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.
so the ONLY time you have sex is when you want to??
I think the longer a marriage goes on, the more obligation sex there is...im NOT talking about using sex to get a new coffee table, Im talking about having sex when your partner wants to and you not so much
there were plenty of times when I "serviced my wife" or vice versa because one of us was not in the mood...this is "obligation sex"...when its new, sure you both want to all the time...but 20 years later one of you is gonna want it less...it just happens
I've never had obligation sex. If one of us is in the mood and the other isn't - then we either get the other person in the mood or we respect the fact that they aren't in the mood. And I would never marry someone that I wasn't attracted to so that our sex life only consisted of obligation sex. Sex with someone I don't want to have sex with would pretty much be hell for me.
This thread goes on and on. Let's observe what are the things that marriage regulates that an average person will likely be affected with: 1. Inheritance. The marriage as a contract gives specifically defined inheritance rights upon one's death. It completely ignores whether the spouse is the parent of biological children that the deceased spouse left or whether there is any monetary contribution to the inheritance that the spouse gains right to claim, thus the marriage only defines an arbitrary way the inheritance rights and partition of inherited assets will happen. 2. Automatic paternity. Paternity is legally enforced for any child born to a married woman during and up to 10 months after the marriage, as well as obligations to cover costs of pregnancy and subsequent support of children. it can be challenged, but the costs until the moment when paternity is voided via DNA sampling won't be refunded under dubious way this issue is defined. It doesn't enforce or define paternal influence, range of father's involvement or anything else - thus it's solely seeing paternity through expenses. 3. Splitting assets upon separation. Upon split, i.e. divorce, marriage defines specific rights to claim share in property and future income that is nominally achieved through other spouse's work. Pay note that child support is independent of marriage in our day and age - but alimony generally isn't. So-called "palimony" is extremely unlikely and many courts will outright refuse to issue it. 4. Health coverage. Many places don't offer cohabiting or "unmarried spouses" to be covered by each other's insurance. This is especially important if one spouse is very ill and doesn't have health coverage, while the other does have it, that's where marriage makes a difference in many places. Once again, it's about monetary stuff.
List may go on, but you get the point - marriage generally revolves around stuff revolving around income, assets and other monetary-related stuff.
What marriage generally doesn't deal with and yet people think it does: "being in love", "till death sets us apart", "in good and bad", "respect", etc. In previous ages, laws covering marriage were actually trying to regulate what people of that era saw as "just", on top of treating marriage as a business contract. Today's laws are deliberately made in order to exclude anything else other than keeping marriage as a business contract that handles assets, inheritance, and other monetary-related stuff, laws are re-worked to completely ignore about what's "moral" or "just".
I.e. many decades ago, marriage stopped dealing even with breach of marital fidelity either, for this reason only. One can effectively sue other unmarried person over slander or libelous claims to compensate for emotional or monetary toll, yet one isn't allowed to sue other spouse over physical/mental stress over infidelity and neither will it affect the way divorce is handled - nobody cares about it and neither should you.
To sum it up, arguing that marriage is about love is void. Arguing that it's about "doing the right thing" is also void. These myths arose to shame and fight practice of dowry that women were expected to bring with marriage (widespread practice among Indo-Europeans), as well as forging personal interests and alliances through children (common practice among high nobility and royals) and handling the paternal obligations by having men presume legal responsibility over women and any children born that are presumably their own.
Arguing that marriage is more about love than assets in 2015 than it was in 1915 or even 1815 (at least among the commoners) is absurd. Reason for that is very simple, if you observe the attitudes towards marriage:
a) "If you really love me, you'll marry me" or people acting in this manner - this sounds like 100+ years old behavior.
b) "You don't need a marriage to prove your love"? That sounds like 2015.
By the way... "marriage is just a piece of paper" - this also sounds like 2015. People realize that marriage IS a piece of paper. And they generally say so because they know that it's a piece of paper which contains a business contract which is effectively criminal in its nature the way it handles assets and earnings.
That is an aspect of the relationship. You should love/have strong feelings for the person you marry however there is a reality to where you want to live, what socio-economic status you desire, and where you plan to live and raise your children.
Here's another perspective. If you as a woman work hard to achieve certain things such as financial stability, home ownership, etc. You need someone striving for similar achievement in life. If you two aren't moving in the same direction-problem.
In love your head and your heart should match.
One things for sure, love at first site is at the movies. Lust at first sight is possible.
Yes,men and women have sex with people they are not attracted to everyday.
If i was married to a man that was the breadwinner,out of respect,i would have sex with him even if i was not attracted to him.
He is providing for me after all.
Hi Jersey,
Perhaps you are confusing "pay-up" vs attraction. Most people will marry someone they're attracted to hence they're married to that particular person. You're getting negative replies because being intimate with someone for "being a breadwinner", even though you're not attracted to that person... may come off as you're with that person solely for material things he can provide.Most people will not have sex with someone they don't find appealing, I know I wouldn't.
I think your comment above were a bit confusing; I highlighted why you're getting perplexed reactions. It's possible for people to marry for money, however it is highly ostracized in our society. I understand it's fun being with someone we respect, however intimacy is even more enjoyable when it is with someone we have mutual attraction with.
In regards with "marriage is a business partnership/transaction", I disagree. For me, marriage is love, attraction, money, sex -all in one.. it is a huge transaction indeed.
It will be a sad and lonely marriage for me if I'm married for economic reason alone. He has to give me the butterfly in my stomach and he needs to have a job too, lol. I meant, there is nothing wrong with marrying or liking someone with a good job, however that alone will not hold a relationship for too long.
I don't think that marriage is only or even a mostly business partnership, but yes, you are merging two sets of financial assets and creating a new legal entity. To that end, I think that everyone should conduct the same level of due diligence that companies conduct before mergers, to ensure that the proposed partnership will succeed (however the parameters of success are defined).
So many corporate mergers fail, resulting in lost time, lost money, lost reputation, and lost jobs for innocent employees. When marriages fail, time, money, and reputation are also lost, and innocent children or pets may be impacted.
I am NOT saying that I would only marry someone who was much richer than I am or who could afford to maintain my current or desired standard of living. I am saying that I would not marry someone whose personal and financial objectives were way different from mine (and again, I am NOT saying that my objectives are the "right" ones), because I don't think that I would be successful in a relationship where the parties were fundamentally disagreed on basic principles.
While I am surprised and a bit touched by the number of people here saying that money shouldn't matter at all in a relationship, there is no shortage of news articles and posts on other websites (to be fair, I don't think I've seen any here, though maybe I am not looking in the right place) about women and men complaining - a lot! - about alimony, child support, etc. So whether or not money matters going into the relationship, it really seems to me that it matters a lot on the other side.
Anyone who says that money doesn't matter in a marriage or co-habitation is lying to themselves & to others.
I've known plenty of people in which their primary reason for marrying someone else was for $. This has happened both with women marrying men, and men marrying women.
That's one of the many issues I've always had with marriage - you can't take the financial equation out of this. I understand this, but I don't like it. In some of the relationships I've had over the years, they start off great - then, women start asking about my financial status, etc. - which is a real turn-off. I've broken up with women because they got too nosy about my finances....I'm not into any LTR's anymore, thankfully - so this doesn't come up anymore. I'm never with a woman long enough for her to bring this up, and they typically don't care that much since my relationships these days are mainly based on physical attraction...
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 07-24-2015 at 08:45 AM..
This is news? I thought everyone knew that in America, most women want to marry some guy who has a good job and can support them in the lifestyle they think they need or deserve.
LOL.
Maybe some do. I could name a couple of my son's female friends that fit that description. But they are young, and don't know any better. Personally, that has NEVER been anything near what I would want. Besides, in only ONE relationship, has the guy had a higher income than I. So, your assumptions are way off.
I've never had obligation sex. If one of us is in the mood and the other isn't - then we either get the other person in the mood or we respect the fact that they aren't in the mood. And I would never marry someone that I wasn't attracted to so that our sex life only consisted of obligation sex. Sex with someone I don't want to have sex with would pretty much be hell for me.
I've never been with someone that I didn't want to have sex with, so I can't relate, but why wouldn't you be in the mood? I know that security and being provided for is important too but there's much more to a relationship than that. You have to actually be attracted to the other person and willing to please them, and you should be with them for the right reasons otherwise it's just pure selfishness.
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.
