True, I was in Austria months ago and I was surprised to know some friend of mine (much older than me), never married and he had a 10 year old kid. They were living fine as a family, no real difference.

To him, it had advantages actually, plenty of women want to screw you over and go away with all your money. This is also why they go with nerds in the end, because nerds have more money.

My parents divorced from a marriage contract when I was an infant. My dad ended up living with a different woman and they're still together to this day. They never got legally married.

Virtually all the ones that can.

And nerds need to understand not to get used like that. They need to play the waiting game, which is on their side. As they age they will gain value while the women looking to screw them over lose their value. At that point it's the nerds that get to screw over the younger bimbos trying to pull a fast one.

You know, I`m having a really hard time figuring out whether you hate women, hate marriage, hate women who get married, hate men who get married, or what exactly.

If all women are gold diggers only attracted to jerks and looking to screw men over (except for the "exceptions")... How would abolishing marriage change anything?

I`ve seen plenty of divorces, and while the divorce itself is most often instigated by the woman... I`d say that the reasons for the relationship failing have been split pretty much 50/50. For every woman who sees a divorce as an easy way to get a free ticket through life, there is a man who sees a wife at home with a new baby as a free ticket to screw his secretary. In both of these cases, I`d say that it`s much much more likely that the wife is going to be the one filing for divorce... but in the latter, I think it would be hard to say that the woman is the one in the wrong.

Unless, of course, you blame her for falling for the type of jerk who would do that to her to begin with. A nice little way to make everything the woman`s fault. If the guy falls for the type of woman who will screw him over, sure - he should have done things differently, but it`s the woman`s fault for doing that to him. If the woman falls for a jerk who screws her over, even if he was being a "nice guy" and hiding his inner jerkiness (deceiving her, in other words) - that is her fault too because he has been brainwashed and misguided to do so. You`re even approving of men screwing women over so they can sort of get back at them (because the woman is the bad one here).

Very convenient, don`t you think? It`s kind of funny that you brought up mercedesjin earlier in the thread because you`re dropping into the same type of territory. Anything that doesn`t follow your opinion is clearly either an exception or anyone thinking that way has been brainwashed and forced by society to feel that way.

I actually agreed with a chunk of what you were saying at the very beginning, or at least what I thought you were saying. I agree that divorces favor the woman too much in a lot of cases, and that husbands and fathers get the short end of the stick way too much. But you`ve deteriorated into just spewing hate for women and encouraging guys to screw them over because it`s nature and they deserve it for not being attracted to better guys.

You continually go on about all women wanting to screw men over - and if they do not it`s only because they cannot... Regardless of whether this is true or not - it really has NOTHING to do with marriage. Nothing. You say it does, but it does not. Why? Because it`s about relationships. A relationship is STILL a relationship without a marriage license. You have stated this. You ask why a relationship needs legal backing - clearly a relationship can exist without it, right? Abolishing marriage - or making it unnecessary - would do nothing to change the dynamics of a relationship. Jerks will still be jerks, gold diggers will still be gold diggers, ad infinitum. "Marriage" is little more than a tool - in it`s absence, people who were/would be misusing it to screw their partners will just find another way.

I really don`t care all that much what you think, or where your ideas come from... But I do feel a bit sad that you`ll probably never be able to be involved in a relationship founded on trust - as it is pretty clear that you do not trust women at all.

Abolishing marriage might decrease the number of Gold digger kind of relationships when they know that they won't get money support when they divorce and be most likely in financial trouble. So abolishing marriage just may decrease the unemployed percentage.

These good points people have brought up lead me to say that marriage seems more about throwing a big party to celebrate a so called "strong" relationship to make a now-a-days seemingly weak commitment (From how common it is for relationships not working out)

I'd say it's more social than you're trying to portray. This phenomenon is recent; the last 100 years or less- the human body hasn't evolved that much in that time. Jerks often appear confident and charming; that's appealing, not the bad behavior. They're also more likely to approach women and try it on; they're more likely to act deceitfully and hide their real thoughts about women until after they've hooked one in. Sometimes the women see right through it but it becomes a misplaced salvation thing; "If I act how he wants and love him enough, he'll change and be nice to me" It's not just about some women preferring jerks, it's about jerks being more predatory in their initial dating techniques.

I concede I didn't really explain that properly or think it quite through. It's not really about marriage in the media per se; but there IS a general perception and a huge all-encompassing pressure from the media that girls need to act in certain ways to attract men; but those ways (forms of dress and so forth) tend to only attract certain types of men, generally those looking for sex and perhaps not much else. Jerks, in short. So they cave to those pressures, attract jerks and the intention only reinforces the problem. You say that men are brainwashed, well so are women.

Oh, that's wonderful. I love the assumptions here. All I said that most of the women I knew were looking for decent guys, perhaps I should have mentioned that a fair proportion of them have also been successful. I love how you seem to automatically assume that the people I know who make such choices must be desperate singles, insecure, perhaps not physically attractive or successful, emotionally fulfilled people. And I love how you assume the decent guys they are seeking (and dating) must be EXACTLY the same, because of course, any man who is decent is therefore a physically unattractive looser. Or a rich nerd.

Where? Where's the data that says "Single mothers only date jerks"? If anything, single mothers tend to be MORE picky about their partner's behavior; particularly if they intend to introduce them to their kids. If they aren't, then they have some deep-seated problem and shouldn't be jeopardizing their children's welfare by exposing them to such people.


But why are these women suddenly the poster face of ALL women. That's my issue with your comments; a lot of women despise behaviour like this just as much as men do; especially when it's used to represent all of us as a whole so thoughtlessly. I'm sick of being told women only want abusive and/or solely sexual relationships (and let's face it, that's what dating a jerk IS), and that if we say otherwise, we're either lying, deluded, too stupid to know better, skanky gold-diggers trying to cover up our shame or conversely desperate or prudish.

It isn't; but then no one is arguing that it IS. Just that it has a place in society and people who want to marry and believe in it as an important part of their relationship shouldn't be told they're stupid. The problem isn't marriage; it's the number of people in bad relationships thinking it's an easy fix for their problems. Or being pressured into it for the wrong reasons. I don't think it's fair for men to always get the short end of the stick in divorce proceedings, and I do think that should be changed, and I think there should be more protection for both sides so that no one gets financially devastated by a divorce. At the same time, I think it's a little naive to expect there to ever be a 50-50 split of men and women taking on the children as the main custodian. There are always going to be more women taking the children.

Divorce financial advantages, or in more rare cases, death of husband so they can get all money for themselves, and more often trying to subdue the husband to give the money to her some way or another (ALSO via the child, which usually are given to the wife after a divorce).

Yeah, marriage isn't really needed.

It may not be needed, but I really don`t think that it has that big of an effect - to be quite honest.

I grew up with a party girl mom, the type who did gold dig, who did leap in bed with jerks for the thrill while sucking cash out of nice guys on reserve.

And one thing I can say with 100% certainty - not being married to any of them certainly didn`t change a single thing. In fact, the only relationships that DIDN`T end up with her taking the car and home were her two marriages. At least if she`d been married there would have been a fighting chance of the kids going to their fathers, which is better than the total lack that was reality.

I do not believe that legal marriage is the culprit. It is entirely the attitudes regarding relationships. Those need to change. Without change there, abolishing legal marriage wouldn`t mean a thing.

'Party Girls', please define this term. Are you saying all 'good' women stay at home? And they all desire to be trophy wives, of course *dripping sarcasm.*


Hey, I didn't say any of that, but if you want to pin all that onto yourself, go right ahead.


Never heard of prenup 'av ya? You're calling them 'fools' because they love someone enough to pledge their life with them, and is this to all men or just the old and the dumb/successful men? be specific!



In what way do they lose? you can't apply that to all marriages. Marriage is a milestone for most people and perhaps reaffirming their love through contract is one way of showing their love, do they have to run it by you? And plus, if you take away one state institution like marriage, you might as well take away housing laws and property law because contracts in your eyes mean nothing.

Abolishing marriage won't change a thing. The thing is, marriage don't ruin relationships, people ruin relationships.

These are random figures, at best. If you have some substantive economical stats, then I would love to see them.

I've been married for 2 years now. I am not sure, if I am really happy. Sometimes I am. Sometimes it is routine. Oh well... It is life.

In my country (Lithuania, Eastern Europe) there are many people living just like that, not married, but having children, acting like wives/husbands. Some of them are happy, some of them are not. And you know what, I don't think it's all about marriage. It is not at all, actually. The thing is the foundation of your relationship. If it is love, you will state you don't need any documents or other prooves to confirm it. BUT if the female fall in love with the other guy, then... sorry... That is the foundation! If relation was grounded on it... Then the female (or male) follows her (his) love. But if you love, respect, feel responsible for your would-be family, you can feel in your heart you need more than just living with the person. You need some affirmation. I don't say my thoughts are the truth, I just give an example, how the marriage can be understood and how generally it is understood in Eastern Europe. It is still something special and magic in here. The relations after marriage is the other question. You have to listen to your heart, if it is serious.

If marriage hasn't worked for you, then abolish it for yourself. Don't try to abolish it for those of us who are very happy being married. (34 years here.) Maybe you should quit going out with the bimbos. What is it about certain men that makes them fall for the wrong type of girl?

Marriage isn't easy. You're not always madly, passionately in love. Sometimes you wonder if you love the other person at all, or may long for a bit of novelty.

But if you stick it out through the hard times -- and yes, it helps to be the kind of person who hates to fail -- you will be rewarded with a much deeper commitment with another human being than you can hope to find elsewhere.

You'd be the same without being married if it's about your relationship. Marriage doesn't force you to be happy with your wife. It's just a sort of contract.

You make it like marriage is something way harder.

But a marriage IS something more than just a relationship.

Yes, marriage is more than just a live-together relationship. When I was young, I didn't think so, but growing older has taught me better.

Yeah, just don't marry people 20 years older :P

Which? You don't believe that nearly 1 billion people in the world suffer from hunger? Ok, then. You can go research it or you can consider me a liar. Same goes for the divorce rate.

What, exactly? Besides a legal contract.

No, xy, you tried to manipulate my words by saying since some people in Africa weren't hungry the fact a certain percentage were "wasn't bad". Which I never said.

You have approached to topic of marriage in a very black and white, when the truth is, it isn't that black and white. As I stated earlier, the sheer number of successful marriages that don't end in divorce is a testament to the fact that marriages do work, and has been a successful institution for thousands of years.

In fact, if you wait until the age of 30 to get married, only about 10% of marriages end in divorce.

You ask what a marriage is, besides a legal contract. If you really think it is nothing but a legal contract, then I suggest you talk to someone who is married, and has been for a long time.

Yes, a marriage is a legal status, but it is also a religious and spiritual contract. It is society's way for two people to show complete dedication to each other. It is society's way of declaring to the world that you and your mate are "off the market". By doing so you are creating a family that is built to last. Those who are married, rather than just living together, are seen by society, and their families, differently.

So, I do understand why younger people might not understand what the bid deal is, but it is one of the largest milestones in a person's life, and one of the biggest and most difficult decisions a person will ever make.

What I hate is the way things are going while some people do this:



I never said that. I said the ones who can be tend to be, and that the current system of legal contract union (marriage) encourages this. I'm also only talking about in America. I know for a fact that other countries such as in latinamerica are not so lavish towards women in a divorce and the divorce rate is lower. Coincidence? Let the people decide.

The difference is that I have presented some tangible evidence while the they have presented "works for ME" and "I don't like it, you're wrong", opinions. And even if their experiences count as evidence, then so do mine and I presented those, too.

I agree that the system favors the woman but this is not going to change so the source must be attacked, that being the marriage contract, and since I know it's not going to change, my advice against marriage stands.

And it's not hate, it's love, if anything. Because clearly the women are screwing themselves by acting stupidly without direction after all the supposed freedoms feminism has earned them. I encourage the guys to seize control of the situation through whatever relatively ethical means available; that's what most women inherently prefer anyways. Or to put it another way, if women can put on fake eyelashes, the guys should put on fake attitudes. Besides that, things will work themselves out once the delusions are discarded by enough individuals. The actual actions are flexible.

That's your opinion. I already told you the motivations are all interconnected. If you don't agree, that's fine.

Again, or perhaps it would and these are all assumptions from us both. Either way, I'm advising guys to not get into a marriage contract.

So, without marriage how can a person show his dedication to his or her mate that doesn't allow him or her to shove off at the drop of a hat?

No, but anyone could see it that way if they chose to. That was my point. The fact that you say many people are happily marriage doesn't rebuff the divorce rate any more than some people eating in the poorest continent rebuff the hunger rate. That was my point.

I don't agree.

Here we go again. You're doing the same thing as above. Thousands of years is irrelevant. We're talking about now. The divorce rate has never been this high. So since the odds aren't great, there's no reason for a man to risk it when the system favors women in this area. That is the core of my argument, nothing more. No b&w, just mere probability.

Where did you get this from? Regardless, even considering various sources, the divorce rate as a whole for first marriages is 41-50%. Even assuming your stat is correct, that's still 1 bullet in the 10 chambers.

That's an opinion. It could just as well be seen as what it tangibly is: a legal contract. The ceremony can be had. That is no problem. And I think people will figure out you're off the market when you're living and having children with someone in a home. With that I could just as well say the contract is a superfluous and outdated at best. But this from us both are just opinions, certainly.

The way you phrase it cuts to the heart of this rationale, that you must be kept hostage by an external institution, that your own will is meaningless and that you are an animal that must be herded. This is another thing I was arguing in itself weakens marriage, it weakens the motivation for it. "Everybody's doing it, so if we don't, we're strange and don't fit in", then you're stuck with a gun to your head. What sort of motivation for "love" is that? None worthy to me.

Regardless, this jerk/confident behavior, whatever you want to call it is what women inherently find attractive. I was never arguing conscious decision, as in what women say they want, somebody "charming", for one. This is what "nice guys" are trying to be and failing at.

Hey, I agree with you, with your general point. But I can best speak from the male perspective, so as such can only advise other young men on what strategy to adopt.

No, my point was that we could just speculate forever and reach no ultimate truth in this. We have to work with what we know first.

Most single mothers, esp. in the case of never-married single mothers, it can't be assumed are making wise, conscious decisions. This bracket better represents people acting on more instinct than thought. This trend of single mothers is rising higher among the lower classes than anywhere else. If you want to argue these single mothers are making thoughtful choices that turned out to be mistakes, that's fine, but I don't see that as having much impact.

In most of the cases of single mothers, this would seem like merely tremendous rationalizing.

Never said it was. I wasn't focusing on hating women, even if it looks that way to some. My focus is on advising the male perspective on a real and very significant trend.

Well, MMM and Nyororin seem to be, for one.

No, but the girls who are told by society they are a prize become motivated to become such. It's just common sense.

A lot of people would consider that not a true marriage. Some women would be insulted by that. I'm all for it, though. But at the end of the day, it's really quite meaningless if the prenup allows for an clean split without any economic consequences (other than child support, if it applies). Why even get legally married in the first place? Just social pressure and habit, I guess.

I'm calling them fools for signing a legal contract that typically gives half their assets away to someone over success-probabilities that are like a minefield. Not to mention the potentially nasty trouble of the legal proceedings.

They lose a lot, starting with money. And no, not to all marriages, just to if not most, then many of them. Those odds are not great and the risk looks unnecessary.

"Perhaps" being the key word.

No. When did I say they did?

If you're arguing the economic reasons, that's fine. That's a valid argument. If two people have an economic interest in getting married, it seems like something legitimate to consider. Just don't try to talk about "reaffirming love" or anything of the sort, because that is, realistically, quite meaningless and reeks of social engineering.

Divorce Rate : Divorce Rate In America

"As a whole" is a bit misleading, as it doesn't paint a detailed picture. The divorce rate for first marriages is about 41%. The divorce rate "as a whole" is closer to 50%. The reason for this is, people who get divorced once tend to get divorced again when they get married. There are people who are married 7, 8 and even more times, which drives those divorce rates up, but aren't that revealing unless looking at it in context.

As a whole the average American has one boob and one testicle. But in reality that is true for nobody, so it is important to look closely at the numbers.

So you say "1 bullet in 10 chambers" but that also means you have a 90% chance of living your life through a happy and successful marriage (if you wait until 30). It is hard to deny those are pretty good odds.

No, actually my statement that a marriage is a religious and spiritual contract isn't just my opinion, but is true for the majority of marriages in the US. I am sure you have heard the vows each party generally says in a marriage ceremony.

And maybe cohabitation tells society "I am off the market" but society isn't listening. People that cohabitate rather than get married tend to cheat on each each other more.

American Thinker: The Differences Between Marriage and Cohabitation

Men cheat 4 times as much if they are living together, but not married, and cohabitating women cheat 8 times more than married women. So there is SOMETHING about the institution of marriage that either has an effect on society, on the participants, or (more than likely) both.

Again, this is extremely cynical. What you are striking at is the fundamental structure of society itself. In American society these days marriage is for the most part a choice (this isn't true in some parts of the world, and for some families). So instead of being "held hostage" to this institution of marriage, Americans celebrate it. To go from being single to being married is seen as a event worth celebrating with all of one's friends and family.
Again, I can understand why a younger person wouldn't be interested in marriage, but that is normal. Young people aren't supposed to be interested in marriage...and divorce rates for those in their 20s tell the tale.

Marriage rates are dropping, and people are (smartly) waiting to get married, so I don't think that "everyone's doing it" is as real as you might think. Certainly there are people to get pressure from friends and family if they stay single longer than most, but there are also certainly life long bachelors and bachelorettes out there, too.

I don't get this. So if women don't get married, they are unintelligent, but if men get married they are unintelligent.

This seems to be a contradiction for me, as if people have children outside of marriage, they are making "mistakes" but you are advocating for the abolishment of marriage as an institution, are you also saying people shouldn't become parents? Being a father can also be an expensive proposition for a man....

First;
I don`t recall even once saying marriage was necessary, or even that it held inherent meaning other than that of a legal contract. However, I have said a number of times that I do not think that marriage is the cause of the issues you cite - and that I don`t really think abolishing marriage would have an effect on those problems.

You have basically said that, even if it`s not your intention. You have stated that it is natural for women to want jerks, to make that choice for a mate... And that women like this are those who will screw men over if given the chance. It adds up to all women (minus exceptions) ready to screw men over if the opportunity is given to them.

In the case of Latin America - marriage is much more religious, with a large majority of people having very strong beliefs about the consequences not just in this life but in the next. I don`t think that the differences in the legal end of the procedure have that much of an effect.

You have presented the divorce rate as evidence. This doesn`t necessarily add up to what you are saying. It doesn`t say that women are screwing over men any chance they get. It doesn`t say how many marriages ended in a huge ball of flames. It also doesn`t tell how many marriages were "messed up at a chapel in Vegas" either. (Nevada doesn`t have the highest divorce rate in the US for nothing...)
Getting married has become easier, as has getting divorced. The attitudes toward both have changed drastically. Unless those attitudes change, I don`t think much would even if "marriage" was abolished.

You are completely welcome to choose not to get married and to advise others against it based on your figures and experience. I don`t think that anyone is going to tell you that you shouldn`t. But people DO take offense at being told they were stupid for agreeing to a marriage. People do take offense at others expressing disgust at their life choices - particularly if those choices are working for them and making them happy.

And this is different in what way from a woman leading a man on if the end result is one side getting screwed over? I very much doubt there are women out there (healthy ones with a normal mental state) who want to have a man screw them over. The result we should be aiming for is a solid relationship founded on trust and love, not one side in control of the other through deception.

ETA;
My personal feelings on marriage, as there seems to be some misunderstanding of them here...
I believe that it is a legal contract for financial purposes and for stability. It isn`t necessary to reaffirm love, but without love it would be a pain to uphold.
To me it falls in the same category as stable housing - both things I consider prerequisites for having a child.
Marriage being a guarantee that - even if I trusted him completely not to do so - my husband could not just up and leave without legal consequences. Also a guarantee that I would have some level of support after giving up a career to have a child even if he did decide to do so. With that comes the right to part of the household - bought mostly with money he earned.
You may see that as an open invitation for me to screw him over - that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is, for the most part, an agreement designed to protect the side contributing less to the partnership in terms of money (in most cases the wife as she is far more likely to be the one staying at home or earning less). I also imagine it would be quite a burden to upkeep an agreement without a trusting and loving relationship.

The fact is, I would never agree to give up a huge chunk of my future for raising a child if there was not some sort of guarantee that I wouldn`t be left with nothing should the father decide he no longer wants a family. From a female perspective, this is common sense. Love just reaffirms that agreement, and leads people to decide to enter into it in the first place.

They don't 'inherently' find the bad behaviour attractive though, which is what you were implying. They find the by-products of jerk insensitivity and deceit (confidence, flattery) attractive.

So stop putting words in women's mouths then. If you can admit have no idea what women think, why bandy about as if you do? ADVISE men to beware of gold-diggers, jerk girls and the legal pitfalls of marriage , of course, but don't hyperbolize that women are all conniving bitches who want nothing more than their heads on a silver salver and their assets in a grab-bag.

Nice back-peddle function you have there. Does it also dig holes?

Right, because pregnancy means your brains leak out. Never-married single mothers cannot possibly be using marriage as a tool to leech off of men, so they have no place in this discussion. Divorced single mothers are less likely to re-marry than divorced single women, so their dating choices post divorce don't have much impact on your 'marriage is dumb' argument either; if they're screwing men over for money, it tends to be outside of the marriage contract. Which brings us back to the divorce itself; which in america probably IS stacked in the woman's favour, but then women are still more likely than men to have given up work to rear children than men. For married couples, a stay-at-home parent is often more economic than paying for child-care. That's a smarter choice than retaining financial independence, particularly if at the time the decision is made, divorce isn't on the radar. So yes, I think these women are making conscious moves that turn out to be mistakes if they date jerks, but then they're also more vulnerable to jerk tactics. Single motherhood is stressful, frugal and often romantically lonely. They aren't living the highlife you seem to imagine them living! Of all demographics, they're going to be looking for the nice guy, because they're not just interviewing for a partner anymore. He's got to also step up and play dad and that takes some serious thought as to if he's a jerk or not.

Maybe the ones you know, but then I thought we weren't getting into personal observations any more. Show me some data if you really think single women only date jerks.

You're quite blind if you think you don't come across the way you do. As I said, advise by all means, don't rant about how you think american women are all vicious scavenging bimbos and men should just take advantage of any weaknesses they can find and be abusive. How is THAT going to make anything better for anyone?

Your advise so far? "Don't get married cause girls are so mean, Don't be nice- be a jerk so you'll get laid, harden your heart, be feckless with your relationships, screw around,"; Great practical advice there. How does that work in the long term? If you're concerned about men's welfare then where's the actual advice; the "How to avoid getting in a bad relationship" stuff; the "How to spot if a girl isn't genuine" advise? You've put yourself on a pedestal as the saviour of vulnerable men but you're not helping anyone. You're just venting bile and throwing around a few figures on a bias that don't actually have any real impact on anyone personally. If 50% divorce, then that's still half of all marriages succeeding, and I highly doubt people get married on the basis of "ooh, the divorce rate has dropped, we should get hitched!" It's irrelevant. Other factors cause divorces, not the rate of divorce itself.

No, as they've already answered, they both said it has a place and shouldn't be reacted to as if it's dog dirt or that only morons get married. They didn't say to have a relationship you MUST be married.

The US divorce rate isn't as high as it appears. The 50% figure includes everyone who gets married in a certain year but also includes many people who are getting married for the second, third, or fourth time. That means that 50% of people who marry for the first time are NOT getting divorced. Also 50% or all people who have ever married for the first time are NOT divorced. The ability of people to stay married is actually much better than 50% because the figure is being loaded by people who are constantly jumping from marriage to marriage. If we really want to know what the divorce rate is then find a study that focuses on first time marriages only.

Apparently the divorce rate in Japan isn't high enough as they have these crazy agencies:
Japanese murder exposes world of hired marriage wreckers - Times Online

Marriage is good if you find the right person and think with your brain and not your heart or with anything below your belt.;)

Your brain? Isn't that how we get this divorce norm to begin with? You're saying that you should just go with whoever seems like a good person according to mental logic but what if you don't have any romantical interest?

You get the same problem!

And isn't that last part part of the reason we get bad marriages? :p

You would be shocked at how many successful marriages are arranged.

Western thinking is that as long as there is love, nothing else matters and love conquers all. However, this is not a universal way of thinking, and looking at the divorce rates in Western countries, may not be the best way of thinking.

That's what it says in the UK divorce stats as well. Which, apparently has dropped to be as low as it was 26 years ago. So much for constantly rising divorce rates.

I wonder what the honey-trapper's wife thought of it all. Do you think she knew what her husbands job was?

The divorce system in Japan requires both parties to agree to the divorce, or for there to be evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either side. Even if a wife or husband hates their partner with a passion, if the partner does not agree to a divorce or there is no wrongdoing on their part... getting a divorce is VERY hard and very expensive. You essentially have to sue your partner for the right to a divorce.

Those services, along with private investigators, provide the evidence needed to get a one-sided divorce.

As a side note, I found the pronunciation key in that article for wakaresaseya absolutely hilarious...

You lose all logic when you fall in love. Same if you are horny. Using your brain and finding your best friend first and then falling in love slowly is the best way. Trust me, I fell in love the first marriage and it didn't last and my second I married my best friend and fell in love with her slowly over time. It's a great thing.:D

Yep, Just like in the Animes :D

Well, that's debatable, and we could be here all day back and forth to no avail. Glass half empty, glass half full.

They're good odds if you're just into odds for the sake of odds. But I'm not going to dismiss the hot-lead of the other 10%. Not to mention that these statistics may be incomplete, as I comment below.


The ceremony is, perhaps. The contract is just a contract in my view.

That's between the two people. I don't see any reasonable thinker believing that an adult couple needs a contract to slap their hand with a ruler in case they want to cheat. Cheating is something a person decides, not something that comes their way externally due to lack of posted signs.

I'll really take these stats with a grain of salt. I'll also return the argument of "misleading". The only way to really test my theory wrong would be to end marriage in an experimental world and see how much cheating happens in couples who pledge themselves to each other without the state getting involved. Short of that, it's just flawed precisely because the existence of the marriage contract taints the results.

And I'm calling attention on the bad things.

One of the good things about American society is the significant encouragement of self-criticism which ideally leads to adapting to changing situations. When this gets snuffed out, said society pretty much has nothing.

They're not really dropping as a fact. It's only speculated so far that many of those marriages over 30 will last for life. The precedence and trend weakens that argument, imo. What if many of those people get divorced in their 50s or later and it's still just as bad if not worse. That is beyond the time table we can analyze today.

Besides all that, I haven't seen a sensible and tangible argument in favor of the tangible marriage contract itself, other than one person bringing up economic reasons. Not unless tradition and "love celebration" are tangible reasons, which I don't think they are. If we argue tradition, then every violent or absurd tradition we have in our history might as well be valid just for the sake of being tradition. So basically, in a nutshell, the argument in favor of the marriage contract I'm seeing here is "because it's tradition and because of economic reasons". Not strong enough reasons to offset the risks.

For one, I'm viewing it from the female perspective, where a marriage (contract) is desirable. For another, and more importantly, I'm not really focusing on the fact that they're not married but sleeping around. I'm focusing on the fact that in most such cases they are unplanned pregnancies most likely for the mere fun of sex.

Well to a reasonable observer you might at least be inferring so by defending it and by arguing against saying it's not necessary.

I'm saying it translates that way in the context of modern society. To put it another way, I'm saying that what females find attractive is no more based on thought than what males find attractive, and I'm pointing towards the general area. That's one of the main things I wanted to get through.

Sure, in the same sense that 'people steal stuff' but not all people are thieves. That's why we lock our doors and our stuff despite not everyone being a thief.

At any rate, I can assure you that overall the legal system in divorce laws or enforcement of such doesn't particularly cater to women in those lands.

Even assuming this is 100% accurate, which I don't think it is, that still leaves marriage without a strong list of tangible advantages while having deep, tangible risks.

Well, no matter what you say, somebody somewhere will take offense to it.

It's different because it's the man doing it.

Look, I'm not presuming to be the love guru. I'm just stating some general philosophies I consider accurate towards the guys it would make sense. The psychological strategy you're advocating is just an arbitrary choice, same as mine.

Let me put it another way. You're not going to debate or preach idealism against human nature and win. You can try, and you can even arbitrarily select some point of evidence as support for the superiority of your strategy. My strategy is to work with human nature, not against it. I can assure you most guys want to get laid and not be made a fool of in "love". And many of them would live more successfully through the notion that some things don't just matter because somebody says they do, such as the notion that what women want is something that particularly matters. Actions speak louder than words. (And their own love lives are their own love lives)

Potato, potatoh. I think it would be better put that they don't find the obsequious, brainwashed charmers of today very interesting at all, hence not attractive.

You miss the point. I was talking to men, not women. I know how women think.

It's not my place to preach somebody else's idealism.

What backpedal? You presented women you know as that speculative evidence, and I presented same women as this speculative evidence. I was trying to make a point that we were both just speculating about each of our points.

I never said it was necessarily that (although child support applies regardless of marrige). My focus was on their selection in sex partners. If not jerks, certainly not nice guys.

It doesn't matter. It refers to the same motivation and the same thinking, or lack thereof.

Well, you just made my point for me. It also doesn't matter what the long term intentions are, if any. Being a jerk works for the lightside as well.

Then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. And listen, I'm not advocating that deadbeat dads are any better here. They should lose their shirt over it if necessary.

This helps the single mom, sure. But I wouldn't recommend any eligible bachelor ever get involved with a single mother, esp. if she has more than 1 child. Not under any circumstances.

They slept with men who were too jerk-like to stay or too jerk-like to be a tolerable presence for long. The data is in the subjects themselves.

Truth sets people free. Also keep in mind my brainwashing powers are very weak at best. People who this makes sense to will agree with it and these are the only people I'm talking to. The greater point is that guys shouldn't actually care about what women want. I already think I'm sounding preachy enough by saying they should rather care about the truth, first (and then working from there).

I would define what I've said more as them being dangerous, not mean.

Not unless you mean it. Which is not true when being nice to a pretty girl because you like her.

If they want to, which all do.

I'm not speaking about the heart. That's a private matter for each person.

No, I never advocated anyone screw around if they don't want to. I only pointed towards the general direction of how to do it well if that's what they want. Because it's better than seeing pathetic nerds failing at it and then not even cashing in on it in the case of having earned it after much toil. Anyone and everyone is free to be whatever lapdog feminist they desire at their leisure.

In my opinion, it's bound to work, and the more successful the man the better it will.

No, I haven't. I just put out there what was on my mind inspired by seeing a friend get made a fool of.

Like I said in above posts, it still leaves contractual marriage relatively defenseless from tangible attack.

Ok, then I'm sorry if somebody took it personal, but it was directed towards the choice itself more than anything not towards every single married person -- which I've never met.

Well, that's debatable, and we could be here all day back and forth to no avail. Glass half empty, glass half full.[/quote]

I am not sure how you can argue that general statistics is debatabley better than more detailed statistics...but that seems to be the foundation for your argument, regardless.


No, they are good if you are person that doesn't believe the fundamental argument of this entire thread: that marriages fail and men lose. I am saying 90% of marriages that happen after the couple is the age 30 do not end in divorce. I posted my sources. Now if YOU don't want to get married...if those odds (assuming you look at odds like that before getting married) are too intimidating, no one is forcing you to do it. Just don't deny the facts.

In your view. But I bet if you ask 100 married couples if they saw their marriage as simply a legal contract and nothing more, you would get 100 answers "no".

This is what you don't understand, and is why I am not going to spend too much more time on it.

A marriage doesn't make a relationship or change the people in it. It is the opposite:

The people in the relationship MAKE the marriage. It is much more than simply a "legal contract" as you want to call it, but a BOND between two people.

The reason people that aren't married cheat on each other at higher rates is not because they aren't married, but because they aren't as committed to each other.

The reason marriages between younger people end in divorce at higher rates is because usually they are too immature to know themselves well enough to know if they are ready to get married.


No need to remind us.

Said by a happy bachelor. I don't think you are getting it. No man sees the benefits of getting married, until he meets the right mate and feels that level of commitment. Then marriage makes perfect sense.