PJTV: Do men really want to get married?
Author and Award-winning CNN producer Alex Wellen says "yes" --men want to get married. He joins me today to talk about his new book, Lovesick: A Novel,
about the rocky road to marriage for one man. Though men have been portrayed in the media as resenting or fleeing from marriage, Wellen finds out differently when he interviews men to get an idea of what they want from marriage. Recently married men tell him how they feel about being married--why did they decide to go through with it? On this blog, many men feel that marriage is not the right step for them. I would welcome your thoughts about what Wellen says.You can watch the interview here.
posted by Helen at 1:00 PM
98 Comments:
It sounds like "men" are just one giant homogeneous blob.
I never wanted to get married even aside from the current court situation for men. I never wanted to support a woman and be obligated to continue to do so no matter what.
I have never wanted to get married and i have got to 60yrs old and still dont want to get married so im with JG on this one.
No great insights from Alex Wellen. Lots of fluffy talk.
I love being married. My wife is an absolutely wonderful woman who loves me dearly as I do her.
I think most women desire marriage from a young age while men tend to fear it. I think men tend to think more about what they are giving up my marrying. Having said that, I think the men in successful relationships are generally very happy to be married and find the role of husband and father to be rewarding.
I want to get married and be a dutiful husband and father. I also want a Woman for my partner and help-meet and women seem to be short supply in the 'States. Many spoiled girls, shrieking harridans, and viperous gold-diggers, but women seem missing in action.
But I am old-fashioned and a romantic. Logically, marriage today is a bad deal for men.
I think a lot of men want marriage, they just don't want it with 70's era crop of NOW women.
i have been discussing the variety of topics and points here with my girlfriend and she had begun to tune me out...and i realised that she was beginning to think i was including her in the list of demanding princesses that men fear.
she, like me, walked away from a marriage without anything but debt and the joint responsibility of raising two children.
it is very dfficult to find any woman who is not of the hair and nails set....and the majority of them are happily married, and have been for years.
i am still a little shell-shocked from the dating scene of a year and a half ago and the endless job interviews that i thought were dates....and so i project some of that into discussions and analysis as i try to figure where men and women are heading.
i think there are women out there who make good partners in marriage withhout one eye on divorce as a means to enrichment and "freedom", but i may be deluded.
many of these women will be found in areas and environments where modern media isn`t so prevelent......
I would like to be married. However, considering that I am a Republican and therefore a second-class citizen, to do so would be very difficult. Everywhere I go, I can sense the "Oh, you're a chickenhawk Republican accountant" thoughts in women's minds--even though I served in the Marines and have worked physical jobs most of my life.
Democrats, usually, have easy make-work paper-pushing jobs, and never have to lift a finger, yet the vast majority of women view all Democrat males as tough sexy bad boys from the streets who can beat up those cowardly Republican accountants.
Yes, I am bitter.
regarding the writer of the book and his comments about what he found when interviewing men....he made it clear to me that the men he interviewed were grasping at philosophical arabesques to justify not "losing" the person they were with, or needing to have a career or a ring of some stature....revealing thier insecurity with thier value as a person in the relationship, as opposed to what they can materially bring to the show.
to be fair i only watched about half the clip, but unless he talked to the women also and how they could reduce the anxiety of the men they were planning to marry...and how they were going to join in a metaphysical union as opposed to a legal material one....i think i would find him repeating himself for clarity.
and why is it that many of these commnts are written by people with no actual blog?
Ken: I'm a conservative married to a very liberal woman. Maybe it isn't your political affiliation, maybe it is just you :-)
So what you're saying is that I should be ashamed that I'm not independently wealthy, and should therefore accept being effectively banned from dealing with women...
While Democrats who are bisexuals, pedophiles, drug addicts, or rapists are getting women hand over fist, since they are the Master Race.
Are you a George Voinovich conservative?
In my opinion, marriages are very much about the balance of power. If you go back to the 50's, the balance of power was very much on the male side. He provided the income and as a result pretty much set the rules.
In many households today, the man and woman contribute similar amounts to the household.
Once this becomes true, you start to deal with other "tiebreakers" for household power. Sometimes this becomes about sex. If you have a good-looking woman and a so-so looking man, the guys in trouble because the woman can use access to sex as a tool. If you have a so-so looking woman and a good looking man the situation is different because the woman knows that the guy will look elsewhere if she withholds.
A big part of the former basis of male power was being the provider. If that is not the case in your relationship, you could be in for a rough ride.
Ken: no, I'm not saying that at all. In my experience, most women will look past your political leanings and judge you on your overall character. Not all women, of course, but I suspect most.
The politics of my parters has never, ever, occurred to me as a basis for whether or not to continue a relationship. I have no evidence to suspect that women are any different.
Doesn't it bother you a bit that your girlfriend thinks Trig Palin should have been aborted? Or that she thinks gun owners have small dongs, and therefore it's OK to incinerate their kids?
JP--"The politics of my parters has never, ever, occurred to me as a basis for whether or not to continue a relationship. I have no evidence to suspect that women are any different."
I think women are on the average even more conformist than men and it is very very important to them that their boyfriend/husband be acceptable to their circle of friends. Politics will be a factor in a woman's choice if it matters to her friends--even if it doesn't matter to her at all.
@JP said... If you go back to the 50's, the balance of power was very much on the male side.
___________
And given that the wife stood to lose what he provided, wives were the adhesive forces in keeping families in tact. I'm not saying that I want things tilted to the man again, I just would like them fair.
In regards to similar earning powers so tiebreakers are used, I agree to an extent. However, the one who earns the money has less power than the one who decides how it is spent. In marriage, wives make more financial decisions, and in divorce they control most of the money as well. So simple salary comparison does not do the trick. Why do women make more spending decisions than men? Probably because it is the man who has to work harder to keep the woman happy and the woman who benefits from the laws should things fail. It's a reverse of the 50s.
@iconoclast said... I think women are on the average even more conformist than men and it is very very important to them that their boyfriend/husband be acceptable to their circle of friends.
___________
In the dating relm, when a woman wants a man to choose her and marry her, that may hold. But, and I sound like a broken record but it keeps going back to the same thing, after marriage it has been my observation (and experience) that married women don't compromise much. Why should she? He's legally obligated to care for her for life, regardless of any reciprocation or effort on her part.
I'm in agreement with most guys here. Beyond the court issue, I have no desire to fund a parasitical woman. If I can find someone who makes a good income and isn't just looking to sponge off of me by quitting her job one day, that would be quite the find. Who the hell knows.
"... I have no desire to fund a parasitical woman."
----
I don't either, but there are plenty of men who will and who do.
One of the posters above talks about not having much to offer if you aren't the "provider". Maybe that's the real reason for lots of men.
If that's the case, it's pathetic.
And there's something further that these providers and guys who are so gleeful to be married are not examining at all: Is she really friggin' worth it?
I know that winning over some girl is the be-all-and-end-all of life, but is a parasite who is going to get fat and stupid at home REALLY worth all of the effort that goes into winning her over?
Frankly, I think MEN are at fault for creating this generation of parasitic and shallow women.
I hear newly married guys all giddy about the woman they "won over" -- and then I see her and wonder what the hell he was thinking.
It's like the 25-year-old guy who is trying to impress other people because he owns a 9-year-old Chevy Camaro (with flames painted on the hood).
Pathetic and idiotic.
Even Heidi Klum is just a person. How men can WANT TO pay for a parasitical, bossy, demanding thing that sits home - and also OBLIGATE himself to pay for her even if she leaves or screws the gardener - is just miles and miles beyond anything I can comprehend.
well tether, i agree. if you like what her mother has become, press on.
and SOME men.....possibly most men, are part responsible for the demanding princesses.
though the manufacturers of my pretty pony, barbie and freakin` easy bake ovens for boys (light blue i believe...) should be held partly responsible also.
i was having a coffee at starbucks this morning looking at the magazines on the racks in the ajoining bookstore. the entire wall facing me was filled with brides magazines.
beautiful women in $15-20,000 getups.....
many girls, by the time they are 6 or 7 years old, have sen these mute images thousands of times. these images are of sleek powerful elegant pedestal-borne role models that young girls aspire to being.
for one day.
call it the tiara game, or the batchelorette game, or the cinderella game. whatever you call it, it`s a savagery foisted on young girls, who then have to find a boy to play the game with too.
and these girls don`t say a word about it to the boy.
he is oblivious.
he`s not 48 years old, going holy shit, that`s terrifying....while drinking his americano.
i see these couples all the time. he`s barely able to keep his pants up because his pants are eight sizes too big, and she`s already got the bridesmaid`s dresses picked, the church booked and the guest list finalised, while he`s trying to get a copy of call of duty 4 for x-box 360....and if he knew what he was in for, he`d run....if he could keep his pants up.
I'm reminded of something attributed to Socrates:
By all means, marry. If you marry a good wife, you will be happy. If not, you will become a philosopher.
Ken: It might bother me if she thought any of those things. That someone believes in abortion in certain cases, is different than saying that she would want abortion in other specific cases. You completely lost me on the gun owner, small dong, incineration issue -- sorry. I don't own a gun, otherwise she might have different opinions about their dongs :-)
Iconoclast: That has not been my experience. Virtually all of the women I've been with have been liberals.
Trust: Women only have the power to spend if you cede that power to them.
Also Trust: After marriage it gets to the power issue I referred to. If she thinks you need her a lot more than she needs you, you're screwed.
dr.alistair --
"and why is it that many of these commnts are written by people with no actual blog?"
And, why is it that writing a blog means jack? Seriously, what is your point with that?
Small addendum. What the hell is an actual blog?
This comment has been removed by the author.
##########################
dr.alistair --
"and why is it that many of these commnts are written by people with no actual blog?"
And, why is it that writing a blog means jack? Seriously, what is your point with that?
###########################
I wondered about that too.
And also why a guy who says on his profile page that he is "working on" a doctorate is calling himself "Dr.".
And why lots of people here with a doctorate (in something worthwhile) don't mention it, but he does, although he doesn't have one.
LOL
It really gets complicated. But at least Doctor Alistair has found his soul mate. That's certainly welcome news.
Correction: Instead of "Doctor Alistair" above, please insert "Kind-Of-Doctor Alistair".
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
JP: the Left were quite upfront about their desire to see Trig Palin aborted. The Whorington Post actually put up a special page for these evil degenerates to attack Trig and post their sick fantasies. (Keep in mind that these were the same sick degenerates that cheered when Nancy Reagan broke her hip).
As for guns and dongs: the Left has stated every time the subject has come up that gun owners should not have civil rights--any civil rights, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, or 10th Amendment--and their justification is that "gun owners are overcompensating for the size of their penises." Since the means of enforcing gun control includes massacres like the incineration of the Seventh-Day Adventist families at Waco in 1993, one must conclude that the Left thinks it's absolutely cool to incinerate the children of someone with a small penis. Which isn't surprising, considering that they idolize Larry Flynt and other pornographers.
BTW, if you did have a gun, your girlfriend would demand you get rid of it. If she was one of the minority of decent leftists, she'd actually give you an ultimatum; however, the immoral majority of them would simply cheat on you and leave you without explaining why.
Ken:
Relax.
Try to see some humor in the world. You are being too intense and seeing everything in a black-and-white fashion.
The Left are humorless, yet they live on top of the world and can have any job, privilege, or woman they desire, any time.
"The Left are humorless, yet they live on top of the world and can have any job, privilege, or woman they desire, any time."
______________
Well, then become one of the "left" if they have all of these unquestioned benefits and privileges.
But, more likely, I suspect that your statement is not true.
You may well be a troll, but if you are serious, you have to relax and take the world for what it is: full of idiocy.
Otherwise you're going to have a nervous breakdown or something. Whether you know it or not, I'm giving you serious, good advice.
The "Left" were put here for our amusement. So appreciate the gift.
beautiful women in $15-20,000 getups.....
many girls, by the time they are 6 or 7 years old, have sen these mute images thousands of times. these images are of sleek powerful elegant pedestal-borne role models that young girls aspire to being.
for one day.
Reminds me of a guy I know. His first marriage was just that. She had had her perfect day planned for years, from the service, the bride's maids, the reception, even the balloon ride. The couple spent maybe $20k, that they didn't have.
And then, reality set when they got back from the honeymoon. She couldn't understand why he didn't want to go out 4 or 5 nights a week to clubs any more. That sort of thing. The marriage lasted a bit less than a year. He took the debt and paid it off w/i a year by working double shifts, and did a lot better the next time around.
So, as a father, I have pointed out the fallacies here since birth. And it appears to have worked. Hopefully.
"She couldn't understand why he didn't want to go out 4 or 5 nights a week to clubs any more."
_____________
But there's also pressure from the other side to earn money. Either way, he's not going to meet the expectations of the Princess (constantly entertaining her and also earning good money / one has got to give).
I enjoyed the interview. I liked the perspective from men who were excited about marriage. Granted, he drew from a specific and limited group of people, but it was interesting to hear from those guys too. I also appreciate how he would not venture into areas that he did not feel comfortable about.
Good one.
Trey
Ken: You need to be able to distinguish between "the left" and a particular individual may have some "liberal" beliefs. Just because someone voted for Obama does not mean they wanted Trig aborted and will not tolerate someone who owns a gun.
I don't know you, so please take this with an appropriate size piece of salt, but maybe you need to remember that just because someone is a liberal, he or she is not personally responsible for the deaths of the folks in Waco.
Strangely warped group of perspectives here, I think. I have been married for 46 years now, and I cannot imagine having it any other way. I married my high school sweetheart, and we have had a wonderful marriage. Of course, we had the benefit of a good start, on a solid basis. I have supported her all these years, and she has kept the house and raised the children. That was our agreement in the beginning, and we have been able to stick to it, except for a brief period when I was out of work and she had to find work which she did willingly.
My point here is that it all depends on how you approach the marriage. In the comments I have read above, I sense a lot of people approach marriage from a "what's in it for me" perspective, and that really does not work. It has be be much more "what can I give." I'm not sure very many people will be able to understand that today, but it was certainly easily understood 46 years ago, and it has worked like a charm.
Dr. D-
I think the attitude you describe is pretty gone...... Last time I looked 53% of the first time marriages fail. Something is really wrong. I am divorced after 16 years of marriage and know I will NEVER marry again. My current girlfriend does not want marriage either. Has two special needs kids. I spend alot of time with her and the kids but at the end of the day we both want to go to our own cocoons.
Depends on the dowry...
Well,bottom line, they have managed to keep me alone and unhappy.
Keep in mind that it was the Leftists who burned Sarah Palin's church to the ground. I look forward to standing on their corpses and having women see me as the American warrior I am, and not the cowardly Republican accountant the Demoncrats have portrayed me as.
Dr.D writes "Strangely warped group of perspectives here, I think. I have been married for 46 years now, and I cannot imagine having it any other way."
--------
And everyone who doesn't want exactly what you want is strangely warped.
If Cupcake sat at home being supported her entire adult life (with the accompanying intellectual and emotional "development"), she's not something I would personally want - at all - and the fact that you almost seem to be bragging about supporting her and also obligating yourself to always support her no matter what seems a bit odd to me.
Bruce Hayden writes "She couldn't understand why he didn't want to go out 4 or 5 nights a week to clubs any more."
----------------
I've seen that in all too many women. They "marry up", of course, but then the assumption is just there that the man will always be pulling down the big bucks - it's taken for granted. The problem is that she then wants all of the pre-marriage "chase" on his part, but she gives no consideration to the fact that he has to also spend a lot of time on his job.
I've seen men who spend every waking minute either working, going to the relatives or social functions of Pumpkin, fixing things for her and otherwise focusing on her. It's bizarre.
The question never seems to pop into the heads of these men: Is this little POS really worth all that?
JG, responding to Trust, said "Women only have the power to spend if you cede that power to them."
I wish we lived in a world where that was true. When I divorced my lawyer casually mentioned to me that I needed to pay over $10,000 of credit card debt that my wife had incurred. I replied that I didn't apply for those credit cards, and didn't even know they existed until that moment. The lawyer said I was responsible for them anyway under Michigan divorce law.
I subsequently retained another lawyer who was highly qualified. He told me pretty much the same thing. In order to be let off the hook from paying these bills I would have to go to court and prove they were incurred for "nonmarital purposes", such a girls-only trip to Vegas. The burden would be on me to prove this.
Of course, I would be paying my lawyer for this work. Plus I'd be paying a good portion of her lawyer's bills for it as well. I ended up paying %50 of her lawyer's fees, which seems to be about average in this judicial hellhole.
To me this entire discussion in ridiculous. We're not talking about romance here. We're not talking about passion, togetherness and all that crap. We're talking about money and the law.
Presumptive paternity and no-fault divorce render the marriage contract, and it is a legal contract, a lose-lose deal for men and a win-win deal for women. It's that simple and that obvious.
So, the answer is, no, I am not about to make that deal. Why should I? So she can run around behind my back, without any penalty whatsoever, and slap me with child support for some bastard that isn't even mine? So she can arbitrarily change her mind, break the contract without any penalty whatsoever, and walk out with half of everything?
The modern American girl is completely worthless. She got everything she wanted, and is never held responsible for the consequences of her decisions and actions, and now she walks around complaining about the fact that no man will have anything to do with her, beyond one quick fuck and dump I mean.
Just buy her a tequila shot, lie to her face, fuck her once and dump her in the morning before she wakes up. Replace her with another bar slut the next night. That's all she's worth, because that's all she made herself worth.
Marriage is out of the question. Under the terms and conditions of the contract, she isn't worth 50%. She doesn't deserve presumptive paternity--20% over 18 years for some other guy's child. And now she doesn't like it?
Change the law. Until or unless you do that, nothing you say, think, want, believe means anything.
I'd rather have the money and financial security. I can get sex anytime I want. Would I rather be married, have a wife and raise a family? Yeah, as a matter of fact I would. But not under the terms and conditions of the contract.
We live in a culture that encourages divorce. We have a legal system that rewards divorce. It's profitable for women, because her liberation is tantamount. And we live in a culture with a legal system that refuses to hold women accountable. In that scenario, any man who would even remotely consider marriage would have to be a total fool. And soon to be a broke fool at that.
"JG, responding to Trust, said "Women only have the power to spend if you cede that power to them." "
--------
Larry:
I didn't write that. "JP" is a different poster.
Here's a major point for men to consider:
Once you marry, you are married, and the legislature can put any conditions it wants on marriage and divorce.
Men who married in the 1960s - under the assumption that if they behaved themselves in the marriage, Cupcake wouldn't have an easy time of getting all their assets in a divorce - were blindsided by the introduction of "no fault divorce" in the early 1970s.
The validity of prenuptial agreements can also be changed at any time (and look what happened to Jack Welch and Steven Spielberg - both of whom had prenuptial agreements).
The trend also seems to be towards giving women more and more rights and putting more and more obligations on men. There are also signs of a move towards putting obligations on men who simply live with women and those who form a bond with a woman who has a child.
sort of doctor alistair...i`m ok with that.
the reason why i wondered about the "actual" blog thingy was that some consistant posters here didn`t seem to be doing anything but commenting elsewhere, without a home blog of thier own. while this is no crime, i haven`t encountered it elsewhere. usually people who comment have a base of comment of thier own.
i have some theories as to why this may be the case, but i`d be interested in the position of others in this regard.
Dr. Alistair, blogging is hard work. I have tried lots of times only to get bored or stop posting. I am trying again, and so far so good, but for me at least, it is taxing.
But you have to be registered to post here. I really appreciate the breadth of posters, so I am happy to have non-bloggers have a say.
Trey
GG wrote: "That's all she's worth, because that's all she made herself worth."
GG, we agree about the legal system and the danger men put themselves in when we marry. But I do not think it is wise or right to treat women badly. Treating people badly is wrong, and you strike me as a moral person who would feel bad treating someone with such disrespect.
I bet it would gnaw at you. I hope you can find a better solution, you are bright, and even though it is a difficult problem, I think you can find something that would work for you in terms of not mistreating people back.
Trey
The part where the calculations of 50% of marriages end in divorce and 75% are initiated by women resulting in 33% of men getting screwed by women misses one point. Clearly, the 50% of divorces are failed marriages that 99% of the time are unfair to men. There is no way to know for sure what the number is, since men typically suck it up and try to get along without admitting too much unhappiness, but a significant percentage of the 50% that remain married are men who are in sad, affectionless marriages with unreasonable and unpleasant wives. Such men stay and "suck it up" because that is the only way they can live with their kids (and taking it is also the only way to keep their kids from living in turmoil).
People always ask why men stay in unhappy marriages and why they tolerate mistreatment within their marriages. Well, many want to live with their kids, and they dont' want their kids to hear constant fighting. Sure, they can divorce awful wives, but that almost certainly guarantees several things: 1) they won't get to live with their kids, 2) their then ex wives will badmouth them to their kids and make them the villian, and 3) they'll have to endure the psychological turmoil of funding their ex and her new boyfriend(s).
Men don't always put up with bad wives because they are weak -- ie., aren't RealMen(TM) -- they do so because they are strong enough to take it for the sake of their children. Unfortunately, they aren't viewed that way.
short of dr.alistair --
"i have some theories as to why this may be the case, but i`d be interested in the position of others in this regard."
I don't blog because commenting is coffee-time stuff to me and blogging would consume time I spend doing other kinds of writing.
You take away from that what?
oligo...
i come away with a better understanding of how the community operates here.
tmink, i see blogging as therapeutic personally, but i can see why another could find it hard.
regarding the pain of divorce...the bit that caused me pain was not seeing my children in the morning. i spent two years on the couch so that i wouldn`t get frost-bite while sleeping, and i still have the ruined leather couch to remind me occasionally.
i thought i was doing the right thing for the boys, so that they would know me each day and we could begin together.
things are much better now.
much.
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Willingness, Anyone?
From personal experience, men ARE 'willing' to get married.
However, I've noticed that, according to court records, as published in the public record of the newspapers....
....women are more willing to get 'divorced'.
Why IS that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Willingness, Anyone?
From personal experience, men ARE 'willing' to get married.
However, I've noticed that, according to court records, as published in the public record of the newspapers....
....women are more willing to get 'divorced'.
Why IS that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: All
RE: Oh!
If ONLY the interviewee would follow up on the expressed desire to 'research' more the aspect of divorce.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: "Fear of Commitment"??!??!?!?
The interviewee hits an interesting point about 'fear of commitment' amongst men.
I suspect that women who throw that particular 'card' have just demonstrated—via projection—their own personal problem.
Who has more 'fear of commitment'?
[A] Someone who has sworn to lay down their life for 300 million people—the vast majority of whom— they have never met.
[B] Someone who wouldn't lay down their life for ANYONE?
Oddly enough, I can't find many places where women are called upon to 'lay down their life' for ANYONE.....except—acceptably—their children.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....and some people are not going to like it.....]
@Chuck Pelto said... women are more willing to get 'divorced'. Why IS that?
___________
Let's look at the question from a different angle. Why would a woman put forth the effort to continue to be a wife and tolerate her husband's flaws, when she has the option to leverage the courts to make him fulfill his marital responsibilities while freeing her from the wifely ones?
TO: Trust
RE: You're....
Let's look at the question from a different angle. Why would a woman put forth the effort to continue to be a wife and tolerate her husband's flaws, when she has the option to leverage the courts to make him fulfill his marital responsibilities while freeing her from the wifely ones? -- Trust
...'begging the question'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out......]
Trey.
I don't treat women with disrespect. I treat them as equals and give them what they give back.
She offered me sex. That's all she's willing to offer me. I don't have a problem with that. I happen to like sex.
So I have sex with her. I'm done. She doesn't have anything to offer me after the fact. She doesn't intend to be my life partner or my helpmate or the mother to my children. She hasn't said or done anything to indicate that she's worth 50% or even 20%, certainly not for some other guy's bastard child.
The problem is not with marriage per se, which is a sacrament. The problem is with a culture that encourages divorce and a legal system that rewards it. And make no mistake about it, the children are the ones who suffer most.
But the modern American girl couldn't care less about that, because everything has to be all about her. She's worthless because she didn't make a woman. She made a stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl who thinks she's special because she figured out how to fuck. That's it.
She offered me sex. I had sex with her. Now I'm done. I don't have any more use for her after the fact, because she doesn't have anything to offer me. It has nothing to do with morality. It's a physical activity that she freely agreed to and enjoyed. Thank you very much.
Change the culture and change the law.
Send feminism to the garbage of history where it belongs.
Repeal no-fault divorce and make divorce only justifiable for just cause. There are legitimate reasons for divorce--infidelity, physical or emotional abuse, addiction, financial irresponsibility, etc. Getting bored and changing your mind is not one of them.
Repeal presumptive paternity and make the biological father solely responsible for child support. And also allow the agrieved husband to sue for emotional damages.
Start holding women accountable for the consequences of their actions and decisions. Treat her like she's an adult, or she'll never become one.
It's not my job to be a knight. It's not my job to be a prince. It's certainly not my job to bail her out of whatever financial mess she placed herself in. It's definitely not my job to pay for some other guy's child.
It's my job to be financially responsible and take care of my family. I do that, because I do not question my responsibilities. I do what I have to do, regardless of the personal sacrifice. I live next door to my mother and cook dinner for her every night, because she's a widow and all alone, and I'm not about to abandon her for some bar slut that I can replace on any night for nothing more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face.
If the modern American girl wants to be taken seriously, then she can dump her attitude, mind her mouth and mind her manners. She can make herself into a woman deserving of respect. Then she'd be worth 50%.
Otherwise, she isn't worth the time of day. She might be worth a tequila shot, a lie to the face and one quick fuck and dump, depending on how hot she is. But that's about it. She can buy her own house.
Pouring money into the black hole that is modern marriage is no way to go through life. You'll only end up broke and miserable. I'd rather be rich and happy and single.
"I think a lot of men want marriage, they just don't want it with 70's era crop of NOW women." -Oligonicella
AMEN!
GG's 10:06 A.M. post and 8:21 P.M. post are just about 100% parallel with my own views (and experience) concerning the matters discussed in this thread. I don't drink or go to bars, so perhaps I would wave a Suze Orman book or a latte' in front of them in the library or book store to substitute for the tequila. Actually, though, I prefer the Vegas jaunts. It's an adventure and a box of chocolates all rolled up into one. Everything is up front, payment for services is rendered, and as we all know, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
GG wrote: "It's not my job to be a knight. It's not my job to be a prince."
I agree with just about everything you said. But, let me thank you for allowing me to offer my concerns without taking them as a personal attack. That speaks well of you. Thanks.
It is even more obvious to me that you are a solid individual with a great head on your shoulders. I just worry that you will feel bad about stooping (stupping lol) to that woman's level. In the morning.
But thanks pal, I was worried that I would invoke a ton of bitter rancor as I have done before for having the temerity to offer my concerns. Please consider yourself the recipient of an interbeer, cause if you were here, I would be buying.
Trey
Well, let me just say this. It's all on her. I've been saying that since I was 12, the first girlfriend I ever had. It's all on her.
If she is not competent and capable enough to make herself into a woman, if she does not intend to be a life partner, a helpmate and a mother, then she isn't worth the time of day.
It's all on her. I don't feel any need to prove myself, not to her or anyone else. I'm successful. I'm an intelligent, educated man. I have money and don't carry debt. My family owns a rather large corporation, and when I'm done doing what I have to do, I'm going to walk away with millions.
It was a difficult path to get to where I am now, because I was damn near killed in a car accident, through no fault of my own, when I was 17. However, the one mistake I never made was to invest half of my income and assets in the modern American girl.
I know these girls. I grew up with them. I went to school with them. I dated them. And they're all worthless.
If all she has to offer me is sex, yeah, I'll take it. And then I'm done.
I know there are some real women out there. Women who take themselves seriously and conduct themselves with honor and class. But they are few and far between.
The problem is that I never met one. Or, actually, I did, but I just wasn't in a position to be a man for her at the time. More's the pity.
That said, before all of you think I'm some kind of cad, I really don't go on very many dates anymore. Basically, I just work, save money and take care of business and my family. That's all that's left for me.
Would I rather be married and raising children? You're damn right I would. But the simple reality is that in this culture, with this legal system, and these girls' attitudes, it was not a viable option.
GawainsGhost --
"Getting bored and changing your mind is not one of them."
Changing your mind is pretty shallow, but that phrase also encompasses evolving into a different person. If I marry person A and she changes into person B with whom I share very few goals and interests, why the hell should I be required to stay with person B? I didn't marry person B.
I would promote it's more the dropping of fault than the picking up of none. If your spouse simply decides they 'don't want to be married any more', then they should leave. Unless fault was involved, there should be no reward to their departure.
The home is a unified whole that shouldn't be rent because one component now finds it boring. It should stay intact with those who want to continue with and in it.
If the woman wants to leave - bye, bye. Same for the man.
Not so much a disagreement here as an elaboration of my take on it.
@Oligonicella
I'm with most of what you said. While I do take my "for better or worse" seriously, I'm not completely bull headed about it... For some couples, the worse is not just struggles, but a life sentence with someone. So I don't blame people who don't want to waste their only life unhappy.
Where i'm really with you is the "no reward for departure" in no-fault. I also think the current system encourages people to demonize their sooon-to-be-ex because it is profitable. This needs to stop as well.
Ideally, in no fault situations, people could end the marriage like adults, but that simply isn't reality. Best that can/should be done is to quit proving incentive to destroy each other. People who end their marriages like adults should be better off than those who don't.
it seems that many men see the metaphysical spiritual union aspect as the reason for marriage, while the women see the legal obligation....
...and when two people are that far off in perception of what the union represents, then there are bound to be badgers....
I'm afraid I didn't find Mr. Wellen that insightful, but he was limited by the scope of what he was asking.
I think the difference now between men who want to marry and men who don't is not that hard to get at. Like almost anything in life, marriage is a tradeoff. It is possible to gain things (family life/kids being the main one), but you have to give things up (independence, sexual variety).
Those who are not enjoying or availing themselves of the advantages of being single are naturally more likely to choose marriage. In recent years, the benefits of singlehood have grown for men, as have the risks that come with marriage. Rationally, more men should be choosing to remain single, and they are, but it also makes perfect sense that some will still choose marriage.
From Goodfellas:
"Why not get yourself a nice girl."
"I do, almost every night."
Do men really want to get married? Not a social scientist here, but perhaps part of it is the ownership stamp. In marriage, the exchanging of vows and rings is kind of a mutual agreement of that very thing, isn't it? I mean, it makes it OK for the female to spread 'em, and it is sort of an assurance the man can go plow the north forty all day and assume reasonably, that someone else hasn't "been there" while he was gone. I guess we've built all this social hoopla up about it over the ages, but the ownership stamp is probably all it's really about.
We all have separate offices where I work. There is a general open space in the middle of all offices where we have a conference table and receptionist desk. There is a separate conference room for more "intense" meetings. When general sales call appointments are made by others (to our offices), we have the meetings in the center room conference table. This conference table is directly in line of sight of my office door and the office next to mine.
One day, a heart stopping, single blonde in her mid thirties came in for a sales meeting with production. She was selling shipping boxes. Any way, and straight up, she has an ass that even Erin Andrews would kill for. (note to GG - definitely worth a tequila) Our offices (all men) fell silent as she entered and was directed to the conference table. The phone began to ring for far too long before it was answered. She stood to spread some brochures around the conference table. You could cut the air with a knife.
As she was walking around the table and leaning to spread her brochures, I kept hearing a noise from the office beside mine...
prrsshhhkk! prrsshhhkk!.. over and over. I didn't think too much about it, as the sound stopped after about ten times.
When she left about an hour later after the meeting, the fellow in the office next to mine barged into my office with his cell phone in hand.........a cell phone with a built in camera.
All ass shots, every one of them. We wouldn't know her in a crowd if seen from the front, but we'd all know her anywhere from the posterior view.
Are we pigs? You betcha! Do we now purchase our shipping boxes from her firm? Hell yeah! Do you think she is aware of, and takes advantage of, her incredible assets? Duh!!
Are her company's shipping boxes suitable for our needs? We don't know, and we don't care!
I can see a guy getting all twisted up over her and heading for the altar of incarceration in order to lay a stake.
"before all of you think I'm some kind of cad,"
Nope. Not at all.
Trey
"it seems that many men see the metaphysical spiritual union aspect as the reason for marriage, while the women see the legal obligation...."
----------
Most men assume that women think the same way they (men) do. Especially since the conventional wisdom is that women are more "romantic" than men and they are fairer than men.
Women are invested in APPEARING that way (otherwise it would be a lot harder to trigger the chivalry reflex in men). It doesn't mean they are that way.
Br549 (re his last post):
How old are you and your co-employees? 12?
Maybe the child labor inspectors should pay a visit to your company.
You aren't going to have sex with her with that behavior, you are simply going to give her the attention she wants and open your company up for a sexual harassment lawsuit (further giving her what she wants: money).
I see comments like that and start to understand how men are manipulated so easily.
Tether, you're an idiot. And a female. I expected this, which is why I wrote it.
"I expected this, which is why I wrote it."
______________________
So it was all a secret plan. And I fell right into your cleverly laid trap.
Boy am I embarrassed.
Don't you and your buddies have to get back to taking pictures of some girl's butt in the office? Or giggling about the word "tit" or something?
"Don't you and your buddies have to get back to taking pictures of some girl's butt in the office?"
Don't you mean "woman's butt?" It is demeaning to speak of working adult females as girls. Is it not?
Trey
As other posters have posited, marriage is a bad choice for men due mainly to the legal climate.
Today, there is nothing but risk, and the underpinnings of many so-called 'family laws' no longer exist. Many of these rules evolved from a desire to protect women from destitution by men divorcing them, since women historically were uneducated (save for ability to read & understand the bible) and unable to go out and earn a living. So it made sense to try and choose men who could provide.
So you had the rise of community property, alimony, and other devices giving women a legal interest in husband's earnings and property.
In the last 150+/- years, all of those underpinnings have been detonated. More women are graduating from university than men (60+%), they clearly can work to support themselves and do so, often earning more than men for the same work.
In other words, the factual and societal basis for the marital laws no longer exist.
Not to mention no fault divorce. It should be called no justice divorce, done so women weren't 'enslaved' by marriage. It actually operates as a wealth transfer vehicle.
So many call me misogynist or immature or unreasonable, but I see no reason whatsoever why I should give someone a legal interest in my life, earnings, and property when they do not bring the same to the table, and can take away what I've spent years building without cause, reason or fault.
In short, today's system does everything to encourage rapacious, mercenary behavior. When someone invents the machine to reliably detect such a sort, I'll pony up.
However, when you look at the big picture, for me as a man, marriage is all risk, all responsibility, all duty, with correspondingly little benefit. Women OTHO, reduce risk, responsibility, and receive greater benefit.
This is nonsensical when they can do everything I can.
In short, there is no reason to marry.
br549,
Tether might not get it, but thank you for the laugh. That post was priceless.
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
TO: dr.alistair
RE: Heh
it seems that many men see the metaphysical spiritual union aspect as the reason for marriage, while the women see the legal obligation.... -- dr.alistair
THERE'S an interesting point.
And please explain why it is written up in that Old Book that the man of the household is its spiritual leader.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
"And please explain why it is written up in that Old Book that the man of the household is its spiritual leader."
I have no idea why it says that. But it does.
Trey
it seems that many men see the metaphysical spiritual union aspect as the reason for marriage, while the women see the legal obligation....
-- dr.alistair
And this explains the wisdom in that Old Book that the man of the household is its spiritual leader.
(Fixed that for ya', Chuck. No charge.)
the old book is full of metaphors. the fact remains that it is men through the ages that have been the priesthood, the vessel of enlightenment.
granted, this has given some cultures the permission to repress women in various ways, from the burka to the kitchen apron....
...we suffer here in a modern technological society from a lack of enlightenment period, praying much more to a material diety...a bmw or a steel and glass condo.
do women ehibit an innate enlightenment? a desire to quest for meaning?
many women that i speak to express a desire to become enlightened, and then quote oprah and go to yoga...as a workout...where they are competing with thier friends for points for dress and presentation....and the attention of the instructor.
i am not a woman and cannot speak from her heart. my observations come from my perspective of a life-long spiritual search.
what i have seen is that (some, many.) women fall to collecting assets and to hell with the consequences of thier actions. certainly not the actions of a group of enlightened beings.
this is a new trend, one engendered mostly by law in recent years, but these laws could be ignored....not adopted...in situations where two partners decide to seperate.
with spiritual awareness comes a grace and understanding of a bigger picture. one of what will happen tomorrow morning and the next after that.
many who unreasonably enrich themselves live in constant turmoil. a post-traumatic reaction i would imagine....and in situations where there is a significant other person whithwhom you have children with, the on-going situation in enormously stressful...even though you may have got the money and assests.
i can only imagine the emotional state of a person knowingly grinding the father of her children for more with each lawyer`s letter and court appearance.
to be able to endure that kind of anguish? maybe there is some enlightenment needed to withstand that...to want to continually push someone else down....i don`t know.
I came down from the mountains for a few days to catch up on what was going on in the world. It turns out some guy in Pittsburgh was upset that he couldn't find a girlfriend so he killed 3 women, injured 10 and then killed himself after a long drawn out planning process. A cbsnews article states the killer wrote: "Women just don't like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the U.S. and I cannot find one. Not one of them finds me attractive"
I'm also listening to lots of strange country songs on the radio (the music is odd in central PA) and there is a one song about a man complaining that his girlfriend or wife is spending all his money on jewelry and Versace. I'm looking around and I know Versace and diamonds when I see them but I don't see women covered in either. This "women are gold diggers" doesn't computer.
Now I know a lot of decent women and many of them would make a fine girlfriend for somebody, but they aren't desperate. They aren't going to die if they don't marry a man.
Something is telling me that it may not be this anger toward divorce laws, child support, visitation agreements that makes men fearful of marriage. It may be that there are fewer and fewer desirable women wanting to be in relationships with men they don't feel are compatible. It may be tougher and tougher for men these days to find a woman who is willing to be in a relationship with them. Hence, the excuse is the expectation of unfair divorce laws.
I expect the bellowing about bad potential divorce deals to get louder even as the courts become more and more fair.
@Cham
The guy is a sicko, and I doubt divorce laws had anything to do with his deplorable actions. Even if he were the victim of a bad divorce ruling, rather than rejected as he said, there is no justification for his actions.
Question for you, since you drew the connection... Regarding your statement "the excuse is the expectation of unfair divorce laws" -- do you think divorce laws are fair?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust:
I live in the bluest of blue states. I have yet to see anyone make out like a bandit around here through divorce. Joint custody is handed out to anyone who wants it, and if your spouse doesn't want it one might, just might, get the resulting child support check to cover half the daycare expenses for your kids.
I have noticed, however, that women in states like Utah and Idaho can do very well when it comes to child support. So, to answer your question, it depends on where you live. IMHO, I like the way my state does things, nobody wins when it comes to divorce except the lawyers. Divorce should cost money for both parties to make people think long and hard about getting married and then getting divorced.
As far as the yutz in Pittsburgh is concerned, his diary is very good reading. The fact he had a great job, a great life and good people surrounding him wasn't enough. He was never divorced, his big complaint was lack of sex. People weren't working hard enough to make him happy. Women weren't throwing themselves at him offering sex. But also, according to him, if a woman was sexually active she was a "hoez". Mr. Sodini thought he was going to be laid off, instead he was promoted, but to him his company still sucked. He went to church but he didn't like the message. His mother was mean and his brother was a bully. He went on a date but it wasn't good enough maybe because it didn't result in sex. He was invited to picnics but not enough of them. Therefore, pretty women deserved to die, as many as possible.
I wonder how many other men feel this way on some level. I bet more than a few. I'm glad Mr. Sodini wrote the diary so we could get a glimpse on how twisted he was and why he felt justified in doing what he did.
cham makes some good points about how some men will find the bad in women no matter what the actual circumstances.....and project whatever negative experiences they see onto the next woman, pretty much ensuring another bad outcome.
misogynists and misandrists abound, but so do good solid reliable people..if that`s what you`re after.
the closer you get to lawyers the more likely you are to find all sorts of not-ok types, just like the uptick in the amount of add kids around teachers.
I'm in a very blue state as well, and most divorces here are very slanted towards women.
I want courts to be fair to wives and mothers. In fact, I'll even be bold enough to say that in a fair family court, mothers probably would end up with custody more often (due to their naturally spending more time with them) and more often receive financial compensation (due to working less because of motherhood). Slants may be natural due to choices (similar to how sometimes men outearn women due moreso to choices than sexism), and are not inherently bigotted.
That said, I want the courts fair to fathers as well, I know too many cases where a mother cheated on her husband, threw the father out, moved a new sex partner into the house (not typically the highest caliber father figure) and the betrayed ex husband not only funded the whole atrocity, but went from being a daily father to an every other weekend father due to his wife's betrayal, not his (meanwhile, the scumbag she cheated on him with ends up living with his kids on his dime). I would hold the same position if the husband cheated, ripped the family apart, and ended up living with his hoochie on the wife's dime... but has anyone here known that to happen?
Courts are a funny beast. Red state and blue state differences are large in legislatures, but judges aren't elected. They often substitute their individual will for the law, and, given the length of their appointments and how occasionally a state elects a leader of another color, some courts may or may not reflect the political leanings. I'm sure red and blue states are better and worse than many of their counterparts.
Hmmm. In case you guys get what you want and no-fault divorce goes out the window, I suppose the smart thing for me to do is start keeping a diary. I'll note all the times I do my chores as agreed. I'll note when he fails to do his. I'll note all the things I pay for, etc.
I'll note the diaper changes we each handle, the baths, etc. I mean, there will just need to be a daily log, in case all of this ends up in divorce and I have to PROVE who was not carrying their weight.
(Don't worry, guys. I make more money than he does, so it won't be about alimony. But I guess we'll still have to prove who's entitled to the divorce, etc.)
I have a question for all of you I would like to hear your input. If you were a Non Custodial Dad living with Mom because you can't afford to live on your own, and you met a well adjusted career woman who makes tons of money (more than you)and she ended up falling in love with you. Keep in mind she has no kids and never has been married and both are in your 40's, would you marry then? You have nothing to loose she can't take what you don't have right? And she willingly does things for day in and day out for you. Do you think it would be worth the risk then? Oh and you've known and lived with her for three years. And in that three years of being together you can't imagine being with anybody else or want too. What would you say "marry her" or not still too risky?
It's interesting observing that some folks--okay, MOST folks--believe that marriage is the brass ring, the cherry on top, of a relationship. Why not view marriage as a needless burden, an albatross, to carry while enjoying a love affair, a friendship, whatever you call it?
Can't we think just a little more out of the box? Who says marriage is needed to validate or legitimize the relationship?
No men shouldn’t marry, but only because of the current feminist marriage and divorce laws. I’m not saying they shouldn’t emotionally commit or cohabit, just that men shouldn’t marry. (Unless and until Divorce 2.0 and marriage 2.0 laws change.) The increasing marriage strike may eventually bring that about.
I think men are better off not fully settling down in an uneasy to move on from way until their mid thirties. Learn game, date, have some LTRs mostly not living together. Then ok do live together. A simple cohabitation agreement is best but it can be only a couple of paragraphs and work ok most likely. If you split up you each take what you brought, you earned or someone clearly gave you, with no claim on the money of the other.
That really should be the basis of marriage today as well when there aren’t kids from the union. For men who are the higher earners (and men usually are because women do still want to marry up at least somewhat and often a lot in status and income whatever may be the earnings comparisons in the society at large) it’s one thing to share your greater affluence when your partner is giving you things in return such as good or great sex, being a helpmate and partner, maybe even some cooking and housework if her hours and income are less than yours. But it’s another for her to claim money from you when she’s split from you or divorcing you – and half of all first marriages end in divorce that are 2.5x more often initiated by women.
Why should you have to give her half of your net accumulated assets then and a good chunk of the retirement savings you’ve earned, rather than her just taking her own? It’s wholly unfair to men in these days of women graduating from college half again as much as men, and having all levels of jobs. She’s not giving you anything in return post filing for divorce.
Obviously she shouldn’t be able to get alimony period if there are no kids. If she was dependent on you and didn’t work that should be her responsibility and her hazard if she then splits. Might make her a lot less likely to do so for boredom or finding new romance reasons, or to cheat. That would be good.
So given all that, any notion that a wife who leaves her husband because she’s “not feeling in love anymore and needs to grow”, should get a split of his accumulated savings over hers in ADDITION to all that stealth alimony called child support, when she’s giving nothing ongoing in return post marriage, comes into focus as the screw job on men it is. Particularly since for her “not feeling it anymore” read she’s hidden her cheating which has dissolved all her remaining pair bonding feelings for hubby and what’s to go looking for a new romance with a man that will marry or live with her, which probably won’t be with the married guy she’s having an affair with since HE won’t leave is wife, as cheating men rarely don’t do – unless the wife kicks him out. Or even if she hasn’t cheated yet, she wants to, and to hunt for new romance – while her ex is still supporting her in large part. So hell no she shouldn’t get his money on top of child support when there are kids. If child support were only that and fairer, and capped at basics rather than sharing in his affluence after she’s giving nothing back, and stealing his kids from him, then maybe. But it’s too unfair to share his “marital” savings too.
You can try to do this with a prenup but the state courts may override, now or in the future. Much safer to have kids if you’re going to in cohabiting “domestic partnership” with cohab agreement.
As for the argument that a stay at home mom should get alimony, ON TOP of alimony containing child support – you’ve got to be kidding!!! HELL NO. As for the idea she should if the kids have aged out, no there too. She should have been working when they were in middle school and high school at least. If she wasn’t but rather living entirely off her husband, in effect being paid by him for way less stressful and easier work than his, allow way more leisure time when the kids were past infancy certainly, she sure shouldn’t get to keep getting paid by him and living off him when she’s giving him no sex or anything else in return post divorce. Which wives file for 2.5 times as often as men these days, and make inevitable another large percentage of the time by e.g. refusing to stop her affair, work on her marriage and resume sex with her husband, or by going off and living with another man.
So no men shouldn’t marry. If they want kids child support w/it’s alimony component is more than enough obligation, in addition to what his ex partner’s own work when she’s split can provide for her. Emotionally committing to a woman is fine. When men cohabit as well they tend to do it far more durably than women do, even if they were understandably given all the above a lot more reluctant to commit in the first place. It’s women who leave the large majority of time if someone does in cohabiting relationships these days. Men shouldn’t let themselves be financially raped when it turns out HER relationship commitment is less durable and reliable than his is.
So hell no men shouldn’t marry today. Commit when it’s right but don’t marry
You can provide for these things in a prenup and the property division part will generally stand up if the prenup is done right, but the alimony part will depend on the state. And state law keeps getting worse on ignoring “unreasonable” waivers of alimony viewed at the time of divorce – from the eyes of a very biased court in favor of women in the almost all cases. The most men can hope for in family court is some balance – more likely they’ll get great or enormous tilting against them. So you’re better off not marrying w/a prenup that mimics living together, but instead just cohabiting – with a much simpler and cheaper or free to do cohabitation agreement.
Now lets talk about you’re wanting kids. If you have them in the US and she divorces or leaves you, she’ll almost certainly get custody if she wants it and you’ll owe state formula determined “child support”. This is true and will be the same percentage of the man’s pretax income depending on number of children, regardless of whether your married or living together (or it was an “oops” pregnancy ambush on her part). You can’t change what it will be at all by a prenup or cohab agreement.
The amounts were jacked up very high under feminist pressure under the hysterical “deadbeat dads” campaign, to include what amounts to a very substantial portion of stealth alimony, flying under the more palatable “child support” label to hoodwink otherwise resisting men. For two kids it’s likely to be 27-33% of a man’s pretax, and if he’s a strong earner in a high income tax state, more than 50% of a man’s after tax income. That obviously is huge and punishing. Note that this isn’t diminished whatsoever in most states regardless of what the woman does or could earn; in a few states what she does earn is taken a tiny bit into consideration, but what she could earn almost never is, entirely unlike when extracting child support from men. (States pretend to fully consider the wife’s earnings but they’re in the denominator as well as numerator of the formulas and hence totally cancel out arithmetically – it’s another head fake against men, and yes it’s obviously deliberate.)
Post a Comment
<< Home