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.
Marriage at its heart is a resource arrangement, largely for the benefit of offspring. In modern practice, it's more than that, and I think it should - barring likely temporary unhappy stretches - be emotionally uplifting.
When you first brought up the past marriage, I only saw something like "insurmountable," which could be a matter of opinion. Now I'm leaning toward something like substance abuse or chronic mental illness, either of which could make someone very gun-shy about future relationships. I belabor the point because, though you downplay it, now there's a potential deal-breaker involving someone else, who I doubt will change what he wants or (per the new info) stick around in a perpetual arrangement not to his liking. Probably easier for you to rethink your aversion to marriage.
That brings up another reason I'd like to see marriage encouraged and preferred: simplicity. All kinds of problems happen nowadays because of differences in the types of relationships people want.
"Rethink my aversion towards marriage." Yeah--there are a lot of variables that play into that, but it's definitely not an aversion towards marriage in general. I'm not "downplaying" anything, but I'm also not sharing my reasons for not wishing to marry a man who I've known for one year and have been exclusively dating for a bit more than half of that year.
I'm not one for cohabitation without at least an engagement (no "perma-fiancee arrangements, either) and my partner is well aware of that because we *do* have open and honest conversations (even *gasp* "emotionally honest" ones!). It is what it is; even without the institution of marriage, he reaps many of the benefits of having a woman in his life just as I am able to reap the rewards of having him in my own. If, in time, he decides to leave because I don't wish to marry or cohabitate, so be it. It's not that I don't care, but I will not be railroaded into something that I do not want because it is expected of me or out of fear of being abandoned. That's just not my style--never has been and never will be. I am content within myself and having my partner in my life is an enhancement to that contentment even if his presence also adds a layer of complications to my already very full and busy life.
As for your misguided belief that problems occur nowadays because of differences in the types of relationships that people want: marriage is rarely as simple as you believe for most, although outside of my reason for divorcing my own husband, mine truly was as we were well-matched in terms of values, how we viewed and handled finances, family, education, outlooks, complimentary interests and personalities, etc. My in-laws were fantastic, my spouse was one of my best friends (we'd known each other for nearly a decade before we married), there were rarely any conflicts or fights within our household, but yet....we divorced.
Plenty of folks back in the day "married in haste and repented at leisure" and divorce was far more difficult to obtain, so were things really that much more simple before women (and men) had as many relationship options as they do today? There's a rather long continuum between "hookup culture" and marriage and plenty of variations of types of relationships within it that work for different folks.
Anecdotally, being that most of my friends are male and I work in a male-dominated field, I likely have a bit more insight into the male psyche and empathy towards their relationship and dating woes than you do for women unless, of course, you have mostly female friends and work in a female-dominated field. Given your stance on women and dating, I strongly have my doubts about that, but I could be wrong, of course.
At the end of the day, it's not the role of available women to put themselves out there so that lonely men have a shot at marriage or even dating--especially when a lot of these men just don't have a lot to bring to the table, so to speak (or begrudge even the cost of a cup of coffee and few hours of their time if a date doesn't turn out as they believe that it should have. ).
"Single women aren't happier than if they were married" (or marriage doesn't make women less happy).
It depends on the individual but generally stats show divorced or widowed women are less likely to remarry. What does that tell you, they are happy single, they had a bad marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
First of all, everyone knows that people are happiest in good relationships - but that doesn't mean much, because many marriages aren't happy.
Some studies say single women are happier (and healthier) than married women - but that deserves more examination. The research focuses on middle-aged women. Health problems often start in middle age, and many studies show happiness for both sexes declines in middle age.
Also, anxious women (who often are less happy) are more likely to marry than less anxious women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17270393 Anxious women seem to have, or develop, more health problems too. Anxious men probably are less likely to marry than other men - but I don't know if I saw data about that.
Then there's the truism that singles who are trying and failing to enter into relationships are less happy than singles who aren't trying, and middle age is when many single women stop putting much effort into coupling up.
Are you swayed at all by my argument? Do you have any other explanations? This is about small differences in happiness, but it does matter if people decide to stay single based on false information. The million-dollar question that research probably can't answer: how does a mediocre marriage affect happiness?
I'm not sure what health problems and anxiety has to do with being happier married or single. The abstract also stated women with anxiety disorders also divorce at a higher rate. As well of course if one is trying and failing to enter into a relationship they would be unhappy about it. So no your argument doesn't hold water.
Over all I think trying to quantify happiness, especially based on one variable, is a colossal waste of time and I have no faith in "happiness" studies.
That's what makes me a leader By the way, the aspect of single life as in some ways easier - true, and that's something I dislike about single and loving it. I value an attitude of hard work, toward changing surroundings for the better.
Anyway, it's too bad the very concept of "happiness" is vague. I agree with people that the mood-state form of that is mostly a natural set-point and hardly is affected by marriage (unless traumatizing). However, there are other positive qualities such as sense of purpose, empathy, and agreeability that marriage tends to increase. I think marriage has the potential to be great and I've always been marriage-minded, to the point where I've never wanted any substitute.
You're a leader? Would you care to let us know what your leadership credentials are? Do you lead any organizations outside of the internet? What kind?
I'm a leader, too. I'm on the Leadership Council (which is a sort of board of directors) for a club with over a thousand members, and an influential voice in an even larger community of people. But ya know, that does not give me a sense of license to tell everybody else how they ought to act. I could reasonably cite the studies that suggest that BDSM makes people happier and say that everyone should do it, and I would personally be much happier if everyone did, but I think that would be a completely freaking ridiculous thing to do. But then, it would also fly in the face of one of the most sacred tenets of this thing I do, which is CONSENT. Freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, specific consent. Which means that nobody gets to tell anybody else what they should be doing in pursuit of happiness.
I mean you can try. But *looking around* I don't see anybody here signing up to take part in your movement or acknowledging you as a leader of anything. Quite the opposite, 18 pages of the opposite and going strong. Seems people have this bizarre notion that they and no one else, should be the ones determining their choices and their happiness levels.
I mean I detest the color pink, and I value the color black, so everyone should immediately stop wearing pink as it offends my eyes, I'm very sure that everyone would be happier wearing black, and I don't believe any studies which suggest anything else, including the sales figures at Macy's. Those people who enjoy wearing pink shirts are just lying to themselves. It's pathetic, really, very sad, and I shall start a movement, since I'm a leader, to change the world! Beginning by arguing with people on the internet. Pardon me while I go annoy the Fashion & Beauty subforum with my opinions framed as gospel.
I'm trying, every way I can, to say that you are welcome to think whatever you please, but you shouldn't be surprised when no one listens, and if you want to talk about people lying to themselves, thinking that you are leading a movement, if you're only preaching to the choir of single male discontents who echo "Yeah!" when you talk about women needing to try harder to become wives...I mean how many "happy single" people have you in fact persuaded to do literally anything ever? Where are your wins? Who are you leading, where are your followers? Inquiring minds want to know. So yeah, delusional? How about delusions of grandeur, OP?
And I tell ya, the last fellow that most women ought to be making ourselves available for, is one who talks about us like pork bellies, and refers to dating as "the market." When I hear that, I completely understand women deciding to be happily single rather than engage with men who think this way, at least there is some dignity in being your own person, not a market commodity.
Picking carefully will take longer, but it doesn't mean sitting around doing nothing, which is what I oppose most of all (except maybe careless promiscuity). I'm about prodding effort, not musical-chairs marriage. Selectiveness and lack of effort seem to go together often, unfortunately, sometimes under the banner of being single is better (than anything realistically out there).
It is nonsense. My statement is bold wording. Here's more, this whole 'crusade' of yours, just because you can't get a date? Maybe the problem isn't the world (even the world is a massive massive problem), but you.
Learn how to talk to women. Learn how to seal the deal. Learn how to interact. Build yourself, switch up your style. Then maybe, you'll run into more "effort".
And sitting around doing nothing? Working long hours is nothing?
Do you have a job? Or anything to do other than moan about women not giving you a chance? If you're broke and jobless, that is a huge factor.
I've dealt with many people with a similar mindset to yours. They complain, but I could point out ten thousand things wrong with them. Health-related things. (Hygiene, etc.)
Right? ...and the irony is, you would make a much more interesting and likable mate of the 2, if one was forced into The Movement.
This other guy will never get it.
The more conventionally successful approach meets the moment in the Beastie Boys music video where the guy dressed as an ape gets the girl. Life's not fair, lol. Of course I've had some successes with women (not necessarily fulfilling my lofty goal). Almost every man has. Actually, I've probably shot down more times than I've been shot down, going back to when I was new to it all and hardly trying (and not especially nice to behold). Jokey mix of bad boy and do-gooder. Women/females seem to sense that sometimes even when I'm in quieter form. Even the people here who suggest I'm repulsive try to interact with me. (I don't like to talk about my life, but this is the Relationships forum and the audience might as well hear what actually attracts.)
Still, I could be a completely inexperienced failure and yet have close-up and book knowledge of marriage. While it does not work for everyone, it's the best arrangement. There's no credible argument otherwise. Can't have a well-functioning world and satisfied populace when that's not overwhelmingly viewed as such.
Marriage is the historic foundation of our society. That doesn't mean that in this day and age it's the best option for every person of marriage age. In fact, it's never been that, and there have always been societal provisions for those people.
While it does not work for everyone, it's the best arrangement. There's no credible argument otherwise. Can't have a well-functioning world and satisfied populace when that's not overwhelmingly viewed as such.
*cough* COBBLERS! *cough*
Some are not built for co-existence, and certainly not cohabitation. I resist, reject and powerfully resent any one size fits all approach. The best arrangement is 'if it harms none, do as you will.' Ever heard of that?
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.
).
By the way, the aspect of single life as in some ways easier - true, and that's something I dislike about single and loving it. I value an attitude of hard work, toward changing surroundings for the better.
...and the irony is, you would make a much more interesting and likable mate of the 2, if one was forced into The Movement. 
