# Why does modern culture look down upon marriage so much?



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Before I start, I wanted to say that I respect your opinions. They are very clearly stated, respectful, and I hope I can respond in such a manner as well you did.



Lonewaer said:


> Some* of the financial burden, let's not get too excited here. The biggest chunk of it is still taken by men. This is why men choose better paying careers, and thus as a demographic are paid better than women as a demographic are (not because of some sexist pay gap). They choose those careers mainly because they need to provide for their family. And men are judged, not just by society, but by their wives, primarily, on how much they can provide. When women talk about liking "ambitious" men, ultimately it comes down to that : "can his career financially support me and my potential children ?" Some are more honest than that about it, and they are few, some other, you only discover what "ambitious" means when they decide to file for divorce when it's one of their main reasons.


I agree that men overwhelmingly hold the financial burden and I do recognize that there is pressure for men to perform at these levels by many women. I do think that men don't always choose these careers out of necessity but because they excel and like them. When given free choice, the sexes tend to choose different careers and due to the relative importance, rarity etc. of those jobs, men end up getting paid more as a demographic (among other reasons). I do not believe in a pay gap that is not accounted for with non-discriminatory explanations/data, although I recognize there are cases in which sexism legitimately occurs, but that's another discussion. I believe that if men do not want this pressure, then they need to collectively avoid sexist women who expect them to hold the financial burden because of being a man. We are essentially in agreement here, I just wanted to add my own bits.



Lonewaer said:


> I disagree here, they pretty much are. 3 out of 4 divorces end up having the man pay alimony/child support to the woman. Money is very much a replacement for a "loving husband", unless said husband's career can allow her her to have the lifestyle she wants ; the reason being Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Financial security comes before intimacy, companionship, family, and after physiological needs (food, water, clothing, shelter).
> Let's also remember that around 70% of divorces are initiated by women. If they are much worse off after, maybe those specific ones should have been considering that aspect before leaving. And look, they have their reasons, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but their financial situation should be something to consider before filing for divorce, especially when women also get full custody of the children 80% of the time.


It's implied that this is because of a biased court system and although I don't deny the possibility, there are also non-discriminatory methods in which to explain this such as the fact above being that men overwhelmingly carry the financial burden, thus it is only natural that in most cases, it will be the man paying the woman and not the other way around. I'm sure there are other explanations, but I think phenomena is best explained as a result of prior facts effecting current ones than assuming ulterior motives. (But again, not necessarily saying you're wrong either). Agreed. People need to consider the results of their actions and those who make stupidly destructive decisions should not be rewarded for it. If a woman divorces her husband, she is giving up her husband. If he was a bad guy, then so be it, but if he was a good guy, then good luck being a single mother as she will be living without the love of a good man which is part of her punishment.



Lonewaer said:


> I'll be honest here, of all things about this topic, I really do not want to hear about how hard it is to be a single mother. They generally are the ones filing for divorce, they generally are the ones wanting to have full custody, and ending up getting it, they generally benefit for alimony or child support, and they then complain that it's hard because they're realizing that providing for a child is actually hard, and that now they have to do that alone on top of everything else, and want compassion for it. I'll have compassion for the few exceptions that have lost their husband to illness, accidents… general death of the husband. But those who chose bad, unstable men, or for those who chose to leave perfectly decent men, or those who got left alone or who left because they cheated, I'm going to have to delight myself in their self-inflicted misery and guilt, and reserve both my sympathy and my empathy for people who deserve it.


I completely agree. There are people out there getting handouts they should not be receiving and there are people taking advantage of the system who do not deserve our sympathy. However, I believe it would be difficult for any system to accurately differentiate between a good woman and a bad one, legal-wise. I would rather help good people and accidentally help some bad ones, than just abandon everyone altogether. Also, if a good woman who picked the wrong man is not worthy of sympathy, then a good man who picked a bad woman is also not. It could be said that many men picked the "wrong woman" after they divorced. Essentially, I'm saying that both men and women can pick wrongly and I think they deserve sympathy. It's always hard to get someone's real intentions though.



Lonewaer said:


> Possibly, yes. That is the whole point of the contract on the man's side, so I'd hope so. It's still not always the case, just like women are not always guaranteed financial security. It happens.


Agreed. I'd say that nothing is guaranteed in life, good or bad.



Lonewaer said:


> The net positive for women is pretty much guaranteed, there are exceptions, but let's not kid ourselves here ; the net negative for men is not guaranteed, however it remains much more of a coin flip than for women.


Well if the divorce rates are high, 70% of them are initiated for women, and women are generally worse off being divorced than men, then it doesn't seem very guaranteed that marriage is always a win for women. Men cheat too and although they do face the majority of financial burden aren't always in the right.



Lonewaer said:


> Why it's illegal, I have no idea. Wanting a paternity test currently is equivalent to the man asking his wife : "I trust you, but can I please verify that you haven't cheated on me, and that I'm not raising another man's child ?". Some women will get offended regardless of if they have another man's child or not, some will not care, and the definite cheaters, will say no and pretend to be part of the first category, "didn't do it but offended regardless so no you can't test for paternity". So the why, I don't know. Honestly it could be argued that if, following a certain narrative, men have been monopolizing power away from women since forever, you'd think they'd have legalized things in their favor in that regard by now. But this isn't the case, and I genuinely wonder why it's still like that, am starting to think it might be because it benefits women to keep men in the dark.
> 
> As for the effect widespread tests would have… Right know, there is no incentive to stay faithful other than personal values and judgment, and we all know what the result can be when we trust that. Tests being illegal promotes promiscuity. Women can cheat, and then refuse any paternity test being suggested/demanded. Making tests not only legal, but also mandatory at the baby's birth, and DEFINITELY NOT up to the woman will, would stop that. The baby is given birth, a day to recover, and then the test occurs before anyone comes out of the hospital, and there's no issue… unless. Unless the woman has something to hide, in which case, she will personally have a problem, and will deserves anything coming her way other than financial support.


Yeah, I'm not sure why it's illegal. Maybe society just hasn't caught up to the idea. If you don't mind me asking, what country are you from? Maybe this is a topic to make a thread on, although I wouldn't be able to participate because I don't have the post count.




Lonewaer said:


> Let me clarify. I don't think it was experienced that way either. I'm saying that *if* someone wants to argue that women have always been sexual objects, which some people are doing in this thread, then I will argue that men have always been walking wallets, financial objects. And very likely there would be no counter argument to that, because the latter has definitely always been factually true despite people in that situation not feeling that way, while the former would be debatable from case to case. And even if the former was strictly true, then it would make things only equal.


Ah, I see. I agree that if someone wants to claim that women were sex slaves then must have necessarily been work horses as well, in effect.



Lonewaer said:


> I do agree that the environment, and I will add biology too, made, and still makes marriage a realistic and pragmatic approach to raising children (although if the relationship is solid between the parents marriage's only benefit is financial, but if money is nowhere near to being a problem, not getting married is probably much more reasonable. I think I have mentioned that in another post from maybe a year ago, but here goes. The wife of one of my friend is a feminist who has been advocating quite vocally for everything that feminists fight for, including, for the sake of this discussion, the abolition of gender roles. Then she had her first child, and as soon as the child was born, she put everything on pause. She was writing her PhD in law, which she stopped doing, to recover, and then to raise the child. She had absolutely no issue whatsoever putting her ideology aside for the good of the child. She realized that it would be better to stay at home, while my friend was providing enough resources for 3 mouths (which if things were reversed, she would complain about doing all the work I'd bet money on that). Then she had another child. Still a stay-at-home mom. Two years later, she finished writing her PhD, is now a lawyer. That's a good 4 years pause during which they "went back" to traditional gender roles, despite her being vocal about wanting them to disappear. It was quite something to witness that from an external point of view, the dissonance was incredible. And they could very much have waited for 1-2 years to have kids too, and have him be a stay-at-home dad, and her be the breadwinner, because as a lawyer, I'd bet she makes more than he does. You'd think this would be an attractive alternative for her, but… no. She probably had reasons, which are really that she wants 1) to be the one raising the children, and 2) to stay attracted to him, which she won't be if he's a stay-at-home dad. I don't like to bring up anecdotal experiences, but this one is supposedly a woman of convictions, and she put those aside because she got brought back to reality.


I personally think that people who are very politically intense will likely be hypocrites. It's difficult to be so very stuck in some belief set and also be consistent in your actions. I think this example is useful because it shows how people's priorities can easily change when in a different situation and those changes in behavior can have a pretty obvious biological motive. I think everyone should educate themselves on this aspect of biology and use it to protect themselves or temper their expectations. I think from a practical perspective, not getting married makes sense, but I don't think humans are entirely practical beings. We are paradoxical in a lot of ways and even when marriage doesn't seem practical or logical, I think it can still be add something that wasn't there before, but you weren't necessarily arguing that it's useless.



Lonewaer said:


> Point is, when environment and biology exert constraints, we all quickly go back to things that are deemed "unhealthy", "bad", "unfair" by ideologues, but that also incidentally have helped us prosper to the point we are now. Because without that we wouldn't have gone much further than caves.


I agree. Ultimately we need to come to terms with who we are, our nature, our biology, etc.



Lonewaer said:


> Nor of any laws that made women objects or slaves I'm sure. Laws are not so easy to come by in history and archaeology, I'm pretty sure everyone here is not talking about laws, me included. I'm personally arguing from and with anecdotal memory about less anecdotal things because I'm not a lawyer, and everyone else is doing that, because they're not lawyers either. The one thing I'm certain about is that paternity tests are illegal in my country, I remember it because it's a recent and significant information. Everything else is using one's ability to argue coherent points.


Great points. I have to agree.




Lonewaer said:


> Yes, it's mainly fairy tales. For the most part there aren't calculations, I agree, but it's definitely all selfish, on both sides. Women start "counting" when they feel dissatisfied in their personal situation, that helps them choose whether or not they want to stay in the marriage ; men start counting when they start realizing they are getting fucked over at a demographic level, before, during, or after their own personal experience ; we don't count the same things. But the fairy tales are definitely problematic here. For women to be married is a deam, for men, it's work.


I'd say that all humans are selfish and all actions stem from a selfish motivation, but I think those interests can be aligned in such a way where everyone benefits. I think in a marriage it's generally within everyone's benefit if they stay together, happy, fulfilled, etc. I don't believe anyone wants to get a divorce. Thus, I think the solution to avoid divorce is to ensure that those interests are continually met and maintained for both parties.

Well like I mentioned earlier, marriage isn't a guaranteed dream for women and guaranteed work for men. We all work anyways. Why not for a loving wife/husband and kids? Nothing against people who work for themselves though. I'm just trying to clarify that it isn't so black and white.

I think it's understandable to become cautious and/or angry about something like that. I also think that we move forward as a society when we speak our minds and demand more from our lives and I think this conversation is representative of that. Thanks for your inputs and I hope you find my response satisfactory.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

sweetblasphemy said:


> I'm only 19, so I can't say that I know much about life; yet something that really bothers me about our time is how much marriage is seen as something you probably shouldn't do. I understand that it can romanticized far too much and that it's far from perfect. However, whenever I see videos about why marriage is a bad idea, they always describe how it ties people down and takes away freedom. Shouldn't this be the opposite of what real love is? Whenever I think of someone ideal to marry, they would be a best friend, someone I trust beyond anything. It makes me depressed when I hear people say that you should never stay with someone forever and that love is just a false concept that isn't worth anything. Is my opinion in the minority? (I should mention that I'm not in a relationship right now, this is just my general opinion).


probably because the divorce rate is so high. you are left with a lot of bitter and jaded people who advise against it. i think the problem is people rush into marriage or get married for the wrong reasons


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Penny said:


> probably because the divorce rate is so high. you are left with a lot of bitter and jaded people who advise against it. i think the problem is people rush into marriage or get married for the wrong reasons


I agree and I think @Lonewaer said it well when he said that



> Right know, there is no incentive to stay faithful other than personal values and judgment


To take what he said further, I believe we live in a time where we are more free than ever to exercise our choices and because of this, it becomes increasingly important to set our own boundaries for ourselves and others.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Jansen said:


> I agree that men overwhelmingly hold the financial burden and I do recognize that there is pressure for men to perform at these levels by many women. I do think that men don't always choose these careers out of necessity but because they excel and like them. When given free choice, the sexes tend to choose different careers and due to the relative importance, rarity etc. of those jobs, men end up getting paid more as a demographic (among other reasons). I do not believe in a pay gap that is not accounted for with non-discriminatory explanations/data, although I recognize there are cases in which sexism legitimately occurs, but that's another discussion. *I believe that if men do not want this pressure, then they need to collectively avoid sexist women who expect them to hold the financial burden because of being a man*. We are essentially in agreement here, I just wanted to add my own bits.


Same here, I agree with your points, and would just nuance the bolded by adding I don't think it would ever happen. It really IS*the solution, it's just… I think men are too starved for a lot of things that being in a relationship with a woman brings. Companionship, intimacy, support, sex… a lot of us are not ready to give that up until things change, sadly.




Jansen said:


> It's implied that this is because of a biased court system and although I don't deny the possibility, there are also non-discriminatory methods in which to explain this such as the fact above being that men overwhelmingly carry the financial burden, thus it is only natural that in most cases, it will be the man paying the woman and not the other way around. I'm sure there are other explanations, but I think phenomena is best explained as a result of prior facts effecting current ones than assuming ulterior motives. (But again, not necessarily saying you're wrong either). Agreed. People need to consider the results of their actions and those who make stupidly destructive decisions should not be rewarded for it. If a woman divorces her husband, she is giving up her husband. If he was a bad guy, then so be it, but if he was a good guy, then good luck being a single mother as she will be living without the love of a good man which is part of her punishment.


I think the issue I have, from a legal point of view, which again, I don't know law, is that instead of giving custody to the mother mostly by default (which I think is not even explicitly written in the law) and make the father pay alimony/child support, custody could be decided at least partially proportionally based on the income of each party. If the father makes more money, why take the children away only to make him pay because the mother cannot support them alone ? It doesn't make sense to me. Clearly here, the point is not to provide for the children, but to support the mother's previous lifestyle.




Jansen said:


> I completely agree. There are people out there getting handouts they should not be receiving and there are people taking advantage of the system who do not deserve our sympathy. However, I believe it would be difficult for any system to accurately differentiate between a good woman and a bad one, legal-wise. I would rather help good people and accidentally help some bad ones, than just abandon everyone altogether. Also, if a good woman who picked the wrong man is not worthy of sympathy, then a good man who picked a bad woman is also not. It could be said that many men picked the "wrong woman" after they divorced. Essentially, I'm saying that both men and women can pick wrongly and I think they deserve sympathy. It's always hard to get someone's real intentions though.


Well of course legally we can't be as black and white as I am being here, it's much more nuanced, but I refuse to give out my personal sympathy and empathy to people who at least do not have the self-awareness to realize what they are doing behind good intentions.

Ultimately though, women select their partners… men pretty much shoot in the dark and have much, much lower standards, and this instinct should be controlled as much as possible (and those men's standards kept high), but in the end, women decide who they mate with, because the environmental and biological constraints are on them. It's unfair, but none of us decides who gets constrained (and I'm sick of men being blamed for that, too). Getting pregnant is costly in terms of resources, in terms of physical and mental health, and so their standards have to be high, but right now, they are the ones to have to find a compromise between too low standards and too high standards. And we need to start holding people responsible for their choices, which by en large, we're doing for men, but not for women. Regarding the single mothers complaining, I expect the complaints to increase in the future, because I hope we're gonna do exactly that, hold them accountable and responsible for their choices and actions.




Jansen said:


> Well if the divorce rates are high, 70% of them are initiated for women, and women are generally worse off being divorced than men, then it doesn't seem very guaranteed that marriage is always a win for women. Men cheat too and although they do face the majority of financial burden aren't always in the right.


Not always, of course, but we can't make rules out of exceptions. I wouldn't say that they are worse off because the divorce settlement was not enough in their favor, though. It could be completely unrelated. And look, I can think of cases where there is equality where it's not in favor of the woman, recently Adele will have to part with some of her assets, that her ex-husband will get. In her case there is a feminist outrage because suddenly it's not equality, it's not what they fought for, blah blah, but… yes it is. This is how it gets handled most of the time, except usually the woman is on the other side. Of course this is an extreme example because Adele is filthy rich, but it happens all the time the other way around, and it only bothers men when they realize it.




Jansen said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure why it's illegal. Maybe society just hasn't caught up to the idea. If you don't mind me asking, what country are you from? Maybe this is a topic to make a thread on, although I wouldn't be able to participate because I don't have the post count.


France. I don't really want to spend the time on a thread on this section of this forum on this topic. To be honest I'm already surprised that some members haven't called me sexist or incel yet after reading my initial post, because it is usually what they do ; or try to argue unarguable points that don't make sense but go their way, etc. I'm also surprised that the exchange we're currently having is cordial, because it is so rare, so thank you for that.




Jansen said:


> I personally think that people who are very politically intense will likely be hypocrites. It's difficult to be so very stuck in some belief set and also be consistent in your actions. I think this example is useful because it shows how people's priorities can easily change when in a different situation and those changes in behavior can have a pretty obvious biological motive. I think everyone should educate themselves on this aspect of biology and use it to protect themselves or temper their expectations. I think from a practical perspective, not getting married makes sense, but I don't think humans are entirely practical beings. We are paradoxical in a lot of ways and even when marriage doesn't seem practical or logical, I think it can still be add something that wasn't there before, but you weren't necessarily arguing that it's useless.


Oh we're definitely all very emotional beings for sure. I think an issue we, individuals, are all having, is doing our best to inject as much pragmatism as possible into our lives, and it varies a lot from individual to individual, because we know emotions are fickle at best, and that they cannot help us organize our lives, whereas pragmatism can and does. 




Jansen said:


> I'd say that all humans are selfish and all actions stem from a selfish motivation, but I think those interests can be aligned in such a way where everyone benefits. I think in a marriage it's generally within everyone's benefit if they stay together, happy, fulfilled, etc. I don't believe anyone wants to get a divorce. Thus, I think the solution to avoid divorce is to ensure that those interests are continually met and maintained for both parties.


If… both parties invest to make it work. That's the condition in my opinion. Completely agreed on your first point.



Jansen said:


> Well like I mentioned earlier, marriage isn't a guaranteed dream for women and guaranteed work for men. We all work anyways. Why not for a loving wife/husband and kids? Nothing against people who work for themselves though. I'm just trying to clarify that it isn't so black and white.


What I'm trying to say overall is that currently for men, getting married is like playing Russian Roulette with 3-4 bullets in a 6-shot. Can be done, but I'm not taking that risk, and I'm actually hoping men in general will stop taking that risk. Things need to change, and they won't if we keep buying into this.



Jansen said:


> I think it's understandable to become cautious and/or angry about something like that. I also think that we move forward as a society when we speak our minds and demand more from our lives and I think this conversation is representative of that. Thanks for your inputs and I hope you find my response satisfactory.


That was a nice exchange, yes. It's also understandable how people who are happily living a good experience of it would defend it. It just generally misses the mark when the discussion is about more than just personal experiences.


----------



## Kaznos (May 3, 2018)

.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Penny said:


> probably because the divorce rate is so high. you are left with a lot of bitter and jaded people who advise against it. i think the problem is people rush into marriage or get married for the wrong reasons


arsenic is bad because of all the people who have tried it that are giving it bad rep.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Modern culture looks down on anything that takes self discipline, emotional restraint and hard work, it seems like.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I also think there are new and divergent ways of viewing relationships. People are discovering their own unique identities (including sexuality), and also there is probably residual trauma experienced from previous generations that make a lot of people _resistant_ to the ideas of marriage.

It's easier to stay single and take care of ourselves. And in the age where people experienced narcissism growing up, it tends to deter those who like the idea of marriage to realistically re-examine what they're getting into.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

Necrofantasia said:


> Marriage is not synonymous with love, or family....you can have those without it.


Incorrect, marriage continues today only because of love and family.

Many marriages fail, but that’s nothing to do with the concept just the generation. Marriage transcends human thinking, it existed before the establishment of human laws. It was neither men nor women who created marriage.




Necrofantasia said:


> 2) It is antithetical to humanity's promiscuous and fickle nature.


You’re assuming too much. Not everyone wants promiscuity. I know plenty of individuals that don’t care for that lifestyle.




Necrofantasia said:


> 5) We've had time to observe the detrimental effects marriage has on the participants and children, and deemed them not worth whatever benefit marriage could offer.


Who is we? Me and many others observe healthy family ties that extend into greater communities.

Perhaps this is merely a pessimistic view.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Homosocial people often cannot stand being with the opposite sex in the same room, or house for long periods of time. They also tend to like hanging out with the same sex, and will react angrily, or be displeased if they see the wife associating with other men. This describes the "lack of freedom" people sometimes talk about in marriage. 

Certain men will often find that it's easier to focus on career and studies after being married, so it really depends on the person. If you find the right one, then consider settling down and getting married. You won't have to think about attracting the opposite sex, dating, finding "the right one", and can focus more on tasks at hand. 

How you find the right one depends on the individual, and what you ask. For example, you can test out your feelings for the other person's reaction if you were to ask him "will you marry me", in your mind. If you feel it uncomfortable to do so, then the person is likely not right in someway, even if he looks absolutely handsome or very skilled. Similarly, if the person you ask the question to might be put off, then it's also not right.

This really applies to 12PM Role Temperament Energy beings, though if a Naga person (homosocial with Fear, Envy, Love and Belief Emotionally suppressed), who appeals using libido or sex-drive, says "I love you", and you reply "I love you, too", even if you think you just love him as a person (not in a romantic partner way), the other person will likely take it as a marriage proposal, which will prompt him to propose (even if the people are young, like in Middle School, which might cause you to think it's something of a joke). If nothing further happens (no sexual relations), yet the Naga feels like you two are married, then the Energy being might engage in physical self-harming abilities, like over-eating, over-drinking, or pull all-nighters. A Draco Reptilian (previously called Ascended Reptilian) being will likely spell-bind you and make you be attracted to him physically (and likely personality-wise), though you will likely not be as attracted while in bed, and appear drained or in a daze. You will also not be as romantically attracted to the person over time. A Maitre being likely displays exceptional enthusiasm, discuss marriage early, and make you more bold (put you off your guard), though can be very off-putting with how he treats other people, and might appear controlling (his way or the highway type).

An Energy being (especially of 9PM to 12PM-ygg) might psychically suggest that you will marry him after eating a meal together, if you will place your arms around his shoulders. This might sound like a silly superstition, though if you take up on the offer, then events will conspire to bring you two together. For example, while you want to further a relationship with another Energy being, there will be "butterflies in the stomach" when you think about doing something to advance the relationship. Your mind will also likely turn to "what will that person think if you post pictures of you with the other person". If there is a relationship, there might be some unexpected happening that makes the relationship turn sour. A Sensor being (especially your Shadow Self, or cognitive-functions-reversed) will likely appear attracted to you (can't take his eyes off), or psychically appeal to you to talk to him (magnetic attraction). However, using the "will you marry me" test, you will find it difficult to mentally say to a Sensor being. it's worth mentioning that the Shadow-Self attraction, along with attractions with other 12PM Energy beings, come when the person is a virgin (has not had any sexual relations with another person), due to the ability for Energy Beings and Sensors to detect other virgins, though not in Draco Reptilian or Naga beings. While losing virginity loses certain "magic" for attracting other 12PM Energy Beings and Sensors, Energy Beings of 9PM to 12PM-ygg will find it more attractive, and psychically suggest marriage. 

For information about the different beings, please refer to the diagrams in this thread: Energy-based people (who relies on internal feelings)... (information about Naga and Maitre have not been updated)

For information about 9PM-12PM-ygg Role Temperament (information about 12PM-ygg has not been updated), please refer to this thread: MBTI+: Destiny Temperaments - How your Optimal Sleep...


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't know why people use arguments like, "Women look for a good provider" or "The courts favor women." That sure isn't what I've seen in my life.

I'm in Canada. Maybe it's that way in some other country.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I sorta go back and forth.

Failed marriage.

I actually always was very sad my marriage did not work and have really stirred away from tying myself down to commitment easily since.

Anyways mental health and exposure became more important to me than maintaining marriage after it became clear my ex was not interested in changing with me but only wanted me to settle to his preferences. Whelp had to leave.

I will say we were and still are pretty good co parents together. And many aspects of marriage can be ideal for raising children/family.

I’m in the middle Id marry again. But I have to be in love and it has to be better compatibility and healthy setting

I do not recommend marriage to people under 26. I got married at 22 that is way too fricken young in retrospect. Especially when I observe my 17 yr old who is only 5 years from that.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

islandlight said:


> I don't know why people use arguments like, "Women look for a good provider" or "The courts favor women." That sure isn't what I've seen in my life.
> 
> I'm in Canada. Maybe it's that way in some other country.


I find it annoying as someone 
Who took it to the chin and left everything just for freedom and fresh start

While many women can be psycho in pursuit for alimony or child support. Many women are not.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Because having a bunch of men that want to marry you and treat you like a wife while giving them nothing in return is much better than actually being married to a fat ass porn addicted manchild addicted to vidya you make significantly more than while also developing life long cellulite from birthing out more turbo autists with tons of depression/mental illness. It's only a problem if you have no options or feel you will be alone forever or something. Why train the bull for a decade in marriage when you can ride him for free? LOL.

Why does marriage offer any woman these days? It's the same with 5'1" Indian men forcing women to keep virginity.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

islandlight said:


> I don't know why people use arguments like, "Women look for a good provider" or "The courts favor women." That sure isn't what I've seen in my life.
> 
> I'm in Canada. Maybe it's that way in some other country.


It's mostly male specimen that've never touched a female in their life and old 63 year old fat divorced men that say this in America so you should ignore it.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Sensational said:


> I do not recommend marriage to people under 26. I got married at 22 that is way too fricken young in retrospect. Especially when I observe my 17 yr old who is only 5 years from that.



I feel pretty similar--or at least be cautious at this age, and definitely if your partner is older than 30 and you are under 25, because people's brains aren't even fully mature until 25 and imo people need room and time to continue growing as people rather being locked into a role.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Catwalk said:


> Because having a bunch of men that want to marry you and treat you like a wife while giving them nothing in return is much better than actually being married to a fat ass porn addicted manchild addicted to vidya you make significantly more than while also developing life long cellulite from birthing out more turbo autists with tons of depression/mental illness. It's only a problem if you have no options or feel you will be alone forever or something. Why train the bull for a decade in marriage when you can ride him for free? LOL.
> 
> Why does marriage offer any woman these days? It's the same with 5'1" Indian men forcing women to keep virginity.


This is wrong on many levels.

Men do *not* want to marry you and treat you like a wife. If they truly did, then you would not have the fear you do of being controlled (the fundamental fear of Type 8's). Your attitude creates your reality and because your fear of being controlled is over-expressed, you judge marriage not worth it when in truth it certainly is.

Even if it were true that men want to marry you and treat you like a wife, the result is still undeniably immoral and not better at all. There is nothing better about living a life of fear when compared to facing life head on, whatever difficulty that inevitably follows. That difficulty is good because it forces you to develop.

We will all age, you included. We all struggle with some difficulty. It could be weight, it could be video games, it could be what you have described here. But deeming the whole process as unworthy of your time is extremely selfish, defeating, and immoral. There is no guarantee of the tragedy you so laid out. It is unnecessary tragic and unnecessary suffering to assume so. Yet, you must assume that some sort of tragedy will come because it will and you must face it or suffer the consequences.

The birth of children is a noble and beautiful thing and you are foolish to minimize it and every mother must accept that her child will suffer, be it from life in general or some unforeseen condition.

If you do not respect humankind, the nature of love, or morality in general you WILL be alone. It is not those who desire marriage and connection that will be most prone to being alone, it is those who deem it childish, unnecessary, and stupid who will be alone. The thought of having the kind of options you state is an illusion. There are no options that are immorally constructed. They are just paths of thin ice, ice that gets thinner as you walk along it. When it finally cracks, you can try to rationalize your position as if it were stable, but it will never be so. That is not an option, that is a death sentence.

Why should you engage in any building process? To build something. You can't inherent a home you did not build yourself. You will destroy it, fail to upkeep it. Nothing comes for free.

Shed off this immoral attitude. It will only hurt you and those around you. It is extremely negative, selfish, immoral, and nasty. Your preoccupation with aesthetics should lead you to ensure that your inside is as beautiful as whatever outside you have cultivated.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> Marriage is not synonymous with love, or family....you can have those without it.
> 
> Marriage is basically a means to lock yourself with someone so you're forced to exhaust every means to make a relationship work. Back when contraceptives did not exist it was useful as the couple essentially was tied to the children they fucked into existence.
> It's falling out of favour is because
> ...


Um...you forgot: "...Because around significant percent of of marriages end in divorce."


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Basically, the reason is we have a culture based on short term gratification.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

I think marriages need to start focusing more on the overall family, rather than instant gratification between two people.
Once I think marriages are viewed more in this framework, I think partners will be far more willing to cooperate with each other, and to commit.

A family can offer both parties involved a potential purpose in life.
But it requires both people to work together. There is a lot more on the line when people look at marriage as a lifelong contract that is meant to create a family, rather than just a simple partnership.
As such, if you break that contract, there are a lot more lives affected than just your own.


----------



## 8080 (Oct 6, 2020)

*Stephanie Koonz writes:*

To understand why the love-based marriage system was so unstable and how we ended up where we are today, we have to recognize that for most of history, marriage was not primarily about the individual needs and desires of a man and woman and the children they produced. … 

As civilizations became more complex and stratified, the role of marriage in acquiring in-laws changed. Marriage became a way through which elites could *hoard or accumulate resources*, shutting out unrelated individuals or even “illegitimate” family members. Propertied families *consolidated wealth, merged resources, forged political alliances, and concluded peace* *treaties* by strategically marrying off their sons and daughters. When upper-class men and women married, there was an exchange of dowry, bridewealth, or tribute, making the match a major investment by the couple’s parents and other kin. In Europe, from the early Middle Ages through the early eighteenth century, *the* *dowry* a wife brought with her at marriage *was often the biggest infusion of cash, goods, or land a man would ever acquire*. Finding a husband was usually the most important investment a woman could make in her economic future.

Even in the lower classes, marriage was an economic and political transaction, even though on a much smaller scale. The concerns of commoners were more immediate: “Can I marry someone whose fields are next to mine?”; “Will my prospective mate meet the approval of the neighbors and relatives on whom I depend?”; “Would these particular in-laws a help to our family or a hindrance?”

Moreover, *farms or businesses could rarely be run by just a single person*, so a prospective partner’s skills, resources and tools were at least as important as personality and attractiveness. In those days there were few two-career marriages. *Most people had a two-person, married couple career that neither could conduct alone*.

Traditionally, marriage also organized the division of labor and power by gender and age, confirming men’s authority over women and determining whether a child had any claim on the property of the parents. Marriage was the most important marker of adulthood and respectability as well as the *main source of social security, medical care, and unemployment insurance*.

Certainly, people fell in love during those thousands of years, oftentimes even with their own spouses. But *marriage was not fundamentally about love*. It was too vital an economic and political institution to be entered into solely on the basis of something as irrational as love. For thousands of years the theme song for most weddings could have been: “What’s Love Got to Do with It?”

Because love was too important a contract to be left to the two individuals involved, kin, neighbors, and other outsiders, such as priests, judges, government officials, were usually involved in negotiating a match. Even when individuals orchestrated their own transitions in and out of marriage, they frequently did so for economic and political reasons.

_Stephanie Koonz: Marriage, a History (2005)_






A fruit grower paid a courtesy call on the mother of an acquaintance he wished to marry. The mother (ISFJ, Enneagram Nine) was shocked by the idea and her daughter wasn’t convinced, but the fruit grower was still given the opportunity to explain his marriage project. The daughter (ESFP, Enneagram Two) already had a child, but she was still young and appetising, which could not be said of the fruit grower.

Her boyfriends were always distinguished by the fact that they had nothing going for them apart from their need for help. She was tough, but the combination of work and child-rearing often brought her to the brink of nervous breakdown.

Her mother had no desire to raise another child; her two children had been as much a disappointment as her husband and her parents. The father had been strict and aloof and the mother committed suicide, and she hadn’t had siblings either.

The fruit farmer seemed somewhat limited and not exactly a free spirit. Unfortunately, he had no arguments in favour of becoming his all-round solution for orchard, household, kitchen and sex work, but he gave a detailed lecture on the woes of today’s fruit farmer, who had to contend with the fact that women nowadays want to live a carefree life and therefore shy away from marrying him.

He was absolutely right, he just overlooked the fact that he was living in the wrong century.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

I look down on marriage because it's archaic and cult like.

I've seen heard enough stories of failed marriages to know very well that it has no meaning or relevance to true love.

I intend to have a partner with whom I am together with forever. Marriage does not change that in any way.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I guess because in some cases (not all, offcourse), if it absolutely doesn't work, it can be hard getting out of it again etc.


----------



## Ecchi (Jun 26, 2018)

HAL said:


> I look down on marriage because it's archaic and cult like.
> 
> I've seen heard enough stories of failed marriages to know very well that it has no meaning or relevance to true love.
> 
> I intend to have a partner with whom I am together with forever. Marriage does not change that in any way.


There are benefits/perks that you only receive if you are married, unless I'm wrong. I don't mean interpersonal benefits. I mean legal and monetary perks that companies give you.

And I like the symbolism of marriage. I want an open marriage, though. To me the person you marry is the person you like the most. You can have as many sexual partners as you want and still be married because the person you married is your favorite.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Ecchi said:


> There are benefits/perks that you only receive if you are married, unless I'm wrong. I don't mean interpersonal benefits. I mean legal and monetary perks that companies give you.
> 
> And I like the symbolism of marriage. I want an open marriage, though. To me the person you marry is the person you like the most. You can have as many sexual partners as you want and still be married because the person you married is your favorite.


Yeah that 'symbolism' holds zero weight on my INTP mind. Marriages often break up so the symbolism is obviously nonsense.


----------

