The Starter Husband
An article on MSN entitled "The Starter Husband" caught my eye this morning, mostly because the caption addressed to women seemed so ridiculously misandric: "You'd never buy a car without test-driving it first right? So why settle into a lifelong marriage before trying one on for size?"
The article, as one can gather from the title, is about women who marry in their 20's for practice and see nothing wrong with taking a guy out for a test-drive and dumping him off at the curb once the sheen wears off--here are some highlights from the article:
I thought pioneers were supposed to be brave people who ventured out to discover new things and make the world a better place, not cowards who are too afraid to say "no" to a marriage that they don't want just to "have a gorgeous party, and make my parents really, really happy" as one woman put it.
A man is not a car and anyone who compares a human being to an object this way has more issues than I care to discuss in a blog post. I realize these self-centered articles and books such as The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony
are fun to write and really make women feel "empowered" to act in the same manner as the sexist men of yesteryear who spoke of women like chattels. But in reality, women who use men for starter husbands are the opposite of empowered--they are the archetype of the weak female: afraid to say no, afraid of independence and afraid to be unmarried in their 20's. Yeah, the "you go girl" movement has really done a lot for these women--and reinventing marriage in this way is not empowerment of a new sort, it is just a new twist on an old theme, leaving a lover with a broken heart.
The article, as one can gather from the title, is about women who marry in their 20's for practice and see nothing wrong with taking a guy out for a test-drive and dumping him off at the curb once the sheen wears off--here are some highlights from the article:
Andi takes a throaty slug of her second raspberry martini, picks at her fish taco, then sits back in her chair. "I think marriage is the new dating and having kids is the new marriage," she proclaims loudly, as yet another woman dining with her partner turns to stare. "It's true. I wouldn't have married him if I didn't think I could get out of it...."
Of course, our generation can afford to chuck the Cinderella story when the glass slipper doesn't fit. While our grandmothers were forced to remain shackled to unhappy unions for monetary reasons, most women today have the financial wherewithal to cry uncle and bolt whenever we get uncomfortable.
For some, a starter husband is like a starter home — a semi-commitment where you're willing to do some of the surface work, like painting the walls, but not the heavy lifting, like gutting the whole foundation; he's just not a long-term investment. Others compare a starter husband to a first job, where you learn some skills and polish your resume before going after the position you really want....
It's easy to write these women off as callous or self-absorbed. And yet on some level, they just might be pioneers [my emphasis]: Why stay put in an empty shell of a marriage — an arrangement on paper only — instead of calling it what it is? "This generation is reinventing marriage," says Paul.
I thought pioneers were supposed to be brave people who ventured out to discover new things and make the world a better place, not cowards who are too afraid to say "no" to a marriage that they don't want just to "have a gorgeous party, and make my parents really, really happy" as one woman put it.
A man is not a car and anyone who compares a human being to an object this way has more issues than I care to discuss in a blog post. I realize these self-centered articles and books such as The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony
are fun to write and really make women feel "empowered" to act in the same manner as the sexist men of yesteryear who spoke of women like chattels. But in reality, women who use men for starter husbands are the opposite of empowered--they are the archetype of the weak female: afraid to say no, afraid of independence and afraid to be unmarried in their 20's. Yeah, the "you go girl" movement has really done a lot for these women--and reinventing marriage in this way is not empowerment of a new sort, it is just a new twist on an old theme, leaving a lover with a broken heart.Labels: misandry
posted by Helen at 6:31 AM
107 Comments:
I suspect that none of these women know anything about how paternity fraud laws work in the U.S. (That's a testable prediction.) Assuming that a woman can find a suitably rich or high-income starter husband, she can have children by any man she wants and stick her husband with the child support payments, even after divorcing him and (maybe) marrying the love of her life who fathered her children.
And it's all perfectly legal. If the sucker husband objects by not paying the child support payments, then he gets branded a deadbeat dad and goes to jail until he coughs up the money.
All because the starter husband was stupid enough to trust some woman! Men who get married in the U.S. are suicidal and stupid.
Bobh,
Apparently, it's not just in the US-- thousands of men are also getting shaken down by women from other countries in what is known as the "immigrant abuse scam" where immigrant women are using the VAWA to get all kinds of goodies.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CBFC085F-7F67-4D1E-B2C9-2D5C1C74A5AD
Look, somebody has to keep the booming wedding industry in clams. And don't just blame the brides, the men that marry these women have got to know something is up when their chosen fiancees spend more time planning the party than figuring out where they are going to live and who is going to mop the kitchen floor.
This falls under the "buyer beware". Many of these weddings are accompanied by very large gifts like houses or cash from the parents. I can't help but think that many of these couples have an eye on the lucrative prizes that result from holding a big wedding, more so than the idea of long-term marriage.
Perhaps it is time for the parents of young brides and grooms to hold back a little on the checkbook and there will be fewer failed marriages. My own sisters hit the lottery big-time when they got married and with future childbirths, my parents realized later that was a mistake.
Cham,
I agree with you about the wedding industry--and parents who are willing to foot the bill for this expensive party are part of the problem as you note.
However, my real objection here is the tone of the article--it is always PC to objectify men and now women have tried to make themselves the objectifiers. It is not much to brag about.
This why no man should ever marry without having a prenup.
For some reason people shy away from prenups because they feel like they take the romance out of the marriage. But the bottom line is that prenups just override the the laws that dictate how the assets are distributed if you decide to split the sheets in the absence of one. You are just agreeing to the State's formula. Hardly anyone actually understands those laws when they go into a marriage.
Not having a prenup is exactly the same as not having a will. Without a will, you are simply agreeing the you want your assets distributed according the the State's formula upon your death.
Virtually everyone has a will, but hardly anyone has a prenup, including myself; but I got married when I was young and idealistic.
I keep trying to get up the nerve to ask my wife for a post-nup, but so far I have been a big chicken.
When a woman marries a man in his 20s or early 30s, she is in effect buying a call option on a substantial proportion of his future income. If his career path does not turn out to meet her expectations, she can let the option lapse and go look for better prospects. If he does do well, she can exercise the call and benefit from his success.
I doubt if all that many women (10%?) pursue this strategy consciously, but it seems that a substantial number (50%?) do so at a subconscious level.
Others compare a starter husband to a first job, where you learn some skills and polish your resume before going after the position you really want....
If by 'the position they really want' they mean a better man for a husband, I'd be much more suspicious of a divorced lady than a never married one.
Why?
The divorce is a sign of one of several unflattering things, most of which boil down to this:
She doesn't take marriage seriously. In terms of going into it thoughtfully, putting in the work to maintain it, being of adequate character to even think of those things, etc.
Yeah, maybe she learned the first time around. Maybe she didn't.
Is it possible she's a completely wonderful person who ended up divorced for reasons that aren't related to defects in her character?
Sure. It's just not likely.
The men involved aren't blameless, but I have no need to evaluate them as potential wives.
I noticed that the article linked to another msnbc 'lifestyle' article entitled: Anal Bleaching: Is it for you?
Between this article and the anal bleaching, it looks like people think they can justify a degenerate set of behavoirs by calling it a 'lifestyle.'
Trouble is that they get away with it.
The Catholic Church regards having a prenup as evidence that neither party truly intends to get and stay married.
Either you trust somebody or you don't. If you don't, why marry that person?
Helen, I agree with you about the tone of the article. Also don't know how we've gotten to the point where a (seemingly) large amount of women regard marriage as a phase and don't intend it as a lifelong thing. I blame a culture that doesn't prepare for commitment or working through difficulty.
However, part of the celebration of second marriages is that some people really don't learn lessons until after they've gone through something like this and failed. I'm a second husband and better off for it because my wife has learned how to be in a marriage. (Or possibly, a better system of finding traits in a mate.)
BTW, I totally reject a blanket condemnation of divorced people. It's not always a show of character. Some marriages should never have started.
The Catholic Church is always about a little behind the times. It's the church's job to be wary of change. I believe that their is a place for the church in society, but one has to remember that they will always have rules which appear rediculous in modern context.
Remember that this is the institution that condemned Galileo in 1616 for suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, placing him under house arrest. When he died they left the poor guy burning in Hell until October 1992, when Pope John Paul II pardoned him, apologized, and sent him a ticket to Heaven.
That's 376 years behind the times, by my count.
its all just part of a self centered society where other people are easily disposable and often of very little value.
Maureen, the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely can apply here. A prenup can restore the balance of power between a husband and wife, which seems like a better idea than letting one have the ability to leave the other's life in complete ruin.
Let's say you buy a house. If you make an escape plan in the event of a fire, that's not an indication that you weren't serious about becoming a home owner. It means you are hoping for the best, but are prepared for the worst.
The thing is, Dr. Helen, there's a lot of young married men who would just love to switch things up after their wife gets into her 30s. These chicks who think of their first marriage as a warm-up are going to realize that it's a lot easier for a divorced man in his 30s to find and marry a younger woman, than the other way around. Then the joke will be on them.
Rick, you couldn't be more right. That is why over half of all marriages end in divorce to begin with. The rise of selfishness in the United States. I hate to say it but many people go into the sacrement of marriage with all of the conviction of an indifferent bystander, only looking for what they can gain from the deal. That's a recipe for disaster.
Peder,
I have nothing against divorce; if it is a bad situation and there is no fixing the relationship, one should get out. Many people I know have been divorced and their character is fine. However, going into the marriage with the intent of getting a divorce seems somehow wrong--it is using another person as a test for the real thing and that is not fair.
Between this story and the breatfeeding story from yesterday, it is clear that in America, there is a slow but powerful trend of *some* women demanding and getting special treatment.
Elsewhere in the world, Islamic societies forbid women from working, pursuing education, or exposing their faces in public. Yet, 'feminists' in the US are silent about this, and vilify America instead.
What a bizarre world this is.
I suspect this is after the fact rationalization.
I am 29 . I haven't been married . But if I married a woman under thirty. I would fully expect it not to last. pre-nups would be signed . And no house would be bought .
this might be harsh. But if a women divorces a man after a year or two and expects alimony. The term for that is prostitute not pioneer.
Ken:
It's not harsh at all, it's self-preservation.
I don't find this a bad thing . A practice marriage is fine as long as both parties are aware of it going in . what happens though is these women are play more of a game of Self -delusion . Not self empowerment or preservation .
i know 50 percent of marriages fail. I would like to see the numbers on . How many first marriages fail. second ,third and forth .
These women had no idea they where on their starter husband . Until well after their divorce. Then they here the term starter marriage and say "oh no big deal "
Dr. Helen,
Thank you for writing this blog. You're a real breath of fresh air to a man who has noticed since he was a little kid that rarely a day goes by without seeing or hearing some blatant form of celebrated misandry. I was reaching a point where my heart was sinking, I was becoming depressed and angry. It's only recently I've really noticed an uprising of people like you, who are intelligent and extremely well spoken, who have a strong ability at calling it for what it is, even when it's incredibly subtle. I feel better because of people like you, it helps me to see a light at the end of a long tunnel. Thank you.
As per usual the Jews are ahead of the game.
They have been doing marriage contracts for at least 2,300 years.
http://www.borstein.com/KetHist.htm
BTW, I totally reject a blanket condemnation of divorced people. It's not always a show of character. Some marriages should never have started.
And I think it shows a lack of seriousness and maturity, more often then not, to have started a marriage without properly vetting your partner.
It's not so much the divorce in such situations that I object to, but not being sensible in picking who you marry.
Of course there's such widespread immaturity in our culture that our standards for what is proper, decent, and sensible behavoir are all but gone.
Dr. Helen --
IMHO the auto, surbanization, atomization of personal/family/social life, physical and socio-economic mobility lead to very little constraints on actions, for either men or women.
Yes, starter husbands mean women can simply experiment with a man as a husband acting as a placeholder.
But there is a flipside. Which is that lack of committment means -- lack of committment. On both parties. Those commenting that a woman in her thirties is less physically desirable as a mate are spot on. Not the least of which is lack of fertility.
Women often overestimate their sexual power. Which exists but doesn't last and is not as strong as they think.
[This attitude also feeds into how various female-oriented businesses cater to female self-perceptions of women's power. Yes a reasonably attractive woman will be hit on three times a day every day from age 15 or so, but so what? I understand why women can think as they do -- that this obvious marker of power over men will always exist (and yes, sometimes it is quite annoying to be hit on all the time). But yes looks fade with time.]
I don't see this changing. I don't see it largely as feminist-inspired, simply a result of social mobility and lack of social controls over people's behavior.
Women ought to expect single motherhood and a lack of commitment from men as a general rule. Starter husbands and the large-scale tendency of women to trade up for higher-status men has already led men to conclude that loyalty and commitment is a loser's strategy.
[The "Anal Bleaching" bit to me screams of extreme competition among women for the few really high status men just as the Starter Husband bit does. You can read female-oriented books about how a woman dumps her loser husband for a higher-status stud, or Lifetime movies, etc. and get the same storyline.]
I think it was Cicero who wrote to his son recommending that he get married to quell the unpleasant sort of rumor, get divorced before his wife can ruin his reputation, then adopt an adult man, so the disappointments so common in the children of great families can be avoided.
Perhaps reality has a point somewhere after all. Maybe many women are nothing more than hookers, giving it up for and to the hubby of the highest bid.
I know I'd never marry a virgin. I would definitely need to view and test drive that stuff first. If it ain't any good enough, throw it back. And now, with the way the feminist movement is going on about things, I feel free to toss in they need to be good at oral sex as well. And with absolutely no guilt feelings, or male pig feelings about it. Turnabout is fair play.
It ain't men bringing it on. It's them. I don't believe I'll every feel guilty of wham, bam, thank you ma'am ever again.
Ken:
First marriages are 50%, give or take. Successive marriages, the divorce rate goes higher.
First marriages are 50%, give or take. Successive marriages, the divorce rate goes higher.
I thought that while the overall rate was 50%, it was brought up that high by people with strings of marriages and divorces.
So you could have ten married couples on a block, one guy would be twice divorced some other woman three times divorced, and the neighborhood would have a '50%' divorce rate, even if 80% of the people on the block only got married once.
I was tempted to leave a response on the MSN site, but decided against it; what would be the point?
This coming Thursday, I will mark abeam 27 years of marriage with the most magnificent woman I've ever met -- and when I read articles such as "The Starter Husband," it only makes me once again consider just how incredibly blessed I am. The callous disregard of "Andi" for a person she would claim to want to spend a life with is simply jaw-dropping.
Interestingly, the best bit of empirical data I've ever seen as to what constitutes the "secret sauce" for a successful long-term marriage is found in Dr. Tom Stanley's "The Millionaire Mind," the companion volume to "The Millionaire Next Door." In TMM, Stanley lists five characteristics that millionaire couples (who have been married an average of 30 years; this sort of consistent longevity rather suggests they might be on to something) both exhibit in themselves and seek in each other:
- honest
- responsible
- loving
- capable
- supportive
Measured against that standard, "Andi" appears to be a near-complete writeoff; she may be capable, but clearly there are fatal gaps in every other characteristic. I assert that her attitude, and the attitude of those like her, speaks to a foundational lack of character.
And what quality man, given better alternatives, would put up with such a self-centered loser?
To the Andis of the world -- if you want a worthy man, you might consider acting like a worthy woman.
Fortunately, not all women are as foolish as Andi.
...it is just a new twist on an old theme, leaving a lover with a broken heart.
Apparently the concluding part didn't resonate with others the way it did with me. Does that mean I'm a naive romantic who believes it's likely that at least one of the married couple would be someone in love?
Micajah,
I also assumed that getting married had something to do with love--apparently to much of the world, it is nothing more than a business deal or worse. How very sad.
"Practice marriage" is an oxymoron.
Go into it with the intent to leave -- even "the intent to leave if it doesn't work out" -- and what you have is simply NOT A MARRIAGE.
It's what annulments are for, not divorces.
Maureen,
With all due respect to the Catholic Church, marriage is a contract. A pre-nup simply makes the covert overt. We all go into a marriage with expectations and conditions, why not codify them?
Dr. Helen,
While I think love may get a person married, something more must keep the marriage going. Too many people believe that when the love fades, the marriage is over. That may be part of the reason why so many young women opt for starter marriages--they have romantic notions, very old-fashioned, as you point out.
If people brought the pragmatism of a business deal to the marriage contract, there might be less divorce. These days there is no romanticism or pragmatism. There is just expedience.
While I think love may get a person married, something more must keep the marriage going.
If you define love as some mushy gushy feeling that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy in side, then yes, it takes more than love to keep a marriage going.
However, I've always defined love as two people making a lifelong commitment to one another, so under that definition, it doesn't take more than love to keep a marriage together.
True love is a commitment, not an emotion. Emotions come and go, commitments don't.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marriage has always been about the exchange relationship between the genders.
Feminism reversed the cost:benefit ratio, and so now men understand that there is no value-added for being married.
Marriage for a man is all risk and no return....
Also, it's obvious that American women are no longer capable of being, or even capable of masquerading -- as being "feminine."
In a word, they are undesirable.
By their own choice and intention.
Hence, the growing Marriage Strike by men.
You GO GIRLS!
Preferably, just go away.
I don't think I really knew what love is until blessed with children. Until that time, I never loved anything or anyone more than myself.
I would do whatever necessary for any of my kids, without thought; even the forfeit of my own life.
I felt that way about my ex once.
Forgive me for my earlier post of wham, bam, etc. It was a knee jerk and angry response that I did not mean, and should not have typed.
There were good times in my marriage. The reasons it broke up were beyond any individual's control, and not intentional by the now ex were she ummm, in her right mind.
The caustic feminists and / or Andi's of the world are not even worthy of response, attention, or concern.
As dogwood and others have hinted on above, if you want to have one, you also need to be one. What Scott pulled out of "The Millionaire Mind" to share is about as right on the spot as could be said.
Time wounds all heels.
You know, practice marriages were covered at one time by a couple living together before marriage or with out the need for that "piece of paper".
Makes me wonder what the term "practice marriage" is really all about. Is it about getting all kinds of stuff for free, via legal stealing in divorce court?
I've said this numerous times, and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face. If you are a guy, and you think you're in love, wishing to marry this woman of your dreams, do yourself a favor first. Take a week's vacation. Spend the entire week against the back wall in your local divorce court. You will not believe what goes on. Don't be surprised if it leaves you to decide to call off your marriage.
Literally every man and woman I've known for the majority of my life who have married, have divorced at least once. A handful are on their third divorce. Bad choices, or bad people? What's the difference?
It's sad, but I kind of doubt these women married men who didn't understand what they were getting into -- assuming this isn't just self-justification after an experience they feel guilty for. The idea of making an eternal "I will stick by you no matter what" covenant in front of everyone who matters to you, with the idea in the back of your head that in five or ten years you can ditch this person for someone "better" is a sign of an anti-social person: everyone is just a tool to make myself feel better, prettier, happier, sexier, wealthier, etc., and can and will be discarded if I don't feel they're up to snuff. It's not healthy -- it's not even human. At least not the civilized rational kind of human.
Anyway, I don't blame people who won't marry a girl (or guy) who thinks like that. But I'm not sure this is a valid example for understanding the modern institution of marriage -- a society where most people think like that (that other people are tools) would be one that collapses in a hurry. And none of the young women I know think like that -- not the married ones, and not the unmarried ones, either.
This is very much using people ... Oh but! Men aren't people, so this is fine.
THAT seems to be the heart of the matter!
Those who look down their noses at those who have split up are simply wallowing in a good marriage and spitting on those who didn't "vest" their mate. Pray tell, how to vest and actually, you know, determine that the person will not change later.
This happens, and as br549 said, can happen for unforeseeable and unavoidable reasons.
Riffing off of Sarah's comment: the "I will stick by you no matter what" promise is why pre-nups are corrosive. A pre-nup makes it clear that at lest one of the partners has an exit strategy.
If I'm promising to stand by my husband through disease, poverty and suffering, I don't want to know that he's worried about who gets the china cabinet if we split up. Either he thinks I might screw him over, or he thinks he might screw me over. Either way, no thanks. (And, for the suspicious guys out there: one marriage, 20 years and counting.)
Wills, of course, are different. Not all marriages end in divorce, but certainly all lives end in death. :)
Hopefully there's not much down-nose-looking from the long-termers; after all, people do make mistakes. The most important question to ask about a mistake is "what did you learn from it?"
My wife's sister chose poorly her first time around, but landed a winner the second - mostly because, rather than simply denouncing all men as hopeless, she took a long look at herself. She made herself into a winner -- and, as a result, made herself into a worthy choice for a winner.
As Andrea said, If I'm promising to stand by my husband through disease, poverty and suffering, I don't want to know that he's worried about who gets the china cabinet if we split up. That absolutely works both ways. When I'm exchanging commitments to stick with someone through thick and thin, I'm rather counting on that someone to not have her fingers crossed behind her back.
The best answer I can offer to oligonicellas' question pray tell, how to vest and actually, you know, determine that the person will not change later is that chapter from Stanley. We all change over time; to stop growing is to begin the process of dying. But if both parties to a marriage are people of character and integrity; if they are both honest, responsible, loving, capable, and supportive, they will be people who can deal with the great majority of what life can lob at them.
And life will throw stuff at you. Sometimes really bad stuff. If you build your house of marriage on the bedrock of those five principles, it'll take a heck of a lot more to knock it down than if you don't.
One thing that should be noted- before the 20th century, the number of marriages that lasted more than 20 years was likely pretty small. Almost certainly less than 50 percent. 1/3 of women died in childbirth, and probably that number of men died within 20 years of their marriage from war, disease or famine. And among the wealthy in most times and places fidelity from the men was perhaps more of an ideal than an expectation. In most places it probably wasn't even an expectation.
First, in defense of divorcees, it takes two any more to keep a marriage intact, and if one wants out, they can typically get out. So, the fact that someone is divorced does not necessarily mean that they weren't committed, but could mean that the other was the one willing to jump.
Secondly, my understanding of the statistics is that a significant majority of divorces are filed by the wives. This could be because the men are more likely to find an outlet from a bad marriage outside the marriage, or it could reflect that women do far better in divorce than men do, both in terms of money, and most importantly, access to the kids.
afraid to be unmarried in their 20's.
Yeah. Not to take the focus back off of how hard it is to be a man, but society still treats women who haven't married at least once by 30 with suspicion at best and outright hostility at usual. It's assumed there is something terribly wrong with you if there isn't tangible proof that some man wanted you (most of my friends are divorced, and it's assumed there was something terribly wrong with the man, regardless of the actual situation). Women no longer have to give up their jobs and their freedom and their names to get married, so there's no reason not to be married except some personal defect.
My real worry if this really is a trend is that males are already questioning marriage and waiting longer and longer to sign up. So, you seem to have a lot of women in their mid to late twenties seeing their biological clocks running and panicking about marriage. Many of the guys though are in no hurry, figuring that they can play for another decade before settling down to raise a family.
So, you seem to find a lot of situations where the guys are content to shack up, work to play, and have a little sex on the side. That wouldn't be a problem if the women were looking for the same thing. But many seem to be wanting marriage and only do the shacking up because they don't see themselves having a choice - if they want a guy in their lives, they have to do it on his terms.
So, the guys, when they finally come around to marriage, being willing to fully commit to it, and are often devastated when the woman tries them out for awhile in a starter marriage, and if it doesn't work right, jumps.
So, why should the guys get married in the first place. If the women are looking at it as a starter marriage, the men have much more to lose, should the marriage fail. Emotionally, they are likely more committed. Plus, divorce these days is still stacked heavily in women's favor, both as to money and, more importantly, as to children and access thereto.
So, with most of the risk on the guys, why should they marry in the first place?
The next nail is likely to be a good, easy, and effective male contraceptive, so that when a woman comes to a guy telling him that she is pregnant with his kid and they will have to do the right thing, he can say to her, not me. Or, if he does marry her, he can have paternity testing upon birth, to get on record that he is not the biological father, and so shouldn't be hit with the child support if the marriage fails (which I would suggest is likely in that case, given the woman's fidelity).
First, in defense of divorcees, it takes two any more to keep a marriage intact, and if one wants out, they can typically get out.
I don't think anyone is here to attack those who divorce. It happens, sometimes for very legitimate reasons, sometimes because one or both parties are self-centered idiots.
In my family, unfortunately, there happened to be a lot of self-centered idiots among my various aunts and uncles.
Our main topic here has been discussing what it takes to keep a marriage alive and the narcissistic values on display in the article are counterproductive to creating and keeping a healthy marriage.
I agree with some of the prior commenters, if you enter a marriage thinking you can get out of it easily if things don't go as well as you expect, then you have already undermined the foundation of commitment necessary to a successful marriage.
Our premarital counseling 14 years ago featured three couples who had been married for different lengths of time.
One of the couples said if you begin to believe that divorce is an acceptable solution to your problems, then eventually you will get divorced because running away and blaming the other person in the marriage is always easier than staying and working through the issues.
Only in extreme cases, such as physical or emotional abuse, should divorce be considered the appropriate solution.
Finally, a bicycle analogy.
I taught my six-year-old daughter how to ride her bike without training wheels last week. While riding, she kept staring at the front tire and then she would start to have problems balancing, and pretty soon she was landing on the pavement.
I told her the secret to bicycling: you will go wherever you are looking. Look at the ground and you will crash. Look at the corner a block away and you will ride to the corner.
Marriage is the same way. Look for solutions that will keep the marriage alive and you will have a lasting marriage. Look to divorce as a possible solution, and you will find yourself divorced.
Marriage is much harder, of course, because both people in the relationship have to be looking at the same goal, and the women in the article definitely are not looking at the same goal.
Radish,
I'm sorry but a woman (or man) so afraid of "hostility" from others that they will get married just so they will "look good" in the eyes of others is nothing more than a coward.
At the end of the article, the woman is on to her second husband, who is just "wonderful." But, the article gives no real detail about what makes him so.
How is he not "boring" like the first husband? Does he read Satre instead of Tom Clancy? Is he watching art films instead of Adam Sandler movies?
Or, did she just hear her biological clock ticking and find a man whose income dwarfed that of both hers and her first husband's?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I think the writer may be on to something but I suspect her of the usual "composite character" and phony interview schtick that prevails in this type of writing. It's not only annoying, I think it overplays the author's message by making the issue seem more real or pervasive than it really is.
I used to take these kinds of works real seriously but I don't anymore.
scott --
"We all change over time;... But if both parties to a marriage are people of character and integrity; if they are both honest, responsible, loving, capable, and supportive,..."
Emphasis mine. You vest that your partner will stay this way how? Please provide the formula, for the world has been looking for it since time immemorial.
You have no control over what your partner can become. I've seen partners change from loving, caring people into caustic and abusive ones. In no way do I feel the other partner is responsible for maintaining the relationship on their own. It's equivelant to stealing their lives out from under them.
I am utterly thrilled for those who have long and loving relationships. They are probably far luckier than they think.
Andrea, the problem is that women already have a pre-nup. It's called divorce court and family court.
A smart man recognizes this regrettable fact and realizes people can change, sometimes very much. As another commenter said, buying fire insurance doesn't mean you're planning for the house to burn down.
Interesting how the tone of the article assumes that women are free to disregard their oath of marriage; that they have no integrity worth keeping and that it's OK to break your word, as long as its for the "right guy".
Personally, I think this article is a prime example of a problem with feminism, in general. Like at least some others have said, "don't throw me in the brier patch!" As if loose morals regarding marriage work in favor of women! Of course, some women might benefit on the whole from such things, but at the end of the day, it's really a female trait to want family and marriage and so on in the first place. The men usually have to be held to it while women get to act on their natural maternal instincts. So, while the characters in Sex in the City might all like the idea of a starter husband, such a thing would only undermine family life and so hurt women as group in the long run. Consider, for instance, the ex-husband's new wife -- he was the other woman's discarded starter husband, but now is supposed to be his second wife's keeper husband? Does he look at her as his keeper wife? Or, does he just think that it is just as easy to get out of this marriage as the last one?
It all really just goes back to little boys like to play with guns and little girls like to play with dolls.
What surprises me is that there aren't more private marriages. Why cant the catholics just use tort law and prenuptial agreements to construct a catholic marriage contract, for instance? It's not like I can come up with something that elaborate off the top of my head with just one lawyer drawing up the paper work. On the other hand, I am sure 2000 years of religion has armed the church with the knowledge of every last detail of just what is or is not a sin in marriage. So, they could really go all out and come up with it in legalese in a manner that effectively nullifies anything a state wants to impose and establishes what the church would require. That way when your wife decides she's no longer catholic, you don't have to go around still "married" to her in the eyes of the church long after she's started a new life with her new husband just because the state didn't give you a catholic marriage but instead just gave you the exceedingly prole and otherwise trashy state marriage.
Of course, atheists would have the atheist marriage, zulus would have the zulu marriage, gays would have the gay marriage, and some people might have their own personal version. There is nothing stopping this from happening right now other than a lack of information. One person and their lawyer cannot set out every little detail. It would have to start with something like a whole bunch of clergymen and lawyers to get the ball rolling. Once the catholics figure it all out, then the other religions and special interest groups would copy it a lot to come up with their own version. And, then the information would be out there for anyone to take up one of these and make the English-common-law-1930s marriage or the three-eyed-purple-people-eater-marriage or whatever. But, it wouldn't just be an add on with a few extra provisions but rather an entire rewrite of state law into their own personal marriage contract.
Long and short, I just don't see myself ever marrying again.
The fear of loss of everything worked for over an entire lifetime to that point, as has happened once already, exceeds the hope for, and joy of, finding the right one to spend the rest of my life with. It even exceeds my occasional lonliness.
Then there's also the broken heart thing, should that occur again too.
(Dr. Helen) -- "I also assumed that getting married had something to do with love--apparently to much of the world, it is nothing more than a business deal or worse. How very sad."
Helen (a.k.a. DR.), I am very curious to understand how you reconcile your identity as a psychological social scientist with your obvious naive bourgeois idealistic romanticism.
You seem to have neglected evolutionary psychology, arguably the only relevant trend in your faux-professional field.
Would you simply tell a new client that his/her assumptions were comforting, and charge them for only one session --- certifying them as "cured?"
You are a humorous woman indeed!
br459: Ditto - except that in my case I've never been married to begin with (I'll be 37 before the year is out). That, and I've seen too many of my own relatives go through infidelity and divorce.
Traditional marriage was killed a long time ago. It just hasn't been buried yet.
Oligonicella -- If I had the answer to that one and could sell it, I wouldn't have to work for a living. ;)
Agree that you have no control over the behavior of your partner, and there's no single lever you can pull or button you can push to ensure that the other party is a person of integrity.
All you can do is give it your best shot. It does, however, speak to the utility of spending not less than 2 years dating, to determine the extent to which the other person (and, for that matter, oneself as well) really does stack up against the measures of integrity and all the rest.
It has been said that a second marriage represents the triumph of hope over experience. Maybe I was just lucky. I hope not -- and I take my sister-in-law as corroborating data.
Ken: Men no longer provide alimony for young, healthy women whom they happen to divorce. Child support, yes.
Most women have to support themselves. If a marriage is of long standing, and the woman is old and has never worked, her ex-husband might have to provide alimony.
Marriage has always been more about business and politics than love. From the Royal Families of Europe, to Matchmakers determining who marries whom, to the custom of the groom asking permission of the bride's father, to Fundamentalist Muslims stoning tarnished virgins to death, it has been about something much larger than the happy couples desires for centuries.
The laws governing marriage and divorce have developed around these ancient outdated traditions, and are therefore ancient and outdated themselves.
Therefore, I repeat, any guy getting married in this day and age needs a pre-nup. As a previous poster has already pointed out, women already have a very one-sided pre-nup in the form of existing law.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with correcting a flawed and one-sided law with a fair and reasonable contract which overrides it.
Marriage ending in divorce probably wouldn't be so bad if each were able to keep what they had acquired before the marriage. And anything acquired after the marriage had to be sold (if a salable item) and the proceeds split 50 / 50.
But I guess it WOULD require a pre-nup for that to be.
miriam --
That is state and judge dependant.
Toren: Andrea, the problem is that women already have a pre-nup. It's called divorce court and family court.
A smart man recognizes this regrettable fact and realizes people can change, sometimes very much. As another commenter said, buying fire insurance doesn't mean you're planning for the house to burn down.
(shrug) Suit yourself. I don't insist you structure your marriage the way I did. In talking to various friends and colleagues, American and not, I've come to realize that there are many different ways of being married, and I'm OK with that as long as both partners know the score going in.
However, I was looking for a man who would commit all the way: pledge his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor. To me, that's what a marriage is, and it's what I intend to stick to, through good and bad. (We've had a lot of both.) A man who wants a pre-nup isn't prepared to commit that far, and so that's not a man I would marry.
andrea: Are you saying that the current law is a really really good stick that you use to enforce his pledge of his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor?
For a man to be an acceptable husband he has to place his very life in your hands knowing that you can choose to extinguish him at any time?
Wow
Andrea
Why do I get the feeling that you, like most American women, want is for a man to make a legally binding commitment, without requiring you to do the same, right? I think it was Warren Farrell who first said that the entire thrust of American feminism is that "Women should have options. Men should have obligations". Every time that I hear a women demand to be be trusted, while she simultaneously demands to be well paid when she breaks that trust, I just want to puke.
It's easy to write these women off as callous or self-absorbed.
Not only easy but correct, plus selfish, self-centered, ego-centric, sociopathic, etc. But, this is a sign of the times. I commonly hear women exclaim, "He doesn't make me happy." or something similiar. I can't swear I've ever heard a man say the converse. Marriage isn't all about making the woman happy but many women seem to think it is.
Andrea:
If existing law had developed retaining the portion that made a wife her husband's property, to use and dispose of as he pleased, would you still be so horrified at the idea of modifying it with a pre-nup?
dadvocate
The issue isn't whether women are callous, self-absorbed, selfish..., the issue, at least to me, is that they are incredibly hypocritical.
I've probably read way too much about evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics. In both paradigms, there are no nice people. Everybody, literally everybody, is callous, self-absorbed, selfish, manipulative etc. (Interestingly enough, political conservatives and libertarians seem to have internalized this concept, while political liberals like to act as if it isn't true while simultaneously proving, by their actions, that it is.) One likely consequence is that. over evolutionary time, humans simultaneously developed a tendency to exploit their social environment and a countervailing ability to detect when they are being exploited. (This is known as "Machiavellian Intelligence".)
Unfortunately, thirty years of feminizi propoganda have convinced an entire generation of women in most western democracies that men are just here to serve women. And when men complain about, they get hammered by women. It's almost as if women have decided that men should be punished for not doing what women want instead of being rewarded when they do. At some point, it becomes reasonable for men to simply decide that long-term intimate relationships with women are unlikely to improve men's lives. Punishing a rat to shape its behavior only works because the rat is powerless to escape its tormenter. Men are not rats, at least not yet.
It's only recently I've really noticed an uprising of people like you, who are intelligent and extremely well spoken, who have a strong ability at calling it for what it is, even when it's incredibly subtle. I feel better because of people like you, it helps me to see a light at the end of a long tunnel. Thank you.
Yes. Viewpoints that used to be easily drowned out are now being heard, thanks to the internet. Dr. Helen is only one of those voices, but as the mother of a 2-year-old-son, I am especially glad that the male point-of-view is starting to get out now.
Fascinating article, and good comments. Thanks for sharing it. I haven't read all the comments.
My take: Remember this is an article written in a glossy women's magazine. There's a certain tone required; the women cited are atypical in their monstrous callousness, and there's no trend data. That's par for the course for this type of article. Part of what we're supposed to do is react in horror to them.
In other words, while I think marriage is an institution under siege in our culture, it's not dead yet. There are plenty of wonderful women. There are plenty of wonderful men. There are plenty of successful marriages.
bobh - I agree with you. I made a short comment because I'm pressed for time. There are so many things wrong with this article one could go on almost forever. But, it reallly bothers me that it is promoting a sociopathic attitude for women to use and discard others for their own selfish purposes.
Andrea,
Suit yourself. I've been happily married 19 years two weeks ago, will stay that way. And we have no pre-nup.
But, I am the father of two boys. I will tell both of them that pre-nups are essential. If the lady in question will not sign, leave immediately.
Not because of the women they choose, but because of the blatantly unfair and brutally dishonest legal environment that men in Divorce and Family Courts have to face.
A well-written pre-nup can be the only significant protection that a man can legally get. Even then, it's not foolproof, but it's something.
Otherwise, you are trusting solely in your ability to judge others to prevent getting the shaft by someone backed by the power of the State later. The man in question is saying "If I guess wrong, I want absolutely no ability to protect myself from the State sticking it to me to lengths that have to be seen to be believed."
Put simply, there is no way in the current legal environment for a woman to "commit all the way: pledge [her] life, [her] fortune, and [her] sacred honor." The legal system (at least in states I am familiar with) automatically gives her an out. It also says that, without a pre-nup, a man often makes that commitment, under penalty of law, even if he didn't want to. The law is unfair, but only a fool ignores it.
A well-written pre-nup only balances (somewhat) the scale. It says "if you try to shaft me, you cannot use the State to take my money."
Besides, if the lady in question is in it for the long haul, then she has nothing to fear, right ? If she refuses to sign, then she must be looking to go into a marriage only for a short time, and she's the one "looking for an exit strategy."
The viewpoint is a sword that cuts both ways.
I agree pre-nups are sad. But in the current legal environment, to disparage them as an 'exit strategy' is over-reacting. Even my wife has said that, in the current age, a successful man with something significant to lose would be a fool to not get one.
Personally, it isn't so much that the state is biased in favor of women as that it is the state. It doesn't matter what one personally thinks their marriage means to them. What makes the difference between your wife and our girlfriend is the public attitude by the community around you towards your relationship to each other. So, I took the state marriage like most everyone else. But what that means is that whatever my marriage meant back in South Carolina where I got married at, it means something different now that I live in Texas. And my marriage means something else now than my parents' marriage meant way back in the day before I was even born. And, my marriage will mean yet something else some years from now without even my doing one single thing to change it. It just changes with whatever social norms come and go over time and where ever you happen to live.
On the other hand, if you deliberately forge a contract, that doesn't really change. Sure the context it was forged in can and there may well be limits to what can be done with tort law depending on where you live and so on. But doing as much as you can this way with prenups and contracts will make your marriage not just be timeless and eternal and blah blah blah in your own idealized personal way of thinking about it, but actually also be that way in reality.
In fact, that is what I would say to Andrea... she says "If I'm promising to stand by my husband through disease, poverty and suffering,...." But, if you got a state marriage, I hate to inform you that you made no such promise. Perhaps you made it to him in your heart or you uttered your personal commitment to do so at the ceremony of your union. But, a real tangible promise along those lines? You made no such thing. You got a state marriage. If you wanted that kind of a promise, you should have used prenups and contract law to make it an actual reality.
Rudebwoy : ah "evolutionary psychology" - the art of reverse-engineering ad-hoc "just so" stories to explain a long line of hypothetical and otherwise unknowable selection events in our long history, which influenced gene frequencies to somehow produce the complex hardware we use for thinking. Attempting to explain the very facts it was reverse-engineered from, with no new ones predicted. Nice.
I had similar thoughts as a teenager, and it was fun, while it lasted.
"I think marriage is the new dating and having kids is the new marriage."
I think she's right. It is where the culture seems to have headed. And I think she was being honest by about half -- honest with herself because she never intended the marriage to last until death, but manipulative and dishonest to the man she married because she never intended the marriage to last until death. He apparently did. That's not entirely her fault; for whatever reason, he failed to do his pre-nuptial homework.
I can imagine being happily married in a "starter marriage" as long as we both agree that that is what it is. We would agree to honor certain written vows (such as the promise to not bring children into the marriage) from, say, age 25 to age 30 when, predetermined, the marriage automatically terminates on a specific date.
What would be wrong with that? It seems to me honesty and openness would most likely prevail. And in a short term marriage without children, a well-written pre-nup should effectively and fairly protect the interests of both parties.
But, pre-nup or not, once children enter the equation or once the marriage becomes long term, it's hard to argue against the state having a compelling interest in adjudicating what is fair and how to best protect the material interests of those children and the interests of the spouse who is less financially empowered.
We can bemoan the fact that we are living in an increasingly narcissistic age. It's a shame. It is -- a crying screaming shame -- but we are where we are.
All the more reason to make sure our laws and cultural practices account for the fact.
Call me a silly old naive romantic fool, but I stand with Andrea, whom I rather suspect would stack up pretty well on Stanley's five metrics. I pledged my life, my fortune, and my sacred honour to a worthy woman who pledged to me her heart and her lifelong love in return. (You guys in the back, stop barfing. ;)
The worthy woman concerned never let me down.
In fact, in a decades-old running joke between us, she once got me a book titled "Playing the Stock Market With Your Computer;" this ancient book (containing BASIC source code and pictures of the steam-powered PCs of the late 70s/early 80s) actually had the rudiments of sound investment strategies contained within it.
More to the point, the book also bears an inscription inside the front cover, penned by my bride: This is to help you make your fortune so I can help you spend it.
Still have the book. More importantly, still have the wife.
Scott:
None of us old guys have pre-nups, and in ideal world no one would need one. We'll celebrate our 25th aniversary this year and although it hasn't always been a bed of roses, we are more in love and happier than ever.
But I have so side with 1Charlie2 when it comes to our son (Age 16). There are simply too many women out there in this day and age who simply see men as sperm donors and giant wallets; and the laws of all States that I know of side with them on this issue.
I hope that when and if the time comes, our son demands a pre-nup from the lucky bride; both his mother and I will be encouraging him to do so.
When I became Catholic, I was a little surprised that the church banned pre-nups. I took it as a sign to get married only to the most committed of women; I'm still single ;)
Truth is, a good marriage can make your life, a bad marriage can damage it almost beyond repair. Remaining single is in between -- though many truly love being single. I've sort of gotten used it.
Still, I admire those that take the risk. I dated for about 25 years -- recently, I did some Internet research (aka, google-stalking) on my ex-girlfriends whom I dated a year or more. Here's what I found:
The first cheated on her husband of 20 years and lost custody of her kids.
A second suicided during her divorce after 17 years of marriage.
A third is heavily in debt.
A fourth is on her third husband.
A fifth became a lesbian.
A sixth has become the neighborhood "crazy dog lady."
A seventh lived happily ever after.
Not surprisingly, the problems in our respective relationships were sexual infidelity, depression, finances, lack of commitment, her inability to trust men emotionally, and her strong tendency to put her dogs first.
I'll own the problems on the seventh one, but I'm glad she's happy. I know that I never would've made her that happy.
The moral? It's really hard to find a good person to have a relationship with! But if you do, make it work. And if it doesn't, don't necessarily believe that the next person won't experience the same problems you did ...
Reluctantly concedes Tomcal's point re: too many predatory women.
Were I to do it over, though, I'd still persist in my foolishness and seek that one diamond amid the lumps of coal, even at risk of being buried in the mine.
For I have held a perfect diamond in my hand, and know firsthand its incalculable worth.
I've read the posts up and down, andrea. I can understand your want of a man to pledge all you have stated.
But I have not read you stating the same.
Marriage is a place where two come together above everything and everyone else, foresaking all others for each other. It's a promise. A promise before God (whether one belives in Him or not) before relatives, friends, parents of the bride and groom, and to each other. The most sacred thing a feeble human can do. All we have is our word, really. Is that not sacred honor? A lot has happened in my particular life. But I'm still standing, just where I stood.
I hear what you want, what you expect to be given. Are you willing to give the same? Or have you, if married? What else could possibly work?
Helen:
I failed to notice your new photo until just now.
With that new look I'm sure you could find a replacement for Glenn inside of a week. ;)
Andrea sounds like Kurt Russell. He's said he won't get married, because it's just a piece of paper. He's taking it from a different angle, but the point is the same.
Up until the 1940s or 50s you basically couldn't get divorced except for extreme situations. A prenup which effects the same result is somehow less of a commitment? Prenups do not necessarily refer to wealth either; if I ever got married I'd probably want one to guarantee joint custody. A woman who refused to give me joint custody of any future children we might have, at a point when she's supposed to love me, would spell the end of the relationship.
Guarantee joint custody? Matthew, I guarantee you: no prenuptial will guarantee anyone any kind of child custody. The reason is simple: Children are not property; they're people.
The closest one can get to guaranteed child custody: Be a responsible caring parent, never negligent, never abusive. Live your life within your means, within the law, and above reproach. Stay married to and respect the rights of your child's other parent whether you love each other or not.
In American society, if you bring children into the world, the rest of us don't care if your spouse is suppose to love you or not. That's between the two of you. But we do expect you to do your best to care for those children.
Suggested reading:
http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/d/News/headlines.html
With that new look I'm sure you could find a replacement for Glenn inside of a week.
Make sure that your divorce settlement includes at least 3 insta-links a week.
Igno:
I meant it as a compliment...
Anyway, I am off to Nicaragua again to help the poor. I'll be at my house down there at about noon tomorrow and will check in to see where this very interesting discussion has led.
I like the Johnny Cash look, too. The woman in black.
But then again, Dr. Helen would look great in a potato sack, if that is what she chose to wear that day.
no prenuptial will guarantee anyone any kind of child custody.
I guess I'll avoid getting married then, at least in this country.
"... ah "evolutionary psychology" - the art of reverse-engineering ad-hoc ..."
Someone else commented about Dr. Helen's new "dark" sig photo.
Why is she always looking off into the horizon over her right shoulder?
On this evidence alone, I rest my case.
If the human race (meaning almost always men) could not reverse-engineer, we would all still be living in caves, with women shouting ---
"You go out there first!"
Of course, nothing significant has changed.
The saber-toothed tigers were extinguished though.
Men killed them. Women ate them and made babies.
Women were way better off when men were hunters than today when even the best prospects are errand boys on Wall Street.
What is Helen looking at, with that faux-smile?
She looks predatory....
For all of you "women bad men good" folks out there....good luck with that. ;)
cham bad, men good?
It's good to be back east.
Whoops, assumed the thread dead too early.....
For those who assert I didn't make the same promise that I demanded of my husband: Absolutely not true, whether you mean it legally or morally.
The important part is moral. I made the same promise to my husband, and I don't make promises lightly. Sure, it's risky. So's life. A pre-nup will protect your money, but not the things that really matter.
However, since several of you are convinced that I could stick it to my husband financially if I chose:
Marriage property: I live in a community-property state, and I married very young; everything I own is a property of the marriage. He gets half in a split.
Support after marriage: I'm the primary wage-earner. If alimony was awarded at all in a divorce, I'd be the one paying it, not him. (Yes, it does happen; I've seen it.)
Children: We don't have any. Child support and custody are not an issue.
Anything I missed? I don't have the legal right to give my husband a wedgie during divorce proceedings, either.
(Scott, sounds like we're both old-fashioned romantics. Still a few of us out here, I guess.)
andrea...
for a woman who "made a promise" you certainly seem to have considered at length all the bail-out contingencies, opt-outs, and small-print subclauses in your marriage vows.
Smart girl!
Now, please stay on your birth control, just to keep your promise of equality with your soulmate honest, OK?
Funny "equal" logic that.
Sorry, andrea. Did not know you were an old fashioned romantic. It didn't seem to come across that way in your previous postings.
Either that, or you were intentionally holding back some comment info to use to come out on top in your final post of the issue. Looks like a switcheroo to me.
Perhaps in deepest, darkest Africa, finances don't matter; money and real property don't matter. But even there, people have things important to them, to use as bartering tools, trading, etc. They build huts, etc. and live in groups. Nomads that follow herds around have beasts of burden, tents, utensils, clothing, even weapons. They, too, depend on trade to get what they need.
In the rest of the world, there is money to take place of that. So people can devote themselves to maximizing their capabilities in a trade or position; their bartering tools, cash or a great credit rating.
A woman doesn't even need to be vindictive in a divorce. The state does it for her. From experience, the one a man hates the most in an uneven and unfair divorce is his own lawyer, then the state, her lawyer, and only then, and only perhaps, her.
Lawyers don't like short and sweet divorces. They don't make any money at them. However, run OUT of money during a divorce, and lawyers disappear like magic. Especially your own lawyer.
For br549: Nope, not holding anything back. It just never occurred to me that so many people would react the way they did, so I provided extra details later on. I'm from a family where, when you make a promise, you mean it. I didn't think that was such a rare thing. I hope it isn't.
For rudebwoy: (sigh.) I'm just pointing out, for several commenters who said that I had less at stake in the marriage than my husband, that if the state is going to stick it to anyone in a divorce, they're going to stick it to me. Apparently, in your book, if I would get alimony in a divorce, I'm a gold-digger; if my husband would, I'm a scheming female who's staying married to him because I'm too smart for a divorce. I do not envy you your social life.
Thanks, andrea. It is rare though.
To see how rare, perhaps you too should spend a week in the last row against the back wall in a local divorce court. I was totally shocked and dismayed with the goings on, and was not there by choice. But it's not a bad idea for anyone considering marriage. Not just men, by the way. It's better to discover some things once removed.
Somewhere along the line, it became easier to procure things than to keep them. The ensuing loss of the importance of any such thing has not been helpful. Family, home... that's what it's all about for me.
Reminds me of a song, Giant Step.
"Remember when you were a child, and you woke up in the morning smiling..." If I have to shovel pig crap all day every day, so my kids can wake up smiling, that's what I'll do. Whirled peas begins at home, Sally.
andrea -- "I do not envy you your social life."
Why do women always assume that a man who is not self-deprecating and humble and servile ... and dedicated to serving women...
has no social life?
The answer ---
Because you are sexist in your beliefs and misandrist in your heart.
Your assumptions are your prison.
Feminism has cost you your femininity.
Of course, I never expect an intellectual response from a female.
Might as well go have a deep conversation with a cow in a pasture....
Sorry.
Nothing personal.
Just an objective observation.
Based on 40 years of random sampling....
I read this article too, and totally agree with your comments. It is my pet peeve when women label things as "progress" when they are actually setbacks. I was also disappointed with the Marie Claire article's lame sidebar on how to tell if it's a starter marriage, so I created my own real list on my blog here http://www.bridezilla.com/2007/10/5_solutions_to_the_starter_hus.cfm
If anyone's interested!
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
ドルチェ&ガッバーナDOLCE & GABBANAドルチェ&ガッバーナ バッグドルチェ&ガッバーナ 財布ドルチェ&ガッバーナ ネックレスドルチェ&ガッバーナ サングラスドルチェ&ガッバーナ リングドルチェ&ガッバーナ 香水ドルチェ&ガッバーナ シューズドルチェ&ガッバーナ アウタードルチェ&ガッバーナ インナードルチェ&ガッバーナ シャツドルチェ&ガッバーナ ジーンズドルチェ&ガッバーナ 時計ドルチェ&ガッバーナ Tシャツグッチgucciグッチ バッググッチ 財布グッチ ネックレスグッチ サングラスグッチ リンググッチ 香水グッチ シューズグッチ アウターグッチ シャツグッチ ジーンズグッチ 時計グッチ Tシャツグッチ アウターグッチ インナーディオールChristian Diorディオール バッグディオール 財布ディオール ネックレスディオール サングラスディオール リングディオール 香水ディオール シューズディオール アウターディオール シャツディオール ジーンズディオール Tシャツディオール 時計ディオール インナーヴィトンLOUIS VUITTONヴィトン バッグヴィトン 財布ヴィトン ネックレスヴィトン サングラスヴィトン リングヴィトン シューズヴィトン アウターヴィトン シャツヴィトン ジーンズヴィトン Tシャツヴィトン 時計シャネルCHANELシャネル バッグシャネル 財布シャネル ネックレスシャネル サングラスシャネル リングシャネル 香水シャネル シューズシャネル アウターシャネル シャツシャネル ジーンズシャネル Tシャツシャネル 時計シャネル インナーシャネル ワンピースプラダpradaプラダ バッグプラダ 財布プラダ ネックレスプラダ サングラスプラダ リングプラダ 香水プラダ シューズプラダ アウタープラダ シャツプラダ ジーンズプラダ Tシャツプラダ 時計フェラガモSALVATORE FERRAGAMOフェラガモ バッグフェラガモ 財布フェラガモ ネックレスフェラガモ サングラスフェラガモ キーリングフェラガモ 香水フェラガモ シューズフェラガモ アウターフェラガモ シャツフェラガモ パンツフェラガモ Tシャツフェラガモ 時計セリーヌCELINEセリーヌ バッグセリーヌ 財布セリーヌ ネックレスセリーヌ サングラスセリーヌ リングセリーヌ 香水セリーヌ シューズセリーヌ アウターセリーヌ シャツセリーヌ ジーンズセリーヌ TシャツボッテガBOTTEGA VENETAボッテガ バッグボッテガ 財布ボッテガ ネックレスボッテガ サングラスボッテガ リングボッテガ 香水ボッテガ シューズボッテガ アウターボッテガ シャツボッテガ ジーンズボッテガ TシャツコーチCOACHコーチ バッグコーチ 財布コーチ ネックレスコーチ サングラスコーチ リングコーチ 香水コーチ シューズコーチ アウターコーチ シャツコーチ ジーンズコーチ Tシャツコーチ 時計ダンヒルdunhillダンヒル バッグダンヒル 財布ダンヒル カフスボタンダンヒル サングラスダンヒル リングダンヒル 香水ダンヒル シューズダンヒル アウターダンヒル シャツダンヒル ジーンズダンヒル Tシャツダンヒル 時計ロエベLOEWEロエベ バッグロエベ 財布ロエベ ネックレスロエベ サングラスロエベ キーホルダーロエベ 香水ロエベ シューズロエベ アウターロエベ シャツロエベ ジーンズロエベ TシャツディーゼルDIESELディーゼル バッグディーゼル 財布ディーゼル ネックレスディーゼル サングラスディーゼル リングディーゼル 香水ディーゼル シューズディーゼル アウターディーゼル シャツディーゼル ジーンズディーゼル Tシャツディーゼル 時計ディーゼル インナーデリヘル 大阪仙台 デリヘル仙台 風俗仙台 デリヘル仙台 風俗仙台 デリヘル仙台 風俗家族葬滋賀 賃貸葬儀 費用滋賀県の賃貸滋賀の賃貸アダルト SEO被リンク相互リンク茶道具 買取絵画 買取レザー革小物クレジットカード 現金化現金化ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化現金化ショッピング枠 現金化FXFX 比較FX 初心者脱毛 大阪埋没 大阪わきが 大阪オーロラ 大阪クリニックエスニックタウンサーチ探偵 大阪浮気調査 大阪素行調査 大阪別れさせ 大阪吹田 美容室エステ 尼崎キャッシング大阪 賃貸中古車 販売ルームウェア大阪 マンション賃貸マンション 神戸中古 ゴルフクラブクールビズフィットネスクラブ大阪府 司法書士クレジット 申し込みベビードール矯正歯科 東京ホワイトニング 東京大阪 ラブホテルリサイクルショップ不動産カードローン投資 信託下着即日 キャッシング三井住友銀行神戸市 中央区 税理士FX消費者金融ローン引越し生命保険ジェルネイル人材派遣ネット証券アフィリエイト格安航空券ウィークリーマンションレンタカーSEOオフィス家具合宿免許ペット用品高速バスデリヘルキャバクラ派遣コラーゲン化粧品インテリアウェディング結婚相談投資物件留学貸事務所 大阪経営コンサルティング工芸品高級品自動車保険ホテヘルレストランウェディングバイク買取運転免許ベビーカー外反母趾圧力鍋腕時計フェラガモデリヘルキャバクラセレブプラセンタカルシウム青汁ブルーベリー家具脱毛クリーム除毛クリームコスト削減 大阪弁護士 大阪車買取 大阪バイク買取 大阪エステ 大阪リフォーム 大阪
大阪 歯科派遣 大阪アルバイト 大阪転職 大阪大阪 住宅大阪 専門学校グルメ 大阪ホテル 大阪一戸建て 大阪大阪 宿泊大阪 マンションデリヘル 大阪印刷 大阪不動産 大阪賃貸 大阪ブライダル 大阪リサイクルアダルト SEO賃貸SEO 大阪イベント コンパニオン 大阪転職 大阪大阪 ラブホペット ショップ 大阪豆腐京都 不動産運転免許 合宿ヘアアイロンダイエットダイエットデリヘルキャバクラシャンパン老人ホーム精力剤大阪 ラブホテルブランド品 買取ワイン京都 不動産ペットリサイクルショップ歯科求人結婚式場バイク便動物病院美容整形外科エルメスダイエットダイエット食品腕時計ヘアアイロンクレイツアイビルa
アドストバッグネイルアクセンツヘアアイロンクレイツシャンプーアイビルジェルネイル育毛剤ドライヤーアゲハ嬢ダイエットサプリリサイクルショップ 大阪リサイクルショップ 東京リサイクルショップ 名古屋fx 口座開設fx 資料請求FX 比較大阪 不動産不動産 投資不動産 比較投資 信託 大阪投資 信託 初心者下着 女性下着 男性下着 ブログ消費者金融 審査消費者金融 ランキング消費者金融 大阪ローン 比較ローン 自動車ローン 金利引っ越し 比較引っ越し 口コミ引っ越し 挨拶保険 資料請求保険 比較保険 ランキングジェルネイル やり方ジェルネイル デザインジェルネイル 激安人材派遣 関西人材派遣 仕組みネット証券 選び方ネット証券 初心者ネット証券 手数料アフィリエイト 初心者アフィリエイト 稼ぐアフィリエイト 比較国内格安航空券格安航空券 海外格安航空券 沖縄ウィークリーマンション 東京ウィークリーマンション 大阪ウィークリーマンション 福岡レンタカー 格安レンタカー 沖縄レンタカー 東京オフィス家具 中古オフィス家具 激安オフィス家具 買取合宿免許 激安合宿免許 沖縄合宿免許 大型ペット用品 激安ペット用品 犬ペット用品 通販高速バス 時刻表高速バス 名古屋高速バス 大阪デリヘル 仙台デリヘル 大阪デリヘル 東京キャバクラ 求人キャバクラ 東京キャバクラ 大阪圧力鍋 歴史圧力鍋 構造圧力鍋 ランキングフェラガモ バッグフェラガモ 靴フェラガモ 財布セレブ 海外セレブ ファションセレブ ゴシップ青汁 ランキング青汁 効果青汁 口コミブルーベリー 栽培ブルーベリー 利用ブルーベリー 生産家具 イケア家具 ニトリ家具 イームズ脱毛クリーム 永久脱毛クリーム 男性脱毛クリーム 比較除毛クリーム ランキング除毛クリーム 男性除毛クリーム トラブル弁護士 大阪 制度弁護士 大阪 費用弁護士 大阪 トラブル車買取 大阪 相場車買取 大阪 査定車買取 大阪 比較エステ 大阪 フェイシャルエステ 大阪 求人エステ 大阪 メンズリフォーム 大阪 キッチンリフォーム 大阪 マンションリフォーム 大阪 外壁大阪 歯医者 ランキング大阪 歯医者 料金大阪 歯医者 矯正派遣 大阪 求人派遣 大阪 短期派遣 大阪 ランキングアルバイト 大阪 検索アルバイト 大阪 短期アルバイト 大阪 口コミ転職 大阪 求人転職 大阪 ランキング転職 大阪 女性大阪 住宅 検索大阪 住宅 ローン大阪 住宅 中古専門学校 大阪 美容専門学校 大阪 看護専門学校 大阪 調理大阪 グルメ カフェ大阪 グルメ お好み焼き大阪 グルメ たこ焼きホテル 大阪 シティホテルホテル 大阪 ビジネスホテルホテル 大阪 モーテル大阪 一戸建て 検索大阪 一戸建て 口コミ大阪 一戸建て ランキング大阪 宿泊 格安大阪 宿泊 高級大阪 宿泊 口コミ大阪 マンション 新築大阪 マンション 中古大阪 マンション 賃貸大阪 デリヘル 人妻大阪 デリヘル ＯＬ大阪 デリヘル 3Ｐ印刷 大阪 チラシ印刷 大阪 名刺印刷 大阪 格安大阪 不動産 検索大阪 不動産 分譲大阪 不動産 比較大阪 賃貸 学生大阪 賃貸 格安大阪 賃貸 マンションブライダル 大阪 ホテルブライダル 大阪 ヘアブライダル 大阪 プランナーリサイクルショップ 東京リサイクルショップ 大阪リサイクルショップ 比較アダルト ＳＥＯ 方法アダルト ＳＥＯ 大阪アダルト ＳＥＯ 口コミ賃貸 検索賃貸 大阪賃貸 学生
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室入口聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet激情網愛聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室交友pixnet聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室080聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜視訊ggo聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室找一夜聊天室ut
情趣用品,情趣,按摩棒,跳蛋,充氣娃娃,情人節禮物,美女視訊,辣妹視訊,成人網站,免費視訊,成人電影,成人,情趣用品花美姬,情趣精品,男女情趣用品,台中情趣用品,台北情趣用品,高雄情趣用品,情趣用品.情趣精品
情趣用品,情惑用品性易購,情人花束,情趣用品,情惑用品性易購,情人視訊網,情趣用品,情惑用品性易購,情人視訊網,情趣用品,情侶歡愉用品,視訊交友90739,視訊交友90739,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情人視訊高雄網,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,情趣用品,情侶歡愉用品,情趣用品
ivip毛毛賺錢聯盟,ivip毛毛賺錢聯盟,ivip毛毛賺錢聯盟,ivip網路創業須知,ivip能賺多少錢,ivip最佳推薦人,ivip推薦人重要性
Post a Comment
<< Home