# Do men benefit more from marriage in modern times?



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Marriage is usually portrayed as something that protects women. Some kind of fairytale where you two will live happily ever after. Girls are set up to from a young age to form unrealistic expectations. Think of all the Disney movies where the princess lives happily ever after? Young girls fantasize about their wedding day and dream about what it will be like to have a husband and children. It is a recipe for dissapointment and lonliness, atleast from my perspective. I'm kind of generalizing here, I know not all men and women think this way, but I feel like the majority of women go into marriages with much higher expectations, whereas men go into it (with more apprehension than women) with virtually none. This is ironic, becaue from my experience the men benefit more. Studies show that married men are mentally and physically healthier with longer life expectancies than their nonmarried counterparts. Whereas, the reverse is true for women. 
I feel like I was a happier person before I married, and I love my husband,he is a wonderful person, it just changed my life. I'm not sure if it was a positive change? I lost a lot of girlfriends once I married and had a child (I was only 20 and most of my long time friends are still single, so we lost touch). My career aspirations were put on hold and my husband has moved up in his job. He is a great guy and is helpful around the house and with our son, but the majority of house and childrearing duties still fall on me. I'm sure this is the case with most couples. He gets his sense of camradery from his work friends and other guys. Like he is at the bar now with friends after work, but I am home as usual. When he does get home he usually "retreats to his cave" to play battlefield and I find myself resentful. We try to talk about it, he thinks I am just being clingy or codependent. But I think it's really just a difference in communication and emotional needs. I feel like I am the one suffereing though and having to compromise. I was reading that the reason women are unhappier in marriage could be attributed to the different way men and women process their spouses' and their own emotions. an article by Deborah Smith of the APA's "Monitor" (December 2001), Levenson says that in situations of marital conflict, men "experience higher autonomic arousal, they feel badly and they withdraw." Levenson refers to this coping technique as "stonewalling," while at MarsVenus we call it "the cave." The cave is the description of how a Martian may withdraw under stress, removing himself from a problem so that he can work out a solution. While a Martian needs to retreat to into his "cave," Venusians typically need to talk about feelings in order to reach a resolution or achieve closure under the same circumstances. Levenson goes on to say that women attempt to stay engaged in a discussion while their husbands begin to withdraw or "stonewall" -- leading wives to feel frustrated and even more stressed. In difficult marriages, that continual heightened stress produces physiological responses in women than can lead to poorer health. 
Anyways, I have been married a few years now and starting to feel pretty lonely. If any long time married people could shed some light or relate I would appreciate it. 
Thanks in advance. Sorry this is long, it wasn't supposed to turn into a fucking novel.


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

No. Any man today that gets married is an idiot.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Please do not respond with a snarky comment if you have never been married


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

Been married for 6 years.

Marriage is a pretty ideal case for a man in our society: someone to do all the crap around the house we don't want to do, readily available and more frequent/better sex, and progeny without having to expend as much effort to take care of them (since ultimate responsibility is the woman's)...seems like a pretty good deal to me. Men just make too big of a deal out of having to give up the adventure of the chase, which makes it seem like marriage is a terrible thing, when in fact, it really takes a ton less energy than being single.

Only down side is having to deal with the wife's emotions and drama...but that's certainly a lot less difficult than bouncing around.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

sofort99 said:


> No. Any man today that gets married is an idiot.


Why would he be?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

ohtochooseaname said:


> (since ultimate responsibility is the woman's)


No, it's not. Responsibility should be shared between mother and father in a way that suits both of them.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

I dont think an additional 5 or so years in average life span is equivalent to the vary significant chamce of losing half of ones belongings and in all likelyhood his children too if applicable. From a personal standpoint i dont particularly care to live past 70-75 anyway. The average life expectancy of some1 in my line of work is only around 55 anyway and the divorce rate is far above the national average but those are all personal considerations.

More objectively it will depend on what values you place on the health gains vs highly probably loss of property and other risks a man opens himself to in marriage. I will never marry because i see nothing in it for me.

On a side note, your husband should comunicate with you. Its in his interst to keep the marriage going more-so than yours since he is already in it. Sorry if my post lacks empathy, always had a hard time wih that.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

@_lek373_

I was married for 6 years and left feeling love starved.

I don't think it's a gender issue as to who benefits more.. I am pretty sure each dynamic is unique.

I am also pretty sure the root cause of success or failure in marriage is the expectations each person has placed on the marriage. 
I would dare say that _in general_, women invest more emotionally and have greater emotional expectations. 

I am curious that because you have INFJ listed as your type..Why the withdrawing into the cave seems odd to you.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

ohtochooseaname said:


> Been married for 6 years.
> 
> Marriage is a pretty ideal case for a man in our society: someone to do all the crap around the house we don't want to do, readily available and more frequent/better sex, and progeny without having to expend as much effort to take care of them (since ultimate responsibility is the woman's)...seems like a pretty good deal to me. Men just make too big of a deal out of having to give up the adventure of the chase, which makes it seem like marriage is a terrible thing, when in fact, it really takes a ton less energy than being single.
> 
> Only down side is having to deal with the wife's emotions and drama...but that's certainly a lot less difficult than bouncing around.


Posts like these show me why I don't really want to get married.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

I think that marriage would definitely be beneficial for a man if marriage is the right thing to do for both partners. If it's not, then don't get married.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

Yes, men benefit greatly. 

If you're unhappy, try to identify the cause to see if there is a workable solution. I know I've sacrificed a great deal, but my sacrifices were my own choices. I can't blame my spouse if I feel unhappy or trapped. I can make a different decision or try to change the circumstances to be more favorable.
If you're not connecting with him and becoming unhappy and lonely, see if there are ways you can connect. 
It can feel incredibly lonely if the intimacy you once shared with your partner is missing.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Surely its beneficial for both partners? Not really for one over the other. Provided its a good relationship and all that crap that every other post is going to be...


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> No, it's not. Responsibility should be shared between mother and father in a way that suits both of them.


I am not saying what should be, I'm saying what is culturally expected, which is what this post is about, whether or not the general cultural expectations for a marriage relationship benefits men more than women, not whether that's right or wrong.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

ohtochooseaname said:


> I am not saying what should be, I'm saying what is culturally expected, which is what this post is about, whether or not the general cultural expectations for a marriage relationship benefits men more than women, not whether that's right or wrong.


Fair enough.

.......


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

I hope this does not derail this thread but it does pertain to it. 

Do women (or men who are in marriages to women who are the primary providers) place any value at all on the security that the marriage provides them via taking some of their spouces belongings and even alimony/ palimony in some states? This seems far more quantifiable than emotional angst. There is nothing gained in the failure of the marriage for he provider so his seems to benefit the supported spouse only.


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Posts like these show me why I don't really want to get married.



Right...society's crazy expectations for women are rather unfair if you develop your relationship around them. That's why the key is not following our modern expectations, and making your own.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

@*lek373 warning long read*

Really depends on the people it seems or perhaps a difference in personality, my parents for example have been together for over 20 years and my mother notices the same problem in defining personal identity, while my dad seems to fit the role of provider - depends on extent of willingness to live for oneself as well(?). 

I suppose much depends upon gender roles when my mother was 'happiest' earning her own wage, while my dad did the same thing until his health decreased then my mother became a housewife again while his life revolved around part time work; oddly it has always been my mother that withdraws away whenever there is a problem while my dad has always been the breadwinner who balances plates to accommodate everyones needs vs. luxuries.
Then again my dad has never really been the man's man type to socialise with other guys if he much prefers coming home after a days work and socialising via mechanical or male hobbies when possible; surprisingly both my parents are stonewallers with my dad being 'the compromising peacekeeper' and my mother being the 'emotional one' balanced out my dads T type cognitive style, realising apart time is needed when my mother would not seek any.

In the main it seems like finding interests outside a marriage or extended bond can be harder for woman, suggesting more communication is needed to allocate more time for the needs of the individual, if I were to get married one day (not very helpful I know) communication and personal identity of both parties would have to be a priority otherwise it seems people are living for spouses or their family alone ... then again I guess INFJs sense the needs of others more and try to seek mutual happiness.

I realise that somehow I may have just written useless text but I suppose my thinking was looking at future couples more when my family has many examples of 20+ year marriages who seem to find ways of living together or 'merging lives' as my aunt and uncle do, barely needing to spend time apart 24/7... then again both myself and at least 2 of the 4 family couples seem to have high emotionally 'clingyness' thresholds so I may be offering inconsistent data...


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

If anything I think it's the very opposite. I think a man would benefit less in modern times and women would benefit more. Women get security of alimony, child support, half of a man's possessions and arguably more for each year that she stays married to a man. 

A man can (and is often expected) work more hours in order to earn a higher pay check compared to women who take time off and are obligated to have maternity leave so you still have men making more money then women for this expected imbalance. Not only are men expected to work more to bring more home the man is frequently supposed to be seen as the provider who takes care of the expenses and gives his family everything they ask for. 

I personally don't see why anyone would want to get married in this day and age, but at this point in time I still think marriage benefits women more then men by and large if we are talking about financial assets. Especially in places such as the military where the man is away for months/years at a time while a woman is capable of cashing in larger pay checks while the man is away fighting a war. There is generally more freedom for a female in terms of separation and there is generally a larger financial drain on the male if there is ever a parting. 

Even if it is the woman's fault she can still be eligible to ask for financial assistance from her now ex-Husband because it's perceived that she deserves his paycheck for marrying him for an x amount of years.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Arrow said:


> Women get security of alimony


Men can benefit from alimony as well.



> child support


Only because society still sees women as nurturers and child carers. It's as sexist towards women as it is towards men, if not far more.



> half of a man's possessions


Any evidence for this?



> A man can (and is often expected) work more hours in order to earn a higher pay check compared to women who take time off and are obligated to have maternity leave so you still have men making more money then women for this expected imbalance.


Firstly, never heard of paternity leave?

Secondly, this is due to patriarchal society and the roles it places on men and women.



> Not only are men expected to work more to bring more home the man is frequently supposed to be seen as the provider who takes care of the expenses and gives his family everything they ask for.


Then oppose the patriarchal structure of society and advocate a fairer, more egalitarian society.



> I personally don't see why anyone would want to get married in this day and age, but at this point in time I still think marriage benefits women more then men by and large if we are talking about financial assets. Especially in places such as the military where the man is away for months/years at a time while a woman is capable of cashing in larger pay checks while the man is away fighting a war.


Whilst most armed forces personnel are men, some are women.



> There is generally more freedom for a female in terms of separation and there is generally a larger financial drain on the male if there is ever a parting.


Do you have any evidence for this?



> Even if it is the woman's fault she can still be eligible to ask for financial assistance from her now ex-Husband because it's perceived that she deserves his paycheck for marrying him for an x amount of years.


Is this just an American thing? Do you have sources?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

@_skycloud86_ We've talked about such matters before and safe to say I'm not willing to discuss this with you. I don't wish to converse with you. I feel nothing will come from it and I won't benefit from the conversation. Have a nice day.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

If she did intend to omit finacial concerns the I apologize. It does not seem implied by the question and I thought she simply was not considering it in her arguement. Didnt realize it was meant primarily to consider emotional advantages or i would never have chimed in lol.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Arrow said:


> You asked the question who benefits more from modern marriages and I answered the question. I never said that all women get married for security. I am saying that women do stand to gain the most from marriage even to this day. Obviously I was extrapolating the marriage to what a woman can gain once the marriage ends. Generally people who marry do eventually go on to have children and in that situation the woman benefits with the procreation of children as well. I don't think it's _that_ difficult to understand the ways in which women benefit more financially from marriage then a man generally does.


Okay I understand what you are saying but I don't necessarily agree. Thank you though.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

lek373 said:


> This is my ideal for marriage as well. But an overidealized approach to love will leave you very unhappy. Speaking from experience. sorry, im being shitty. Feeling cynical today



It's completely do-able, you just need to be mature and find someone else with that same level of maturity.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Inphamous said:


> I edited my previous post for cases of = material possessions between partners


You thought the post was related to finances?:dry:


----------



## bromide (Nov 28, 2011)

I got annoyed reading that whole Martian/Venusian language crap. Men and women are not two different species and I think seeing people that way is its own problem. Additionally, the tendency to withdraw is not something that men have a monopoly on by any means. I withdraw when I am unhappy and yet somehow I manage to keep my vagina intact. I have also read that married men tend to live longer than unmarried men and the reverse for single women vs married women, but I think that may also be related to the statistics they've used which are from the generations when having a child out of wedlock was considered shameful. This meant that married women were more likely to not only have children but have more of them, and childbearing does a number on your body so it stands to reason that a woman whose body never has to be put through that may indeed live longer than a woman whose body has.

Those things aside, it seems like you are resentful because you spend all day at home taking care of this kid and have put your career aspirations on hold for the sake of his career, child-rearing and housecleaning. Essentially you've found yourself in one of those old timey housewife roles that turned our grandmothers' generation into a bunch of pillheads and alcoholics to cope with the drudging boredom. So don't stand for it. Get a babysitter or enroll that kid in a day care and go back to work, get your grad degree, whatever it is you need to do to pursue your own dreams. Get in touch with your old friends or make new ones by participating in an activity or interest group, live your own life. Change the situation and maybe you won't be so resentful of your husband for wanting his space. 

To answer the topic question, I don't think that men benefit from marriage more if there is a conscious effort to divide household roles equally. These days it's more common for both people to work because there's no way people can make ends meet otherwise. In this sort of situation, the burden of keeping up a household should be shared. It shouldn't be the case that both people are working full time but only one person is doing all of the cooking and cleaning.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I thought marriage was supposed to be about the love that two people (or more if you're polygamist) have for one another, not which party benefits more or less. :O


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Razare said:


> Your question is phrased wrong.
> 
> *Are women more disadvantaged by marriage than men?*
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting I give him space to "teach him a lesson" and let him know how I feel? This would be a vacation for him. He is an INTP, I don't think he distances himself because he dealing with his own emotinal stuff. He distances himself because he wants alone time in his head to think about....umm.....well, whatever the hell INTP's think about? Building robots and stuff.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

FacelessBeauty said:


> I thought marriage was supposed to be about the love that two people (or more if you're polygamist) have for one another, not which party benefits more or less. :O


You just restored my faith a little bit there. :happy:

In response to the OP: Benefit is largely given to the woman in the marriage when observing it in generalized societal terms, but when it comes to everything else it is very much a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Hruberen (Jan 2, 2012)

This and the sims 3 really puts a damper on marriage for me.


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

lek373 said:


> Are you suggesting I give him space to "teach him a lesson" and let him know how I feel? This would be a vacation for him. He is an INTP, I don't think he distances himself because he dealing with his own emotinal stuff. He distances himself because he wants alone time in his head to think about....umm.....well, whatever the hell INTP's think about? Building robots and stuff.


Right...he may eventually notice and dislike the lack of contact, but that will happen just about when you are ready to explode...if not after. It's not an appropriate communication style.

That being said, the post by @Razare wasn't suggesting you do it to "teach him a lesson", but simply to give him the space he desires, so he might be more ready to talk about it. If you are trying to "teach him a lesson", that would defeat the purpose because you would then be the one not ready for the conversation.

If he's just doing it to get away from the world, he's probably ready to talk about the problem you have with it after he chooses to end this alone time...as long as you aren't approaching it angrily.


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Do you know that when women hire private investigators because they think he's having an affair because he comes home 30-45minutes late every day, the majority of the time they they find out he's just driving around decompressing from work, because his wife won't let him do it when he comes home?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

sofort99 said:


> Do you know that when women hire private investigators because they think he's having an affair because he comes home 30-45minutes late every day, the majority of the time they they find out he's just driving around decompressing from work, because his wife won't let him do it when he comes home?


Do you have any evidence for this?


----------



## ohtochooseaname (May 17, 2012)

sofort99 said:


> Do you know that when women hire private investigators because they think he's having an affair because he comes home 30-45minutes late every day, the majority of the time they they find out he's just driving around decompressing from work, because his wife won't let him do it when he comes home?


Warning: thread derailment.

Seriously? 30-45 minutes? It'd be really difficult to fit an affair into that time-frame.

Re-railment:
Wasn't that on Everybody Loves Raymond? Anyway, I have certainly felt that way before: wanted a break between work and home.


----------



## SugarForBreakfast (Jun 25, 2012)

skycloud86 said:


> Men can benefit from alimony as well.


Can, but how often do they actually?



> Only because society still sees women as nurturers and child carers. It's as sexist towards women as it is towards men, if not far more.


Even though you presented the reason, the reality is still that women get child support more often than men. 




> Firstly, never heard of paternity leave?
> 
> Secondly, this is due to patriarchal society and the roles it places on men and women.


You answered your own question here. It's due to that patriarchal society and pressure placed upon men, that men won't take the chance at paternity leave as often as a woman would the maternity leave. 



> Then oppose the patriarchal structure of society and advocate a fairer, more egalitarian society.


You make that sound easier than it is. That requires a bit of activism and the people going through this hard situation may or may not have the time/energy to stand up to society.



> Whilst most armed forces personnel are men, some are women.


But it's still more men than women. 


I don't disagree with your opinions, skycloud, but they just sound more comforting on paper and less practical in real life. Human nature is lazy and while we all SHOULD stand up for what we believe in and fight/advocate, in practicality not everyone will. It's fortunate if people like you exist to do so, and you seem to have a good vision of how the world should work - I'm as frustrated with patriarchal roles as the next person.

And before you ask, I don't have evidence for my opinions - only the opinions of others I've heard - but you didn't provide statistics for yours either, and besides, people are sometimes still skeptical of statistics if it doesn't confirm their biases.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SugarForBreakfast said:


> Can, but how often do they actually?


It seems to be becoming more common for women to pay alimony. More women are paying alimony than ever before.



> Even though you presented the reason, the reality is still that women get child support more often than men.


Yes, but it's not discriminatory towards men, or meant to disadvantage men.



> You answered your own question here. It's due to that patriarchal society and pressure placed upon men, that men won't take the chance at paternity leave as often as a woman would the maternity leave.


And that's a shame.



> You make that sound easier than it is. That requires a bit of activism and the people going through this hard situation may or may not have the time/energy to stand up to society.


Fair enough.



> But it's still more men than women.


Only because society still sees men as more capable of being soldiers and of being more violent, when the average woman is no less capable of being a soldier than the average man, at least in modern times.



> I don't disagree with your opinions, skycloud, but they just sound more comforting on paper and less practical in real life. Human nature is lazy and while we all SHOULD stand up for what we believe in and fight/advocate, in practicality not everyone will. It's fortunate if people like you exist to do so.


Fair enough.



> And before you ask, I don't have evidence for my opinions - only the opinions of others I've heard - but you didn't provide statistics for yours either, and besides, people are sometimes still skeptical of statistics if it doesn't confirm their biases.


Fair enough.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

sofort99 said:


> Do you know that when women hire private investigators because they think he's having an affair because he comes home 30-45minutes late every day, the majority of the time they they find out he's just driving around decompressing from work, because his wife won't let him do it when he comes home?


bull shit! where did you find this info? And what does this have to do with anything?


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

My favorite example though of how far the law tilts to just punish men is "presumptive parentage".

Any child born in the marriage is the legal and financial responsibility of the husband...even if he can prove it's not his.

The man's only chance is if he can get the court to administer the test, which they rarely agrees to, and even when they do the man usually winds up paying for years for a kid that's not his, with no legal redress.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Just found someo statistics saying Women married to INTP reported the highest level of marital dissatifaction. I wonder how the heck they came up these results. Wonder how valid it is?
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/5006.htm

And INFJ's report highest level of marital dissatisfaction. Are expectations are probably unrealistic.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

sofort99 said:


> My favorite example though of how far the law tilts to just punish men is "presumptive parentage".
> 
> Any child born in the marriage is the legal and financial responsibility of the husband...even if he can prove it's not his.
> 
> The man's only chance is if he can get the court to administer the test, which they rarely agrees to, and even when they do the man usually winds up paying for years for a kid that's not his, with no legal redress.


Show us some evidence to back up this claim.


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Here's Montana's law.

40-6-105. Presumption of paternity. (1) A person is presumed to be the natural father of a child if any of the following occur:
(a) the person and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage or within 300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce or after a decree of separation is entered by a court;
(b) before the child's birth, the person and the child's natural mother have attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and:
(i) if the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only by a court, the child is born during the attempted marriage or within 300 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce; or
(ii) if the attempted marriage is invalid without a court order, the child is born within 300 days after the termination of cohabitation;
(c) after the child's birth, the person and the child's natural mother have married or attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and:
(i) the child's mother and the child's alleged father have acknowledged the alleged father's paternity of the child in writing in accordance with subsection (1)(e) and the acknowledgment is filed with the department of public health and human services;
(ii) with the person's consent, the person is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or
(iii) the person is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary promise or by court order;
(d) while the child is under the age of majority, the person receives the child into the person's home and openly represents the child to be the person's natural child;
(e) the child's mother and the child's alleged father acknowledge the alleged father's paternity of the child in a paternity acknowledgment form that is provided by the department of public health and human services. The department of public health and human services shall accept and file the completed form. As a part of a voluntary acknowledgment process, the department of public health and human services shall make written and oral information available to the parents regarding the rights and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity. If another person is presumed under this section to be the child's father, acknowledgment may be effected only with the written consent of the presumed father or after the presumption has been rebutted. The presumption of paternity is created when the acknowledgment is filed with the department.
(f) the scientific evidence resulting from a blood test, whether ordered by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction or agreed to by the parties, shows a 95% or higher statistical probability of paternity;
(g) the person is presumed to be the child's natural father under the laws of the state or Indian territory in which the child was born.
(2) An acknowledgment is binding on a parent who executes it, whether or not the parent is a minor.
(3) Except for presumptions of paternity that are conclusive or irrebuttable under subsections (1)(g) and (5), a presumption under this section may be rebutted:
(a) in an appropriate action by a preponderance of the evidence; or
(b) by scientific evidence resulting from a blood test that excludes the person as the child's natural parent.
(4) (a) A presumption of paternity established under this section is a sufficient basis for establishing a support order.
(b) If a presumption is later rebutted or set aside and the person is under an order to pay support for the child, the person may only be relieved of support installments that accrued from the date of the order declaring the presumption to be rebutted.
(5) (a) An acknowledgment of paternity under subsection (1)(e) may be rescinded by a signatory at any time within 60 days after it was signed by filing a notice of withdrawal with the department of public health and human services. The notice of withdrawal must include an affidavit attesting that a copy of the notice was provided to any parent who signed the acknowledgment form.
(b) Without need for ratification by court or administrative proceedings, an acknowledgment of paternity under subsection (1)(e) becomes, as a matter of law, an irrebuttable presumption of paternity on the earlier of the date:
(i) the acknowledgment is not timely rescinded as provided in subsection (5)(a); or
(ii) a court or administrative judgment, decree, or order is entered that establishes paternity or a support order, when that proceeding includes the signatory.
(c) An irrebuttable presumption of paternity under this subsection (5) has the same force and effect as a district court judgment adjudicating paternity and may only be set aside for fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The burden of proof is on the person seeking to set the presumption aside. Except for good cause, legal responsibilities arising from the paternity acknowledgment may not be stayed pending the outcome of an action to set aside the presumption.

History: En. 61-305 by Sec. 5, Ch. 512, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 61-305; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 70, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 80, Ch. 418, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 143, Ch. 546, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 86, Ch. 552, L. 1997. 

Pick a state and see for yourself.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

belovely said:


> If woman require marriage to access the baby incubator, then men will follow. If woman don't; men won't....


You really think men should marry women just for sex? I meen many do even today but you advocate that all women should deny sex to try and manipulate men into marriage? Lol i actually think that is more or less prostitution.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

Inphamous said:


> You really think men should marry women just for just? I meen many do even today but you advocate that all women should deny sex to try and manipulate men into marriage? Lol i actually think that is more or less prostitution.


Its not prostitution, its a trade off. In relationships, men offer commitment and women offer sex. Its not the other way around, and its never been the other way around. Belovely is correct, if all women stopped having sex outside of wedlock, then men would start committing to marriage in order to get access to sex. Thats what they did in the past. Women control sex and so women make the rules regarding what standard men are held to in order to get it. Men will go along with whatever that standard is. Thats just the way it is. Not saying this is necessarily a "men don't have any power" situation. Like I said, men control commitment. A woman control who is good enough to sleep with a what they have to do to sleep with her, and a man control who is good enough to commit resources to and what they have to do to get that commitment. In closing, its nothing a woman can do about the criteria a man uses to determine who is commitment worthy and its nothing a man can do about the criteria a woman uses to determine who is sex worthy.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

garmypoo said:


> WARNING WARNING WARNING! ENFP WALL OF TEXT!!!! WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!
> 
> I really tried to read to read through this thread on men/women befitting from marriage, but it got too painful...Too many esoteric random arguments, mugghh... Plus I'm an SX so I really prefer to personalize my responses... So now on to my own esoteric random argument...
> 
> ...


Thank you, thank you, thank you. Awesome advice. Now I have some reading to do.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

belovely said:


> If woman require marriage to access the baby incubator, then men will follow. If woman don't; men won't....


That makes an assumption that women want to get married. It also assumes that women "shouldn't" have sex outside of marriage.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Chipps said:


> Its not prostitution, its a trade off. In relationships, men offer commitment and women offer sex. Its not the other way around, and its never been the other way around. Belovely is correct, if all women stopped having sex outside of wedlock, then men would start committing to marriage in order to get access to sex. Thats what they did in the past. Women control sex and so women make the rules regarding what standard men are held to in order to get it. Men will go along with whatever that standard is. Thats just the way it is. Not saying this is necessarily a "men don't have any power" situation. Like I said, men control commitment. A woman control who is good enough to sleep with a what they have to do to sleep with her, and a man control who is good enough to commit resources to and what they have to do to get that commitment. In closing, its nothing a woman can do about the criteria a man uses to determine who is commitment worthy and its nothing a man can do about the criteria a woman uses to determine who is sex worthy.


But you don't need to commit to be worthy of sex. And not all women seek commitment in exchange for sex.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> That makes an assumption that women want to get married. It also assumes that women "shouldn't" have sex outside of marriage.


It also implies that womens sex is worth more than mens lol. As if it doesn feel as good for women as men. Sure wish i could have multiple orgasms....they look fun lol


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

FacelessBeauty said:


> But you don't need to commit to be worthy of sex. And not all women seek commitment in exchange for sex.



I agree. Im not saying all women seek commitment in exchange for sex. Some women are comfortable to with FWB, casual sex, open relationships etc. The point is, women will never have that much power when it comes to commitment. If a woman tells a man she will sleep with him regularly, but refuses to be exclusive, its not going to suck that much from his perspective. If a man told a woman he'd be there for her, take care of her, be exclusive to her and only her but he would not have sex with her, its not going to suck that much from her perspective. Not saying that men don't want commitment, or that women don't want sex, but they don't prioritize them the same. This is just one of the difference between the sexes. Women who are completely fine with commitment free sex (and not just lying about it to trick a man into committing post coitus) do not represent the majority of women. The media tries to convince people of that, but it simply ain't true.


----------



## garmypoo (Feb 5, 2012)

Chipps said:


> ...If a man told a woman he'd be there for her, take care of her, be exclusive to her and only her but he would not have sex with her, its not going to suck that much from her perspective...


Yes, I know you put in a few caveats, but I just can't imagine that line *ever* being true unless her orientation is completely Asexual... I'm partly type 9 and very *rarely* all out argue here, but there are a few things I feel very strongly about now... Yes, I acknowledge that recent culture has emphasized that girls enjoying sex is bad and that one man should provide for one woman -> honestly that is a big problem!

Have you imagined a potential situation where one woman might enjoy a commitment from more than one man??!! That sure seems like better prospects for her and her kids as if one guy dies, you're not a lonely widow... But why would two men ever commit to one woman, why if they live in a fiercely egalitarian immediate return hunter gatherer society! Sure, sounds irrelevant, but the past hundred years of nuclear family centralized agrarian post-industrial human existence is a drop of piss in the bucket of evolution!

I won't foist my own personal beliefs at you, as that doesn't help anyone, but as difficult as it may be, I always encourage and challenge people to consider cultural bias when coming to sweeping resolutions... I am still struggling with it myself, but hey, personal growth ain't worth it less it hurts a bit! ;p


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Chipps said:


> Its not prostitution, its a trade off. In relationships, men offer commitment and women offer sex. Its not the other way around, and its never been the other way around. Belovely is correct, if all women stopped having sex outside of wedlock, then men would start committing to marriage in order to get access to sex. Thats what they did in the past. Women control sex and so women make the rules regarding what standard men are held to in order to get it. Men will go along with whatever that standard is. Thats just the way it is. Not saying this is necessarily a "men don't have any power" situation. Like I said, men control commitment. A woman control who is good enough to sleep with a what they have to do to sleep with her, and a man control who is good enough to commit resources to and what they have to do to get that commitment. In closing, its nothing a woman can do about the criteria a man uses to determine who is commitment worthy and its nothing a man can do about the criteria a woman uses to determine who is sex worthy.


Just sounds very cynical, I fore one would never relate sex to commitment if anything it seems disappointing that some woman think emotional closeness and sex must be the same thing, when time and mutual feelings are just as important; from my perspective more important as someone who feels closer connection to demisexual ways in part.
It just sounds very irrational to assume withholding 'physical resources' would make either gender want them more, especially to certain types of sensitive personality types who value intimacy outside 'the merging of bodies' and hope significant others are not led by carnal desires alone(or shallow 'wants' versus real needs), moreso when deciding who to settle down and raise children with together.

*Then again some INFJs may be more commitment prone, desiring to put everything into a relationship or perhaps seek harmony at all costs, so I may be invalidating my own point or projecting idealised Sx desires for emotional/touch intimacy (instead of seeking casual relations).


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

I will say this concerning sex in exchange for life long commitment, if i were presented with that ultimatum (commit or no sex ever) i would die a virgin lol. I think people are over exaggerating just how much men like sex lol.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> I will say this concerning sex in exchange for life long commitment, if i were presented with that ultimatum (commit or no sex ever) i would die a virgin lol. I think people are over exaggerating just how much men like sex lol.


This really cannot be the first time you've heard what @Chipps is saying. I have plenty of women friends who constantly say "If other women wouldn't give it up so easily, men wouldn't be so spoiled and they would have to want it from their spouses." I hear this all the time in woman circles and I've heard men state this theory constantly as well: Women give sex, men give commitment.

Now, you may not agree with any of that but it's not odd or even uncommon idea.

In the past, I haven't been too into men who have done FWB because I've seen a lot of them get spoiled and get to the point where they are too lazy to be in relationships. And you can really tell who these men are by their behavior so it's not something they actually tell me. I really can see it in the way they treated women. Now, I've lightened up a bit. But I still think it does bleed a certain thought into certain circles. I mean, if they are so used to getting sex outside the confines of a relationship, their reality may be that many women do give up sex outside the confines of a relationship and that idea can create certain assumptions when they meet me or my friends. Their courting sucks. And I don't like it assumed that I'll give up sex outside of a relationship. Actually the idea offends me. 

I don't necessarily think sex should be a trade-off or held over man's head. I'm a very sexual person as well. However, I'm more concerned about how I'm treated.

And sex may not be that big a deal for you. We are all different. However, I hang out in many different types forums. There are plenty of men willing to admit how important sex is to them.


----------



## Inphamous (May 10, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> This really cannot be the first time you've heard what @_Chipps_ is saying. I have plenty of women friends who constantly say "If other women wouldn't give it up so easily, men wouldn't be so spoiled and they would have to want it from their spouses." I hear this all the time in woman circles and I've heard men state this theory constantly as well: Women give sex, men give commitment.
> 
> Now, you may not agree with any of that but it's not odd or even uncommon idea.
> 
> ...


So men should work at a relationship they dont really want (only doing to because they are sex starved) yet women should not have to work at sex or do it when thy dont want? Intersting female superiority arguement lol.

Perhaps we should take everyones extra toys away (computers, tvs, phones, etc) and make everyone work harder to get those things? I meen people are just so lazy. Dont you know having internet shoud obligate you to 15 hours hard labor per day?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Inphamous said:


> So men should work at a relationship they dont really want (only doing to because they are sex starved) yet women should not have to work at sex or do it when thy dont want?


 Where in the world did you read any of that in my post. You just went way over with assumptions that you've managed to really distort. 





> Perhaps we should take everyones extra toys away (computers, tvs, phones, etc) and make everyone work harder to get those things? I meen people are just so lazy. Dont you know having internet shoud obligate you to 15 hours hard labor per day?


Is that really what you got out of:



pinkrasputin said:


> I don't necessarily think sex should be a trade-off or held over man's head. I'm a very sexual person as well.


Perhaps you made a mistake and didn't mean to quote me because I feel as if you are talking to someone else?


----------



## NephilimAzrael (Oct 26, 2008)

lek373 said:


> I'm kind of generalizing here, I know not all men and women think this way, but I feel like the majority of women go into marriages with much higher expectations, whereas men go into it (with more apprehension than women) with virtually none.


Yeah you are generalising. Male expectations are present. I cannot speak for all men, but one of the impeding ones is that there is a continual expectation that they will have to submit their lives to supporting an eventual family. At one time in my life this seemed horrifying. Right now, it is less horrific and more another bill to pay. The problem is, stability in the modern context, especially with people looking for extraneous factors to dismiss their own failures. Girls and boys both get a pidgeon-hole. Those things are neither comfortable or reasonable. Yet, what makes it worse is one side claiming they need protection in the first place. Rather disappointing I might add when the ones who receive the most support and protection are the ones who complain about it the most.



> This is ironic, becaue from my experience the men benefit more. Studies show that married men are mentally and physically healthier with longer life expectancies than their nonmarried counterparts. Whereas, the reverse is true for women.


I would like to see the source for this assertion. Men and women actually each benefit from companionship. Men appear to be more capable of accepting and endearing themselves to the experience. This is not a fault of marriage as such. Considering it happens to be women who are the majority in initiating divorce, the question should not be what is wrong with marriage, rather what inspires negativity towards the companionship?



> I feel like I was a happier person before I married, and I love my husband,he is a wonderful person, it just changed my life. I'm not sure if it was a positive change? I lost a lot of girlfriends once I married and had a child (I was only 20 and most of my long time friends are still single, so we lost touch). My career aspirations were put on hold and my husband has moved up in his job. He is a great guy and is helpful around the house and with our son, but the majority of house and childrearing duties still fall on me. I'm sure this is the case with most couples.


Sounds like bitterness. It doesn't sound like you were forced into the position, but it definitely doesn't sound like you are content. I don't think this is automatically the case with most couples at all. Rather it is the popular standard being used for reference. If he has moved up in his job, surely his responsibilities have increased. Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Doesn't mean that you can't find something that can maintain the marriage and compromise further. Without presenting disproportionate workloads on either. For example, as your son grows up, he will be able to be more responsible. So maybe then yourself and your husband can have a frank discussion about it. 



> He gets his sense of camradery from his work friends and other guys. Like he is at the bar now with friends after work, but I am home as usual. When he does get home he usually "retreats to his cave" to play battlefield and I find myself resentful. We try to talk about it, he thinks I am just being clingy or codependent. But I think it's really just a difference in communication and emotional needs. I feel like I am the one suffereing though and having to compromise.


This I don't understand. Apologies for sounding crass, but guys don't give a fuck about this shit. As soon as seeming friendly with the lads, your husband just sounds like he goes through the motions to maintain neutral-good rapport with work colleagues. However many friends he has amongst them may be questionable. He did after all choose to be with you. I don't know, maybe you miss your girlfriends and the memory of the past. From what you've written and the way it is framed, I understand your sentiment. I genuinely sympathise. Yet, from the looks of it, your husband may not be dismissive. Of course, I do not know all the details, so I am just making an inference.



> MarsVenus we call it "the cave." The cave is the description of how a Martian may withdraw under stress, removing himself from a problem so that he can work out a solution. While a Martian needs to retreat to into his "cave," Venusians typically need to talk about feelings in order to reach a resolution or achieve closure under the same circumstances. Levenson goes on to say that women attempt to stay engaged in a discussion while their husbands begin to withdraw or "stonewall" -- leading wives to feel frustrated and even more stressed. In difficult marriages, that continual heightened stress produces physiological responses in women than can lead to poorer health.


Most of those references are unfounded or partially inept. The APA director of gender studies have ties to organisations focused solely on women. Which in terms of scientific integrity and bias minimalisation is bad show. But as for the MarsVenus stuff. Oh come on. They are horrendous overgeneralisations - sexist even.

[QUOTES]
Anyways, I have been married a few years now and starting to feel pretty lonely. If any long time married people could shed some light or relate I would appreciate it. 
Thanks in advance. Sorry this is long, it wasn't supposed to turn into a fucking novel.[/QUOTE]

I'm married a bit, also with a son. My wife and I are occupied most of the time. This periods come and go. I went on about companionship, but I could sympathise with feeling trapped too. I can't go back for more researching while little Set is too young to take on responsibilities. She can't go back to Uni either. It sucks. We are young, yes. Nonetheless, we enjoy the misery together in time. I guess it just seems to be accepted that we are a cohabiting legal partnership of two friendly people who are there for each other. My wife and I have not reached that "seven-year itch" stage apparently, but we do have times when we see old friends in their separate ways and wonder. The only real thing we do is communicate it. Use humour rather than gloom to diffuse it. I don't know (and don't assume to know) how things go for all marriages. Yet, I do like the advice I have heard from elderly couples who have been married for decades - Marriage is about working together and it does take work.

Living in the same house is the worst part. :tongue:


----------



## Temur (Jun 14, 2012)

ohtochooseaname said:


> Been married for 6 years.
> 
> Marriage is a pretty ideal case for a man in our society: someone to do all the crap around the house we don't want to do, readily available and more frequent/better sex, and progeny without having to expend as much effort to take care of them (since ultimate responsibility is the woman's)...seems like a pretty good deal to me.


wtf? I want what you have...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

lek373 said:


> Marriage is usually portrayed as something that protects women. Some kind of fairytale where you two will live happily ever after. Girls are set up to from a young age to form unrealistic expectations. Think of all the Disney movies where the princess lives happily ever after? Young girls fantasize about their wedding day and dream about what it will be like to have a husband and children. It is a recipe for dissapointment and lonliness, atleast from my perspective. I'm kind of generalizing here, I know not all men and women think this way, but I feel like the majority of women go into marriages with much higher expectations, whereas men go into it (with more apprehension than women) with virtually none. This is ironic, becaue from my experience the men benefit more. Studies show that married men are mentally and physically healthier with longer life expectancies than their nonmarried counterparts. Whereas, the reverse is true for women.
> I feel like I was a happier person before I married, and I love my husband,he is a wonderful person, it just changed my life. I'm not sure if it was a positive change? I lost a lot of girlfriends once I married and had a child (I was only 20 and most of my long time friends are still single, so we lost touch). My career aspirations were put on hold and my husband has moved up in his job. He is a great guy and is helpful around the house and with our son, but the majority of house and childrearing duties still fall on me. I'm sure this is the case with most couples. He gets his sense of camradery from his work friends and other guys. Like he is at the bar now with friends after work, but I am home as usual. When he does get home he usually "retreats to his cave" to play battlefield and I find myself resentful. We try to talk about it, he thinks I am just being clingy or codependent. But I think it's really just a difference in communication and emotional needs. I feel like I am the one suffereing though and having to compromise. I was reading that the reason women are unhappier in marriage could be attributed to the different way men and women process their spouses' and their own emotions. an article by Deborah Smith of the APA's "Monitor" (December 2001), Levenson says that in situations of marital conflict, men "experience higher autonomic arousal, they feel badly and they withdraw." Levenson refers to this coping technique as "stonewalling," while at MarsVenus we call it "the cave." The cave is the description of how a Martian may withdraw under stress, removing himself from a problem so that he can work out a solution. While a Martian needs to retreat to into his "cave," Venusians typically need to talk about feelings in order to reach a resolution or achieve closure under the same circumstances. Levenson goes on to say that women attempt to stay engaged in a discussion while their husbands begin to withdraw or "stonewall" -- leading wives to feel frustrated and even more stressed. In difficult marriages, that continual heightened stress produces physiological responses in women than can lead to poorer health.
> Anyways, I have been married a few years now and starting to feel pretty lonely. If any long time married people could shed some light or relate I would appreciate it.
> Thanks in advance. Sorry this is long, it wasn't supposed to turn into a fucking novel.


I'm thinking that your clingy issue is because you are both introverts, he's getting tired of having to be too social at work and with you, too little socialising seems like your problem. Have you tried to find a little goal you may want to fulfil in life may be to stop the boring nature of being a at home wife. 

I reckon, you might want to spend the engaged with people who can feed your "extroverted feeling" (Fe) so you might not have to appear clingy if your husband feels as if he has to be your target/source of your Fe... I hope that helps.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Inphamous said:


> Im not against relationship, I simply dont see how Marriage is beneficial at all to anyone other than finantial security for a dependant spouse. The only psuedo-rational reason to marry would be religion in my opinion and i say "pseudo-rational" because im not sure religion is rational lol but thats another topic entirely.
> 
> The point is there is no biological reason to get married. You dont suddenly get a surge of vassopressin / oxytocin to increase your bond and there is nothing you can do while married that you cant while simply cohabitating


Exactly what I said in a previous thread


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Chipps said:


> Its not prostitution, its a trade off. In relationships, men offer commitment and women offer sex. Its not the other way around, and its never been the other way around. Belovely is correct, if all women stopped having sex outside of wedlock, then men would start committing to marriage in order to get access to sex. Thats what they did in the past. Women control sex and so women make the rules regarding what standard men are held to in order to get it. Men will go along with whatever that standard is. Thats just the way it is. Not saying this is necessarily a "men don't have any power" situation. Like I said, men control commitment. A woman control who is good enough to sleep with a what they have to do to sleep with her, and a man control who is good enough to commit resources to and what they have to do to get that commitment. In closing, its nothing a woman can do about the criteria a man uses to determine who is commitment worthy and its nothing a man can do about the criteria a woman uses to determine who is sex worthy.


I thought marriage was invented by men as a way of buying (owning) women, in all societies (seemingly) females were regarded as being generally inferior. Men have always had preferential treatment isn't it, how can you say women had any power in the past?


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

I think your asking a different question than title says. 

I hope I maybe of help. What is happening is that you are depending on your husband to be your sole social outlet and that is draining him and impossible for him to do. The anticipation of the draining experience makes him retreat immediately when he gets home since he is already tired. I suggest you expand your social circle maybe get in contact with other stay at home moms and get some of your social needs filled there. To a man, there is no greater joy than arriving home to happy wife. Don't forgot that while you maybe attention starved, he is not getting any of his needs fulfilled too. Men need to feel appreciated, needed and strong. If you fulfill those needs he will be more willing and maybe even pro actively search for ways to please you and meet your needs. Sometimes men need simply instructions like if you do this, I'll be super happy, then follow up and reward him with a smile, kiss or hug. 

Its good that your communicating with him about how your feeling. Do not jump him immediately when he gets home, men need time to de-stress before they can be receptive to what your are talking about. Also make sure to tell him that you don't want any answers, but for him to simply listen when you just need to talk. Men will try provide solutions, since that is what they think you want and what makes them feel of use to you. He wants to be the hero and make you happy, just tell him how and treat him like he is one. :happy:


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

kudi said:


> I think your asking a different question than title says.
> 
> I hope I maybe of help. What is happening is that you are depending on your husband to be your sole social outlet and that is draining him and impossible for him to do. The anticipation of the draining experience makes him retreat immediately when he gets home since he is already tired. I suggest you expand your social circle maybe get in contact with other stay at home moms and get some of your social needs filled there. To a man, there is no greater joy than arriving home to happy wife. Don't forgot that while you maybe attention starved, he is not getting any of his needs fulfilled too. Men need to feel appreciated, needed and strong. If you fulfill those needs he will be more willing and maybe even pro actively search for ways to please you and meet your needs. Sometimes men need simply instructions like if you do this, I'll be super happy, then follow up and reward him with a smile, kiss or hug.
> 
> Its good that your communicating with him about how your feeling. Do not jump him immediately when he gets home, men need time to de-stress before they can be receptive to what your are talking about. Also make sure to tell him that you don't want any answers, but for him to simply listen when you just need to talk. Men will try provide solutions, since that is what they think you want and what makes them feel of use to you. He wants to be the hero and make you happy, just tell him how and treat him like he is one. :happy:


This is funny


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

SlowPoke68 said:


> I note that many people in this thread, as well as the OP seem to have made a fundamental mistake, the same one I made years ago:
> 
> Marriage is not a "make-me-happy" machine. There is nothing about the contract or ritual that will magically make you more fulfilled or contented. There is no real benefit to being married for either party. In a marriage everything is at risk and there might be no real benefit at all to either party, nor for the kids they bring into the world.
> 
> ...


Lol. You just reminded me that some of the happiest couples I know are not married. My mom has been with her boyfriend for 26 years. My best friend and her husband are not married either. They have a his, mine, and ours family, and they never got married but she still calls him her husband. Both my mom and my friend have been through divorce.

My ESTP dad however, has been happily remarried for 20 years now. It is quite the sight to behold. He will be 75 this year, and he is definitely still pussy whipped. They have a lot of fun together. So I guess it just depends. They also renew their vows a lot.


----------



## Enkidu (Apr 19, 2010)

626Stitch said:


> Everyone needs love and attention. Even the most introverted person would feel lonely if they were isolated for long enough. However people vary dramatically in how much interaction they need to have their needs met.
> ...
> Of course you probably read the above thinking something along the lines of "my husband never comes home desiring interaction with me". Well this is because he is in a situation where his needs for interaction are 100% met. In fact he can afford to be totally passive in getting his emotional needs met as this requires 0 skill or effort on his part thanks to marriage.


This statement reminds me of all the little ethnic couples I saw at church picnics when I was a kid. The women were always bemoaning how neglectful their husbands were, while the husbands were stooped over their beers muttering about their nagging wives. 


lek373 said:


> Moral of the story. NF's should not marry NT's unless they have other means outside of the marriage to fullfill their emotional needs? NT's benefit either way because they can find a "mindmate" at work or on the computer to discuss theories and talk about astrophysics or whatever the hell yall talk about. And the NT will grow emotionally from the NF without much effort on their part because the NF is the "emotional driver" and they recieve the companionship in the marriage with the NF. It is a win/win for them. It is harder for NF's to find a "soulmate" outside of marriage. And a soulmate is what we need to feel fullfilled just as an NT needs a "mindmate" to discuss ideas and theories.


No need to apologize, you bring up an important point. Opposites attract in a very real way - the danger is miscommunication. If left unaddressed, couples morph into the same crotchety, bickering oldsters. That's the tough part, though: having deep, meaningful relationships outside of marriage. They have to be non-threatening, beneficial to the partners, without devaluing (or overshadowing) the marriage.


----------



## Coziene (Jun 11, 2012)

lek373 said:


> Trying to directly compare a vehicle to a human being is your problem.


I don't see why this is a problem. The concept is practically the same. When making a decision to marry, you want to know your mate's background, their interests, how they operate every day, and more, _just like you would choose a vehicle_. Are you saying there is a difference because people have a brain, are self-aware, are alive, and therefore should be treated superior? Regardless of the answer for that, the only strict difference is in biology, otherwise how they are tackled is no different.
You want an example? Women used to be treated along the lines of buying a horse or jewelry. They would be inspected, and a man would gain all the knowledge that was needed to make an informed decision. Beauty even played a factor. We are more civilized now, but the underlying theme between man and woman (this goes for both sexes) is no different.



> It is people like you that take the beauty out of marriage. To see it as a purely contractual agreement is a cold and twisted way to view it. Maybe you could marry a robot? They don't have feelings, it might work out for you?


Why is it cold and twisted?? Marriage can make and break your life. It is not as simple as buying a ring and professing love. It takes a relationship to a level that has often made, and broken, lives. People who scoff at marriage by assuming it is just about love are being very naive. I think you are being lead by your emotions.
Oh, and I'm waiting for the robot market to commercialize more; we aren't quite there yet. 
New Zealand researchers predict brothels will offer robot prostitutes by 2050 | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au
I'm pretty sure that 1/10 or so of the population, at least, will be likely to hook up with robots come future. It would make life so much more simple.



> Why don't you stroke your own ego some more? This is entertaining:laughing:


I am sure it is entertaining. And how do you _feel_ about that concept?



> I find it funny how half of the arguments on here keep falling back to the financial/legal aspect of marriage. I thought I made my intentions clear that my challenges are based more on the emotional aspect. As well as the many responsibilities that fall on a woman once she gets married and becomes a mother which ultimatley curtail her career and social life. I also find it ironic that most of the people emphazing how men get burned financially in divorce(which is completely derailing from the original thread topic) are either NT or ST? This just further validates my judgments.


Yes, because we _think_ about things, and do not run it through an emotional filter of irrationality that can lead you off the edge of a cliff. Do you understand that, or are you going to flame me because you feel that is unjust based off of no evidence but your own subjective point of view?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> My ESTP dad however, has been happily remarried for 20 years now. It is quite the sight to behold. He will be 75 this year, and he is definitely still pussy whipped. They have a lot of fun together. So I guess it just depends. They also renew their vows a lot.


Why is there such a concept as "pussy whipped" and why do you need to use it to describe your father?


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> Why is there such a concept as "pussy whipped" and why do you need to use it to describe your father?


Because that is what he is, and he would prefer the term. I use it to honor my father.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> Nonsense argument, a person can decline a contract based on only a single grounds within that contract. Society has little modern code to uphold moral behaviour. Social shaming has much less power than it used to, for better or worse. I also fundamentally disagree with the triangle relationship your link represents. I do not view marriage as a contract between a man a woman and the creator and I consider such arguments specious and manipulative.


Aristotle wrote about how a friendship will only last only if the two friends fall in love not so much with each other, but together with a "transcendent third", or a good that lies beyond the two of them. He said that a friendship will simply devolve into a shared egotism unless the two find some transcendent good to pull the friends outside of themselves. The relationship with the transcendent third is the relationship that will last...if the two friends simply fall in love with each other, the relationship will, in time, devolve. In sacramental marriage, God is the transcendent third.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Aristotle wrote about how a friendship will only last only if the two friends fall in love not so much with each other, but together with a "transcendent third", or a good that lies beyond the two of them. He said that a friendship will simply devolve into a shared egotism unless the two find some transcendent good to pull the friends outside of themselves. The relationship with the transcendent third is the relationship that will last...if the two friends simply fall in love with each other, the relationship will, in time, devolve. In sacramental marriage, God is the transcendent third.


That is an interesting argument and I agree with everything except your last assertion, I disagree with the concept of god as you are using it, and I suspect Aristotle would also disapprove. Aristotle was more likely referring to things like a unifying goal, an equivalent love of virtue, a shared dream of the ideal. You can parallel that to God but the political and social baggage attached to the euro-christian deity makes it an improper comparison to Aristotle's philosophical ideals.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Mountainshepherd said:


> That is an interesting argument and I agree with everything except your last assertion, I disagree with the concept of god as you are using it, and I suspect Aristotle would also disapprove. Aristotle was more likely referring to things like a unifying goal, an equivalent love of virtue, a shared dream of the ideal. You can parallel that to God but the political and social baggage attached to the euro-christian deity makes it an improper comparison to Aristotle's philosophical ideals.


On the contrary, I can think of no greater transcendent third than God! Through their relationship with God, the couple shares a love of virtue, a shared ideal, etc.


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

626Stitch said:


> It is not easy to see how *a relationship could be great for the partner with lower needs but disastrous for the one with higher needs*. Suppose your husband comes home and has something he wants to get of his chest/is feeling lonely. Of course you will be available. Since he has married a women with high needs for human connection your husband has someone who is constantly emotionally available for him. This person even lives in his house how convenient!
> 
> In fact *he can afford to be totally passive* in getting his emotional needs met as this requires 0 skill or effort on his part thanks to marriage.
> 
> On the other hand you expend a lot of time and energy on your family commitments wich do very little to meet your emotional needs. In fact one of the reasons *you will allways be emotionaly available to him is that you are so love starved*.


You've _*nailed*_ it!


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

lek373 said:


> Moral of the story. NF's should not marry NT's unless they have other means outside of the marriage to fullfill their emotional needs? NT's benefit either way because they can find a "mindmate" at work or on the computer to discuss theories and talk about astrophysics or whatever the hell yall talk about. And the NT will grow emotionally from the NF without much effort on their part because the NF is the "emotional driver" and they recieve the companionship in the marriage with the NF. It is a win/win for them. It is harder for NF's to find a "soulmate" outside of marriage. And a soulmate is what we need to feel fullfilled just as an NT needs a "mindmate" to discuss ideas and theories.
> Gah, I knew I should have stuck with my psychology major instead of nursing. Maybe as a therapist I could connect with the patients in a deeper emotional way(sorry thinkers...don't barf). That way my expectations would not be so high for my husband. Who knows maybe nurses fullfill their Fe needs with their patients? It's too late now anyways I only have a year left. Alright enough of this tangent Sorry for anyone who had to read this garbage.


I married and divorced an NF and I don't believe NF/NF relationships work either.

But you make an interesting point. I'm only attracted to Thinkers. NT and ST. But perhaps my emotional needs get met all day as a teacher. I teach one-on-one and everyone tells me their stuff and I receive much love and appreciation in return. And I can also express my feelings as a performing artist. I don't like to express my emotions to others all that much anyway. 

But my career wasn't chosen based on what I was not receiving inside of a romantic relationship. The things I do were chosen based on what brings me my greatest happiness. Also, if I'm in a position where I need lots of emotional support and need to sort out my feelings and thoughts, I go to therapy. I do that whether I'm in a relationship or not. But because I do these things, I wonder if it makes me more prone to be more a attracted to a certain type of individual. Although sometimes communication can be a challenge, I'm more attracted to a person who is very independent and can hold their own while I'm away from them.

My communication with my ex ENFJ husband often sucked, obviously. We're divorced. Too many mind games, guilt inducing, passionate outbursts, and tears. And I'm not talking about me. lol. Anyway, I prefer to leave drama for the stage. Also, I never really felt a true physical attraction to my ex husband. He suffocated me too much.


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't think there's a hard and fast "NT/NF pairings don't work" rule. Personality types should be used to help partners understand each other, not discourage each other from dating. MBTI has helped me understand the INFP I'm involved with. I never would've been able to understand him that well without it. 

I do think NTs and NFs have to work harder to understand each other than NTs and STs, for example. NTs and NFs typically have totally different communication styles.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> On the contrary, I can think of no greater transcendent third than God! Through their relationship with God, the couple shares a love of virtue, a shared ideal, etc.


This is one of toes impossible arguments, I cannot refute your comprehension of god, nor can I support it.


----------



## BeauGarcon (May 11, 2011)

lek373 said:


> It is people like you that take the beauty out of marriage. To see it as a purely contractual agreement is a cold and twisted way to view it. Maybe you could marry a robot? They don't have feelings, it might work out for you?


Lol that's such an ignorant thing to say. ROBOTS HAVE FEELINGS ACTUALLY DID YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE (relatively) VERY COMPLEX ROBOTS???? OK SORRY FOR CAPS MY KEYBOARD IS STICKY FOR SOME KIND OF REASON


----------



## Coonsy (Dec 22, 2010)

This thread comes at a rather interesting time for me. I've been with my spouse for a total of 11 years, married for the last 9 of those. When we got married, I went from my controlling and overbearing mother (and a very dysfunctional household) to being married. It was my only way to act on my love at the time and get out of my mother's house. I knew what I didn't want in a guy, and I kinda knew what I wanted in a guy. What I didn't know was what I wanted in a relationship - mostly because I didn't know myself never having had a chance to get to know myself.

In many ways, my DH is great - he keeps up his end of our agreements, and I keep up mine. We don't fight. We're very independent in most things. Unfortunately along with that, I've gone my direction and he's gone his. My views have changed rather dramatically after I got a chance to know myself - his have not. I've come to realize I need more from someone (not as in physical labor, but more of an emotional interest and support). I had a psychologist about 5 years ago tell me that our relationship was too UNemotional, and it wouldn't last because of that. At the time, I scoffed what he was saying - we got along great. Now, I see what he was referencing.

Add in that we've both developed our own focuses on life, and the two continue to split further and further apart. I honestly don't want to be in a "till death do you part" relationship - with anyone. There are personal things on my end as well, things I never did that I can't seem to get over (been trying to just "get over it" for about 4 years now). We're good enough roommates, we're good enough friends, but we've gotten to a point where we're a shitty couple. Worst part is, I think he's perfectly hunky-dory going about his business and having a woman set aside for him when he's horny. I've been extremely low maintenance - perhaps too much so...I've flat out told him on a few occasions what I need from him - it never went anywhere. In his defense, I haven't sat him down yet to lay this all out - but we're getting together this coming Sunday....I don't want to pull the rug out from under him so to speak, but I've had little to no inclination that he's very happy with "us" either, other than the fact that he doesn't have to worry about "us" only his job, bills, etc.

Financially we're intertwined, but that wouldn't be that hard to split other than the living situation (we own a house, neither of us could afford the mortgage on our own and selling isn't much of an option in this market).

Life may get very interesting after Sunday...

I guess the point of my post is that, IMO, two people may be great for each other for a time period. That time frame may be longer or shorter depending on the couple, but very few of them are life long, forever type situations. Marriage, and the expectations that go with it complicate matters more than they should be - why should two miserable people stay together? Just to be miserable? Our modern society doesn't generally require the benefits of being married anymore - women can take care of themselves. Children can and always do complicate matters, but I think far too many people (the vast majority in fact) take having children too lightly. DH and I have not, nor would we ever, have children. 

If I end up splitting up with the DH, I won't consider getting married again. I may have another LTR (dunno, maybe not), but I'm not going to say that I will love one person, forever, no matter how much we change, life changes, etc ever again. None of us can predict the future that well, and I sure as hell can't. I honestly don't believe in marriage, at least not for what I was raised to think it is. Why that little piece of paper means so much to someone is baffling to me. I have a friend who'd been in an LTR, they even have a child together. For her, that missing piece of paper is SO important...but I see two people who love each other, they're committed, and they work through things. She says that paper would make her feel like he had made that final commitment to her, but in reality, I get the impression that she thinks it will transform their relationship in some way - make them a better team or be the final edge out to his ex-wife. Unfortunately, i doubt it'll do that.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm a guy, 34s... where I live is very common that the guy should provide everything and still you risk losing *everything*. This is the same old story some would say but no. It is not only about "things" or possessions, it is also about connections. Have you seen guys complaining? not so much, women? A LOT, even if they have a good life.
.
During marriage, friends, familiy and society in general are more understanding regarding WOMEN needs than with guys.
AFTER marriage (divorce) things get worse, all of the previous show more understanding regarding women too.
It's been discussed many times the problematic emotional needs of the guys (if any) while there are multipage threads regarding the never ending (and difficult to understand) emotional needs from women. I've been ver curious about this and often discuss it with female friends, MANY, many times they confess that not even them know what they are feeling or what they want... so how would someone else find and answer???
.

Even cheating is received very differently when it comes from something done by a man than by a woman.


I'm against on making things into "gender based discussions" but this point is very real.

I don't know if you see my point regarding the title of your thread, but let me add this, let's take a look at the life AFTER a relationship... usually the reputation of the guy gets destroyed, buried among the many complains from the ex girlfriend and the same happens with divorce. It is very rare to find women who talk good things about their past-current relationships. 


I'm not saying I get you as one of those women, but it is a general answer regarding marriage being benefitial or not.




lek373 said:


> I want a partner and someone I can connect with emotionally. Not a paycheck. I am going to nursing school for that. Also, what kind of woman gets married just for the "security" of alimony and child support. You don't even have to get married to recieve child support.


I wish more women shared your view. That's exactly how I think and... I'm a guy. English is not my first language, I loved your wording.


----------



## Eric Blair (Jul 2, 2012)

For most of human history . . . going back over a hundred thousand years . . . it was all about physical survival. Family was about survival and raising the next generation of people. Men and women did tasks that they seemed naturally suited for. This was not just a matter of social conditioning since it is found across societies going back to ancient & prehistoric times. Man the hunter & protector. Woman the gatherer & homemaker and the one who cared for the children until they become older. (Older boys then are taught by the men what they needed to know as men to be hunter/providers and protectors. Women taught the girls what they needed to learn as gatherers, mothers, and homemakers.)- - - It wasn't until very recently that attitudes regarding what men & women do were shifted. This change in attitudes accelerated during the 1960s. There are those with a more cynical bent of mind who say it wasn't really about 'women's liberation' but about receiving the added taxes from two working adults in families. And to counter the steady devaluation of the US dollar since the 1970s. And about placing children under the supervision of those other than their mothers for longer periods - - starting from day care. (You may not know this, but American literacy rates were far higher in the 1700s & 1800s. Children were expected to know how to read before they stepped into a one room school house for a few months. They were taught using phonics methods, out of readers, by their mothers.)

None of this addresses the original post. I don't know the specifics of her situation, but wish her the best.

This post is about the dis-satisfaction that people sometimes feel today about their roles as men and women, and wonders about the larger context of a 100,000 years. I don't know what's the 'right answer', and if there even is one.


----------



## Hinton (Aug 26, 2020)

> I married and divorced an NF


Hey little sister, what have you done?
Hey little sister, who's the only one?
Hey little sister, who's your superman?
Hey little sister, who's the one you want?
Hey little sister
.................. *Shotgun* (ﾒ` ﾛ ´)︻デ═一 ·

It's a nice day for a
.. WHITE WEDDING
It's a nice day to
.. *Staaart agaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinOooooOoOooOowwwWWWwwwWw *=͟͟͞͞ʕ•̫͡•ʔ 

There is nothing fair in this world
There is nothing safe in this world
And there's nothing sure in this world
Look for something left in this world to... 
*START AGAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIINoooOoOooOowwwWWWwwwWw *=͟͟͞͞ʕ•̫͡•ʔ​


----------



## Spacecabinet (Oct 7, 2020)

Well, men are statistically happier than women in marriages on average, so I would say yes.


----------

