - it shows such a complete lack of understanding of what a relationship and indeed what a marriage is that there is nothing for me to say to you. In order for us to discuss this - you would have to have some sort of fundamental understanding of what a relationship is. As that is not the case - there is no point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they're beautiful and lovable and adorable 
At the same time though...current divorce laws can clearly be abused by one party at times, whether it be the woman or the man doing so 
