Frazzled thoughts.
1. This only occurs because the parents and girlfriends let them loaf. Make them fend for themselves.
2. This generation of boys is so lucky. How did you manage to scam everyone to let this happen? Color me impressed, and jealous.
Why men are in trouble
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
(CNN) -- For the first time in history, women are better educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men.
Now, society has rightly celebrated the ascension of one sex. We said, "You go girl," and they went. We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?
The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women's earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.
In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.
The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%. Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women.
If you don't believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I've heard too many young women asking, "Where are the decent single men?" There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind.
This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion -- has caught the eye of social commentators from all corners. In her seminal article, "The End of Men," Hanna Rosin unearthed the unprecedented role reversal that is taking place today. "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed," writes Rosin. The changes in modern labor -- from backs to brains -- have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.
Hanna Rosin: Are women leaving men behind?
Man's response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men?
So what's wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, "What kind of man are you?" but don't explain.
Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.
For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction. It is true in all ages. Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them? Each generation of men and women have an obligation to teach the younger males (and females of course) coming behind them. William Wordsworth said, "What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how." When they fail in that obligation, trouble surely follows.
We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.
The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement. We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, "Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married." It's time for men to man up.
Nerivant wrote:I've never been a big fan of the idea that relationships and marriage are necessary parts of manhood and "growing up."
Or going to church, for that matter.
Though there is probably something to the idea that not having any real emotional investment in dependents, be they children or a spouse, makes you less likely to seek success. After all, why work unusually hard if you don't see any return from doing so?
The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement.
Ah, a concluding statement with claims that are completely unsupported by the preceding argument. Provocatively bad writing.
Yeah, a lot of it comes from that. That, and expectations are very different for boys and girls, and boys and girls (in general) have very different responses to the education system. The current way children are educated, which relies on co-operation between children and teachers rather than an authoritarian approach, works better to motivate girls I think, because on the whole, girls are more motivated by the desire to please people and to be seen to do well. Boys tend to be more insular in their thinking, only wanting to do well to please themselves or because something catches their interest. They aren't socially conditioned to value intellectual pursuits very much (how many intellectual rolemodels for boys can you name?). Added to this, girls are conditioned from early on to value presentation, whereas boys are allowed to be messy. This leads to boys work being percieved as worse even when the content is the same and better, which leads to gradual demotivation. Since intellectual success is pretty seriously linked to other kinds of success, and the experience of failure is demotivating in general, it's not hard to see how the personalities of young men are shaped. All generalisations of course, there are plenty of exceptions. But there was only 1 boy in the top 20 kids in our school this year, results wise.
Well yea, but thats not really the issue under discussion.
I should note, as an old fart parent, I am seeing a lot of this.
Post high school-serious failure to launch. (We've affirmed to both that the clicking sound they hear when they close the door to go to graduation is me changing the locks...)
High school - lots of lazing around. I can't separate it from old fartness, but the boys don't seem to do..well much of anything. We even know kids who don't want to drive and their parents still drive them around. In my day that would have been social suicide and a sign of a disturbed mind.
I agree Fraz, there's a lot of lazy boys around. They were there in Ireland, and there's even more of them in the UK. No aspirations at all. Very depressing. I wanted nothing more than to get out when I was 17- I wanted to move away, get free of my dad, start fresh, and make it on my own. 'course, when I dislocated my knee and couldn't walk, it was dad I called, but not before walking a mile or two on it, and then stupidly struggling up some stairs...
This article really dosn't say much. there are facts, but it is missing a lot of substance and context.
It states that more women are getting post secondary degree's then men, yes, but does it mention how many men today do as opposed to 40 years ago? There are alternative options for education that are not classified as a College or University.
In the past, sexual relations were to be reserved for marriage, today, casual encounters are more common, and socially acceptable. Quite often someone you would enjoy to spend a night with, you would not want to spend your life with.
But I do believe young men(and women) do need more guidance and advice from older generations then what is received. Now if that is just the younger generation deciding not to listen, or the older generation not trying hard enough, or not knowing how to connect and advise the youth, I am not sure.
The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers.. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%.
This just caught my eye looking back, and its sort of misleading. A child born out-of-wedlock is not necessarily away from its father, as I've known many people to prioritize children over marriage, if they intend on marriage at all.
Thaanos wrote:
In the past, sexual relations were to be reserved for marriage, today, casual encounters are more common, and socially acceptable. Quite often someone you would enjoy to spend a night with, you would not want to spend your life with.
I'd actually go so far as to say that saving oneself for marriage has become socially unacceptable in certain circles, or at least extremely odd.
Thaanos wrote:
In the past, sexual relations were to be reserved for marriage, today, casual encounters are more common, and socially acceptable. Quite often someone you would enjoy to spend a night with, you would not want to spend your life with.
I'd actually go so far as to say that saving oneself for marriage has become socially unacceptable in certain circles, or at least extremely odd.
Modern divorce and child custody laws also highly disincentivize marriage to men.
No matter how good a father you are, in Ohio, you will be lucky to get partial (meaning weekends) custody of your child if the mother wants custody. Of course, that doesn't affect your child support payments. Women know that they will get to keep the kids, and that they will need to provide for themselves and the kids.
Men know that they have no real right to their children, so planning on investing in them is pretty irrational.
dogma wrote:This just caught my eye looking back, and its sort of misleading. A child born out-of-wedlock is not necessarily away from its father, as I've known many people to prioritize children over marriage, if they intend on marriage at all.
And while the out-of-wedlock birthrate is staggeringly high, the number of kids living in 2-parent households isn't that bad (~70%).
Its interesting that there isn't much variance from urban to rural populations. I would have expected the rate of cohabitation, at least, to be much higher in urban areas.
SO basically the 'oppressed' women are doing better in first world countries where they have MORE rights than men and anyone who asks one for a cup of coffee in an elevator is oppressing them?
Phototoxin wrote:SO basically the 'oppressed' women are doing better in first world countries where they have MORE rights than men and anyone who asks one for a cup of coffee in an elevator is oppressing them?
If how you come off here is how you come off to women... yeah, you might be opressing them.
Melissia wrote:Does that include them living in a household with two grandparents whom are married?
That certainly described my first nephew before my sister was re-married.
Sorry Melissia, I didn't do the study. Look at the source data (US census bureau). But I suspect that group would fall under "Other."
dogma wrote:Its interesting that there isn't much variance from urban to rural populations. I would have expected the rate of cohabitation, at least, to be much higher in urban areas.
Agreed. I was also surprised to see that single-father households were so low.
Phototoxin wrote:SO basically the 'oppressed' women are doing better in first world countries where they have MORE rights than men and anyone who asks one for a cup of coffee in an elevator is oppressing them?
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Phototoxin wrote:SO basically the 'oppressed' women are doing better in first world countries where they have MORE rights than men and anyone who asks one for a cup of coffee in an elevator is oppressing them?
Old, conservative, Roman Catholic man finds modern culture scary. Blames video games and a lack of faith and morals. CNN resorts to "reporting" troll stories to increase page hits.
I had a teacher who said in front of the classroom that girls are smarter than boys. If the teacher had said boys were smarter than girls she would've been fired. However, since she said the opposite, she wasn't and is still teaching to this day.
Lictor, you assume she would have been fired, in reality, she would have only been fired (well, more likely, reprimanded) if someone had made an issue out of it. If you'd made an issue (I mean, a big enough issue) out of her saying that about boys, then she probably would have been fired, too.
Kilkrazy wrote:And that is why men are doomed. DOOMED I TELL YOU!
There aren't doomed; nobody said that. Rather society is slanted in favor of woman, as opposed to men now. Society will always have some sort of slant related to race or gender or whatever.
Da Boss wrote:Lictor, you assume she would have been fired, in reality, she would have only been fired (well, more likely, reprimanded) if someone had made an issue out of it. If you'd made an issue (I mean, a big enough issue) out of her saying that about boys, then she probably would have been fired, too.
Maybe. I don't have her as a teacher anymore so I guess I'll never know. I guess what I should've said was: if she had said "Boys are smarter than girls" people would've made a big deal, but since she said "Girls are smarter than boys" the thirty kids and another teacher in there didn't make a big deal out of it.
Interesting article. I see the trend the author describes all the time. A rediculous number of men I meet are nearing 30, but are living their lives as though they are still in college (or high school).
Alot of folks will probably disagree with the author's final statement, but regardless of what you feel about marriage, expectations of industriusness and religious community, the reality is that these institutions have been tossed off and not replaced with any equally effective social institutions of order.
If men don't have any social pressure -or any that they deem worth bending to- pushing them to exceed then where's the incentive to produce, exceed, marry or actively father?
Phototoxin wrote:SO basically the 'oppressed' women are doing better in first world countries where they have MORE rights than men and anyone who asks one for a cup of coffee in an elevator is oppressing them?
Your misogynistic trolling aside, I refute the underlying assumption here-- despite the gains women have made, we still earn less on average than men do. It's just that women happen to be closing the gap faster than before.
The reason that was given in the OP was that this is because women are working harder and smarter t han this generation's men. I don't know if I agree with that, but that was the argument-- that women are succeeding more because we're actually trying more.
Eilif wrote:If men don't have any social pressure -or any that they deem worth bending to- pushing them to exceed then where's the incentive to produce, exceed, marry or actively father?
How about that vaunted self-interest that capitalistas keep pushing on us as the most divine force ever created?
Eilif wrote:If men don't have any social pressure -or any that they deem worth bending to- pushing them to exceed then where's the incentive to produce, exceed, marry or actively father?
How about that vaunted self-interest that capitalistas keep pushing on us as the most divine force ever created?
I may take a few kicks for this one but while I feel that Capitalism is the foundation for the best economic systems, my opinions are:
-Self-interest without social responsibility is just greed.
-Unfettered Capitalism without regulation just leads to fewer on the very top more on the very bottom and less in the middle.
LoneLictor wrote:Maybe. I don't have her as a teacher anymore so I guess I'll never know. I guess what I should've said was: if she had said "Boys are smarter than girls" people would've made a big deal, but since she said "Girls are smarter than boys" the thirty kids and another teacher in there didn't make a big deal out of it.
Well, there is a cultural "pass" to making positive statements about females as a gender that you can't make about men as a gender. It's a pretty nasty double standard that doesn't affect me in the least.
On the other hand, every time I have sex with a new person, I only become more successful. So, sure, call women smarter or believe in "women's intuition." I'll be over here enjoying a double standard that's a lot more fun!
Eilif wrote:Interesting article. I see the trend the author describes all the time. A rediculous number of men I meet are nearing 30, but are living their lives as though they are still in college (or high school).
Alot of folks will probably disagree with the author's final statement, but regardless of what you feel about marriage, expectations of industriusness and religious community, the reality is that these institutions have been tossed off and not replaced with any equally effective social institutions of order.
If men don't have any social pressure -or any that they deem worth bending to- pushing them to exceed then where's the incentive to produce, exceed, marry or actively father?
That is an interesting question to ask. Personally, I feel the need to "mature" my life with continuing my career, finding a spouse, and to "father", as you so eloquently put it (seriously). But I think this drive is more personal then social as it seems all of my friends are now married and they continue to tell me to stay single, which I do not quite understand why...even the women in these relationships are telling me this. I feel no pressure to marry (actually feel pressured to stay single) because of the social and economic atmosphere that we live in currently.
Of course, I, personally, do not think I live my life as if I am still in high school or college. I have a drive to want to move into my first house (but missing the spouse to go along with it). I want to possibly get my Master's Degree to continue my career. I want to find that special someone who I can live with for the rest of my life. But this is hard to determine because I am a gamer, so by definition, I spend a lot of time playing games with my friends and those online. But I have a drive to continue myself so this is what might be missing with many of my generation. And I saw this all the time in my high school. Almost ALL of the males didn't care if they went to college or if they could get a job, they just wanted to continue with their current existance with life just going past them.
Zyllos wrote: I want to find that special someone who I can live with for the rest of my life.
You don't have to be married to do that, and its a lot less complicated if you aren't and "the rest of your life" turns out to be 5 years or so.
Thats interesting to say that also. I am a kind of person who likes continuity and stability. So seeing myself with someone for the rest of my life seems to make sense. But the product of our time may not allow this anymore.
So do I live in the past? I don't think so (even thought I still think chivalry is not dead but I will gladly let a lady hold the door for me). Complication is something that I am willing to risk because I want that stability. I am ready to make those compromises to let a relationship endure. But as you have stated, maybe this generation doesn't value these things anymore.
Zyllos wrote: I want to find that special someone who I can live with for the rest of my life.
You don't have to be married to do that, and its a lot less complicated if you aren't and "the rest of your life" turns out to be 5 years or so.
Thats interesting to say that also. I am a kind of person who likes continuity and stability. So seeing myself with someone for the rest of my life seems to make sense. But the product of our time may not allow this anymore.
So do I live in the past? I don't think so (even thought I still think chivalry is not dead but I will gladly let a lady hold the door for me). Complication is something that I am willing to risk because I want that stability. I am ready to make those compromises to let a relationship endure. But as you have stated, maybe this generation doesn't value these things anymore.
dogma wrote:Marrying would be the second worst, socially acceptable, financial decision I could make, just short of having a child.
Having children has never been cheap. It's almost always a poor financial decision because the costs of raising kids are high and are borne when you are young and haven't developed a high earning potential.
But people keep having kids, meaning that it's more than simply an economic decision.
Having a kid may have been one of the worst financial decisions I've made, but it's also one of the best decisions I've ever made overall (another being getting married).
Maybe I am lost on the question, do mean our current generation?
No the little terrorists you create you whipper snapper. Whats their situation? This screams unstable to me, and kids need stability.
What screams unstable? Is it that I am young or that I am not settled into my career to begin a family? I would hope the relationship would last before children comes into the picture, therefore as someone stated after your post, my earning potential would be higher.
Maybe I am lost on the question, do mean our current generation?
No the little terrorists you create you whipper snapper. Whats their situation? This screams unstable to me, and kids need stability.
What screams unstable? Is it that I am young or that I am not settled into my career to begin a family? I would hope the relationship would last before children comes into the picture, therefore as someone stated after your post, my earning potential would be higher.
None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
Ok we may be crossing wires a little bit then.
Personally, I agree that marriage is not for everyone. But for those who want kids its a preferable option for the benefit of the kids.
Plus all you turkeys are forget about that getting old thing. You think the single ladies are going to put up with your when you're 60 with a beer belly?
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
Ok we may be crossing wires a little bit then.
Personally, I agree that marriage is not for everyone. But for those who want kids its a preferable option for the benefit of the kids.
Plus all you turkeys are forget about that getting old thing. You think the single ladies are going to put up with your when you're 60 with a beer belly?
60, while not that far in the future, is not something I am ready to think about yet (except in regards to retirement). It just seems the ladies of my generation are just screwy...everything is casual to them. Of course, there are so many others out there and I am the kind of person who likes to stay close to home, I might have to start doing things differently.
Zyllos wrote: But as you have stated, maybe this generation doesn't value these things anymore.
I don't think its that they aren't valued, so much as the idea of marriage as a sacrosanct institution to be aspired to is no longer quite so widely held.
People still definitely connect with the idea of permanent monogamy, its just become a more pragmatic connection.
Frazzled wrote:
What happens to the kids?
Assuming there are kids, wouldn't it still be an issue of legal custody? I mean, generally custody is connected to divorce, but cohabitation does occur and I'm sure its been a legal issue at some point.
biccat wrote:
But people keep having kids, meaning that it's more than simply an economic decision.
Having a kid may have been one of the worst financial decisions I've made, but it's also one of the best decisions I've ever made overall (another being getting married).
Of course, I wasn't implying that it was, most people like children on it least some level, and marriage is so heavily ingrained into society that its widely seen as the thing you do with that special someone (and its arguably a direct result of the seemingly human tendency towards monogamy).
My point is that, if you take those things away, the incentive disappears. I don't like kids in the least, and I don't attach any kind of significance to marriage, or even monogamy per se. For someone like me, getting married, or having children, would be valuable only on an external, or material level: eg. I've been dating someone for 7 years, and they want to get married.
Granted, that's true of financial incentives as well, though not in such an individualistic sense.
Zyllos wrote: But as you have stated, maybe this generation doesn't value these things anymore.
I don't think its that they aren't valued, so much as the idea of marriage as a sacrosanct institution to be aspired to is no longer quite so widely held.
People still definitely connect with the idea of permanent monogamy, its just become a more pragmatic connection.
For some reason, that just does not feel permanent to me. It almost seems to boil down to an ethical issues between rights instead of about the marriage itself.
There is something to be gained from marriage, and it has nothing to do with gender. Certainly two men who marry can get the same out of marriage as a man and a woman who marries, whom can get the same out of it as two women.
But in our age of instant gratification, how many people really take the time to actually fall in love before they drop their pants/get on their knees with a ring in their hands/say yes to the previous?
dogma wrote:I'd actually go so far as to say that saving oneself for marriage has become socially unacceptable in certain circles, or at least extremely odd.
I've always personally found that trend to be irresponsible and infuriating...but then again I may be biased by the amount of associates I've seen being the typical "player" ; treating women like new toys that they quickly get bored of and then toss away so as not to be committed...
dogma wrote:I don't think its that they aren't valued, so much as the idea of marriage as a sacrosanct institution to be aspired to is no longer quite so widely held.
And can you blame this generation for seeing it that way? It used to be that divorce was taboo in America...the unsuccessful couple becoming social outcasts...now I'm not sure of the exact percentage but I do know that a good portion if not most marriages in the US these days end in failure...
Being a virgin is almost taboo in a lot of younger circles, in fact when my brother started dating his girlfriend the first thing our younger cousin asked was "Did you feth her?" to which my brother replied by putting him into a wrestling hold known as a 'banana split' which is incredibly painful.
It seems as if now and days the whole 'kiss and tell' aspect of a relationship is encouraged by a person's peers in order to affirm their position in a certain group. Although my viewings of the subject are skewed, my brother and I would never say anything about it because its a personal thing and the only reason I know he was having sex was because I caught him and his girlfriend about to and he fessed up to doing it before.
I personally don't get why people would want to brag about their own activities, but to each their own.
As far as marriage goes, I think you get a tax deduction for it as well as getting someone who hopefully feels the same level of love as you do. It provides a somewhat stable base for a potential family. Sure its financially terrible but its more of a cultural/personal thing, a man may want a family because he wants a family. Its also somewhat genetic, a man who successfully mates with a woman passes on his genes and satisfies some biological process. Of course this doesn't hold true for everyone, however its why there are fathers who would do anything for their kids and fathers who don't do anything for their kids outside of giving them food and a place to stay until they can leave.
I'm all for marriage and family, but then again right now I can't afford it.
WARORK93 wrote:
And can you blame this generation for seeing it that way? It used to be that divorce was taboo in America...the unsuccessful couple becoming social outcasts...now I'm not sure of the exact percentage but I do know that a good portion if not most marriages in the US these days end in failure...
I don't blame anyone for it, because I'm not convinced that its something that is blame worthy in the sense of value judgment.
I'm part of the generation being discussed anyway, and my lifestyle and values would probably be considered part of the problem, at least on the marriage and religiosity fronts.
dogma wrote:I don't blame anyone for it, because I'm not convinced that its something that is blame worthy in the sense of value judgment.
I wasn't implying you blamed anyone...it was an expression used to emphasize my point.
However you have managed to BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!
Now that that's out of the way, I can say that the Mistress/girlfriend is definitely more successful than me. We'll be paying my way through school together, but as of next year she could handle my school and all the bills on her own. I'm more of a slave/housewife than anything now
Honestly it's just that my generation and my age group is more and more lazy than ever. Everybody wants things done for them today. No sense of pride at the end of the day when you've busted your balls for a paycheck.
Could also be case of having something to prove due to who you are. It's a psychological thing that we all do at one point or another. As a young white male... well I don't have a whole lot of profiles going against me. But as a 20 year old I have to prove that age is only a number and that my responsibility, fidelity, and determination put me at a much higher maturity level.
Women are seen as the weaker bunch. We all do it. I'm guilty of this. Sometimes I look down on females as a whole (I just did it at the beginning of the post, irony irony) So they have more of a reason to prove that they are just as intelligent, responsible, and dependable as me or any other man.
I like those girls who go for the 'adventurous' type, hell I worked with a girl who was dating a 26 year old who wasn't in school and still lived with his parents and didn't work. The guy looked like scum and she said that she liked him that way.
Made me wonder why, but then again I can't understand people sometimes. I also know a girl who's dating a "tattoo artist", seriously the guy is a hack and then again I can't understand why someone would want to date something like that. I'm hoping it isn't that whole "bad-boy" thing because I can't stand that whole attitude and I don't think I could fake it.
Women aren't drawn to the actual bad boy element as much as the confidence with a touch of mystery. You can be a decent, reasonable person and still give that appeal (or the parts that count anyway). If you let yourself slip into the background, you aren't going to be notices.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Women aren't drawn to the actual bad boy element as much as the confidence with a touch of mystery. You can be a decent, reasonable person and still give that appeal (or the parts that count anyway). If you let yourself slip into the background, you aren't going to be notices.
So my ninja activities won't win me anyone right?
So what all guys need to is grease our hair and act with alot of confidence with a touch mystery? Doesn't sound too hard. There we go men are saved.
halonachos wrote:And then everyone looks like the guys off of the Jersey Shore.
No you have to grease yourself and you have to swear at everyone, and what mystery is their to them? How they dry their hair? And then you have to be actually from new jersey. Of course the governor has refused funding to that show so humanity is saved.
halonachos wrote:And then everyone looks like the guys off of the Jersey Shore.
No you have to grease yourself and you have to swear at everyone, and what mystery is their to them? How they dry their hair?
And then you have to be actually from new jersey. Of course the governor has refused funding to that show so humanity is saved.
Dang, I just bought a ton of hair grease and fake tan spray although that may have hurt my odds in the end. Here's to Russian brides, man talk about marriage costing a lot.
halonachos wrote:And then everyone looks like the guys off of the Jersey Shore.
No you have to grease yourself and you have to swear at everyone, and what mystery is their to them? How they dry their hair? And then you have to be actually from new jersey. Of course the governor has refused funding to that show so humanity is saved.
Dang, I just bought a ton of hair grease and fake tan spray although that may have hurt my odds in the end. Here's to Russian brides, man talk about marriage costing a lot.
fake tan spray is highly explosive do it! It ruins solves ever relationship!
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Women aren't drawn to the actual bad boy element as much as the confidence with a touch of mystery. You can be a decent, reasonable person and still give that appeal (or the parts that count anyway).
Polonius wrote:
On the other hand, every time I have sex with a new person, I only become more successful.
Wait, you're a gigolo?
No, but I have a lot of married friends who live vicariously through me.
Zyllos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
I'm not sure our generation cares any less, it's just that the pressure to marry isn't there, and the risks are much higher.
I'm 31 years old. I don't want to have children. I have a career starting out. What do I gain from marriage (as opposed to either cohabitation or just moving through women), and what do I risk?
I do gain some stability (and I do mean some). I also risk huge financial losses, a loss of financial and professional freedom, and I have to give up a lifestyle I've become accustomed to.
Maybe some day I'll be ready to settle down, but I feel like I've developed into a person already, and I'm probably not going to change any time soon.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Women aren't drawn to the actual bad boy element as much as the confidence with a touch of mystery. You can be a decent, reasonable person and still give that appeal (or the parts that count anyway).
Of course, its much harder to do.
I know I'm me, but I honestly have to ask "why?" It's really not that hard to make oneself not act like an emotional/social fethtard. Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
That is far beyond what most people are willing (or even able) to do.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
That is far beyond what most people are willing (or even able) to do.
I'm going to have to disagree. It's called giving a gak. If you find yourself unable to do it, spend 10 minutes attempting to and you'll figure out how. (Obviously aimed at the ambiguous "you" )
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
That is far beyond what most people are willing (or even able) to do.
I'm going to have to disagree. It's called giving a gak. If you find yourself unable to do it, spend 10 minutes attempting to and you'll figure out how. (Obviously aimed at the ambiguous "you" )
What if you're an optimistic person who has a positive view about yourself?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
That is far beyond what most people are willing (or even able) to do.
I'm going to have to disagree. It's called giving a gak. If you find yourself unable to do it, spend 10 minutes attempting to and you'll figure out how. (Obviously aimed at the ambiguous "you" )
10 minutes won't change a lifetime of "you're special, and someday, someone will come along who loves you for who you want to be."
Cheesecat wrote:
What if you're an optimistic person who has a positive about yourself?
That has absolutely zero to do with being objective about your faults and comes off as a lame excuse for not fixing them. That's my initial reaction.
Nerivant wrote:
10 minutes won't change a lifetime of "you're special, and someday, someone will come along who loves you for who you want to be."
The right 10 minutes will. Deprogramming is difficult but by no means impossible.
Next comes the inevitable "well what if I'm happy with myself the way I am?" I then respond by saying you should never complain about anything, ever, until you're willing to change to make it better.
Some column writer seems real shocked that men, in general, seem to have noticed the divorce rate, and results of being hit with a divorce, and the rate at which males get stuck with the bill but not custody of children, and stopped bothering with the whole mess.
Frankly, after seeing the marriages I have growing up, from my parents to my friends....Why in the name of God and the Emperor would I want to engage in this? Because someone ELSE thinks it builds character? Is this like one of those times where one person telling another "GO GET A REAL JOB!" really means "YOU SHOULD BE AS UNHAPPY AS I AM!"? It sure sounds like it!
Nerivant wrote:
10 minutes won't change a lifetime of "you're special, and someday, someone will come along who loves you for who you want to be."
The right 10 minutes will. Deprogramming is difficult but by no means impossible.
Next comes the inevitable "well what if I'm happy with myself the way I am?" I then respond by saying you should never complain about anything, ever, until you're willing to change to make it better.
Assuming you know what I'm going to post next is a bit arrogant, don't you think?
Self-improvement no longer has a meaning to today's generation. I blame the internet.
I think it will take more than a few minutes to change one's own personality and self. Maybe it'll take ten minutes to realize that you have faults, but the actual work is a lot longer.
Nerivant wrote:
10 minutes won't change a lifetime of "you're special, and someday, someone will come along who loves you for who you want to be."
The right 10 minutes will. Deprogramming is difficult but by no means impossible.
Next comes the inevitable "well what if I'm happy with myself the way I am?" I then respond by saying you should never complain about anything, ever, until you're willing to change to make it better.
Assuming you know what I'm going to post next is a bit arrogant, don't you think?
Self-improvement no longer has a meaning to today's generation. I blame the internet.
I think it depends on what you mean by self-improvement like personality, financial position, social life, ect some of those qualities may be more or less relevant nowadays.
Cheesecat wrote:
I think it depends on what you mean by self-improvement like personality, financial position, social life, ect some of those qualities may be more or less relevant nowadays.
I've never considered financial concerns to be part of the "self." I'm referring to things like personality, social skills, and the like.
Cheesecat wrote:
I think it depends on what you mean by self-improvement like personality, financial position, social life, ect some of those qualities may be more or less relevant nowadays.
I've never considered financial concerns to be part of the "self." I'm referring to things like personality, social skills, and the like.
I consider any improvement to one's self, self-improvement.
Nerivant wrote:
10 minutes won't change a lifetime of "you're special, and someday, someone will come along who loves you for who you want to be."
The right 10 minutes will. Deprogramming is difficult but by no means impossible.
Next comes the inevitable "well what if I'm happy with myself the way I am?" I then respond by saying you should never complain about anything, ever, until you're willing to change to make it better.
Assuming you know what I'm going to post next is a bit arrogant, don't you think?
Self-improvement no longer has a meaning to today's generation. I blame the internet.
I already gave my disclaimer that any use of the word you is an ambiguous you, not any specific person in the thread
And yes it takes longer than 10 minutes to change, but it takes only a split second to gain a new perspective that leads to the change. Technicalities don't matter near as much as people taking responsibility for their own faults if they're doing nothing to acknowledge, let alone fix them.
Polonius wrote:
On the other hand, every time I have sex with a new person, I only become more successful.
Wait, you're a gigolo?
No, but I have a lot of married friends who live vicariously through me.
Zyllos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
I'm not sure our generation cares any less, it's just that the pressure to marry isn't there, and the risks are much higher.
I'm 31 years old. I don't want to have children. I have a career starting out. What do I gain from marriage (as opposed to either cohabitation or just moving through women), and what do I risk?
I do gain some stability (and I do mean some). I also risk huge financial losses, a loss of financial and professional freedom, and I have to give up a lifestyle I've become accustomed to.
Maybe some day I'll be ready to settle down, but I feel like I've developed into a person already, and I'm probably not going to change any time soon.
This is precisely how I feel. While I'm only 20, my girlfriend of four years recently tried to talk me into getting married, or at least engaged. Apart from the fact that we're both in school and I'm the only one employed, I explained to her that I have no incentive for marriage anymore. She won't be obligated to do anything, and if things don't work out the state I live in will give her the car I bought (we share it), the apartment and then I'll be paying her alimony for who knows how long. Even if I met my "soul mate" I still wouldn't want to get married, just because the knowledge that I'm completely at this person's whim isn't something I can square with. This is modern society and if women can provide for themselves then marriage becomes obsolete, as there is no obligation to one another(women to take care of the home, men to provide money). It's just going to be awhile until the people steeped in their tradition can realize it.
So you've been with this person for four years but don't want a commitment and don't think you've met your soul mate? I get the impression the two of you were expecting very different things out of this relationship.
Polonius at least is up front in relationship that he isn't looking for a long term relationship atm whereas you already are in a long term relationship and saying you don't want to be in one.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I know I'm me, but I honestly have to ask "why?" It's really not that hard to make oneself not act like an emotional/social fethtard. Look in the mirror and do some cursory viewing of yourself from the third person and ask what is wrong with you then fix it. Is it really that challenging?
Presumably, since the argument many people seem to be making is that lots of people don't do that, the answer is yes.
I mean, even beyond that, figuring out what you should be doing and differentiating it from what you want to do is a difficult process in itself.
Obrek wrote:This is precisely how I feel. While I'm only 20, my girlfriend of four years recently tried to talk me into getting married, or at least engaged. Apart from the fact that we're both in school and I'm the only one employed, I explained to her that I have no incentive for marriage anymore. She won't be obligated to do anything, and if things don't work out the state I live in will give her the car I bought (we share it), the apartment and then I'll be paying her alimony for who knows how long. Even if I met my "soul mate" I still wouldn't want to get married, just because the knowledge that I'm completely at this person's whim isn't something I can square with. This is modern society and if women can provide for themselves then marriage becomes obsolete, as there is no obligation to one another(women to take care of the home, men to provide money). It's just going to be awhile until the people steeped in their tradition can realize it.
Marriage is the public recognition of two people's love for each other, and their commitment to stay together. Some people don't want or need that public recognition, while others do.
While there has traditionally been a social expectation for marriage, it's a wild and entirely unfounded assumption that this is the only reason people get married.
SOFDC wrote:Not wanting to sign a disadvantageous legal contract and not being committed to a person are not the same thing.
Framing marriage in terms of advantageous and disadvantageous legal conditions, and ignoring the personal, emotional commitment you make to another person is really out there.
and ignoring the personal, emotional commitment you make to another person is really out there.
I agree. Whether a legal document has a pair of signatures on it has zero bearing on whether or not the above quoted bit is present. However, Ahtman`s reaction to Obrek seems to imply that without one, there cannot be the other. I object to that idea. If that was the wrong conclusion to get from Ahtman`s post, I stand corrected.
SOFDC wrote:I agree. Whether a legal document has a pair of signatures on it has zero bearing on whether or not the above quoted bit is present. However, Ahtman`s reaction to Obrek seems to imply that without one, there cannot be the other. I object to that idea. If that was the wrong conclusion to get from Ahtman`s post, I stand corrected.
Well, sure, I agree on that, if that's what both partners want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't see the connection between marriage/divorce and lack of achievement at school and university.
The thread is kind of this vague rant about all these things that are bad and wrong and not at all like they used to be when things were good and righteous. Things don't have to have any literal connection to anything else to be brought into the conversation, the emotion is the same and that's enough. Hell, they don't have to be true, if everyone involved is willing to pretend things used to be better.
It kind of reminds me of my grandmother when she got drunk, God rest her soul.
The original complaint is basically a paean of regret for the vanished good times when white men ruled the world, dressed up with some social sciencey stats.
"Young people these days, etc..." (c) Aristotle, 429 BC.
Polonius wrote:
On the other hand, every time I have sex with a new person, I only become more successful.
Wait, you're a gigolo?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:And then everyone looks like the guys off of the Jersey Shore.
No thats Yankee white trash. Acting confident is completely different.
Having said that the Wife has accused me of walking like a gorilla (and being about as smart...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obrek wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Polonius wrote:
On the other hand, every time I have sex with a new person, I only become more successful.
Wait, you're a gigolo?
No, but I have a lot of married friends who live vicariously through me.
Zyllos wrote:
Frazzled wrote:None of those my man. My point is referring to voluntarily having children without the greater stability of marriage. After all, kids are a 20+ year commitment. "Baby daddy" isn't going to cut it.
Hmm, maybe I mistyped my post but I think I was saying the same thing? I want a marriage before having children but was commenting how Dogma and Polonius asked some important questions about how my generation seems to not care about these things.
I'm not sure our generation cares any less, it's just that the pressure to marry isn't there, and the risks are much higher.
I'm 31 years old. I don't want to have children. I have a career starting out. What do I gain from marriage (as opposed to either cohabitation or just moving through women), and what do I risk?
I do gain some stability (and I do mean some). I also risk huge financial losses, a loss of financial and professional freedom, and I have to give up a lifestyle I've become accustomed to.
Maybe some day I'll be ready to settle down, but I feel like I've developed into a person already, and I'm probably not going to change any time soon.
This is precisely how I feel. While I'm only 20, my girlfriend of four years recently tried to talk me into getting married, or at least engaged. Apart from the fact that we're both in school and I'm the only one employed, I explained to her that I have no incentive for marriage anymore. She won't be obligated to do anything, and if things don't work out the state I live in will give her the car I bought (we share it), the apartment and then I'll be paying her alimony for who knows how long. Even if I met my "soul mate" I still wouldn't want to get married, just because the knowledge that I'm completely at this person's whim isn't something I can square with. This is modern society and if women can provide for themselves then marriage becomes obsolete, as there is no obligation to one another(women to take care of the home, men to provide money). It's just going to be awhile until the people steeped in their tradition can realize it.
Whats fun is, in California, she can already get most of that from you. Marriage is not required.
SOFDC wrote:If that was the wrong conclusion to get from Ahtman`s post, I stand corrected.
It was the wrong conclusion. One does not need to be married to be in a long term relationship. My concern is that the poster is in a long term relationship and mocking his partners desire for marriage as well as being rather cynical to the motivations of this person as well. If after four years one thinks the other person has just been waiting to trap them they may want to reevaluate their relationship. It came across as mean spirited and paranoid toward women, which is not actually what Polonius was arguing.
sebster wrote:Well, sure, I agree on that, if that's what both partners want.
Considering that she wanted to discus marriage and he was "lolno" after four years it would seem that there was a disconnect.
I'm married, I think it is a good thing. It is also a social contract and a sign of commitment and love. It is more than public affirmation/confirmation of your relationship. (insecure much?)
Ever wonder if the high rate of divorce is due to not trying 'ZOMG TOILET SEAT UP ! DIVORCE! DIVORCE!' No relationship is perfect, it's actually HARD WORK. Being 'non-committed' means you can walk away at any stage. Supposely taboo/guilt free.
Anyway feminism and associated feminazis annoy me. I'm all for women to have equal rights and equal pay for equal jobs, but additionally men should also have equal rights, equal pay for equal jobs.
Additionally men tend to die earlier than women. More gets spent on womens healthcare than men. Public outcry? I think not!
Finally on another forum there was a topic in the biology section'Do women have smaller brains than men' It got locked for 'trolling' despite the fact that women, on average being smaller than men, have smaller brain sizes. Sad.
Perhaps it's a reflection of the "me" culture, but there hasn't been much mention of the effect of marriage (or not) on (and related to) children.
The financial beneifits of marriage may be debatable, but even with the high divorce rates, marriages last longer than co-habitations, and the evidence of the beneifits of children growing up in an intact home with two parents is well documented.
For those who are not interested in children, that is their perogative. but remember that a society needs children in order to propogate itself, as well as to have enough producers to create the tax base to support the elderly. An aging population without significant reproduction is a very precarious place for a society to be. Japan is just entering this situation and it is putting real and increasing strain on their social institutions.
The societal expectation to "get married and have kids" may not be the zeitgeist today, but there are very real beneifts to the institution that should not be overlooked.
Phototoxin wrote:I'm married, I think it is a good thing. It is also a social contract and a sign of commitment and love. It is more than public affirmation/confirmation of your relationship. (insecure much?)
Ever wonder if the high rate of divorce is due to not trying 'ZOMG TOILET SEAT UP ! DIVORCE! DIVORCE!' No relationship is perfect, it's actually HARD WORK. Being 'non-committed' means you can walk away at any stage. Supposely taboo/guilt free.
Anyway feminism and associated feminazis annoy me. I'm all for women to have equal rights and equal pay for equal jobs, but additionally men should also have equal rights, equal pay for equal jobs.
Additionally men tend to die earlier than women. More gets spent on womens healthcare than men. Public outcry? I think not!
Finally on another forum there was a topic in the biology section'Do women have smaller brains than men' It got locked for 'trolling' despite the fact that women, on average being smaller than men, have smaller brain sizes. Sad.
Kilkrazy wrote:That explanation backs up what I thought.
The original complaint is basically a paean of regret for the vanished good times when white men ruled the world, dressed up with some social sciencey stats.
"Young people these days, etc..." (c) Aristotle, 429 BC.
Definitely. That said, music is definitely worse than it used to be and kids really don't respect their elders anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Considering that she wanted to discus marriage and he was "lolno" after four years it would seem that there was a disconnect.
Yeah, definitely.
I know a couple who are in the early stages of breaking up their marriage, the biggest issue among a whole lot of others is that after 6 years of marriage he's saying he doesn't want kids. His argument is that he's entitled to decide if he wants to have kids or not, and that's true. The counter is that after 6 years of marriage with a partner who said she wanted kids all along, it isn't okay to tell her all of a sudden that you never wanted the same things as her.
Phototoxin wrote:
Anyway feminism and associated feminazis annoy me. I'm all for women to have equal rights and equal pay for equal jobs, but additionally men should also have equal rights, equal pay for equal jobs.
Plus there are a number of other things that arent in the article. I didnt go to school after high school becuase i went to work right out of school. I've had a job and in some cases multiple jobs since i was 13. Always wanted to go back but there just never seems to be time or money. o well. One reason that more women than men have work may not just be there schooling. I know were i work they have paced over more qualified people becuase we dont have enough women or what ever.
Do agree with the younger crowed being less motivated though. Lots of loaffing around. I've talked with my nephew and nieces and the answer seems to be that they don't want to work their way up the ladder. They want the top jobs from the start. Not sure if this is something that was taught in schools or not but i was stund. I only have one child right now but i plan on motivating her butt for sure.
Phototoxin wrote: Anyway feminism and associated feminazis annoy me. I'm all for women to have equal rights and equal pay for equal jobs, but additionally men should also have equal rights, equal pay for equal jobs.
So, basically, you have no idea what feminism is.
The idea that feminism simply equates to a belief of equal rights-- which means for both genders, as otherwise it isn't equal-- goes over the head of many people, including some of the supporters of the concept... but mostly those whom seem to be against it.
Including the infamous "ladies against women" campaigns...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote:Brain size and intelligence aren't related.
It's actually the amount of connections in the brain that is usually associated with intelligence. An intelligent person whom uses their brain a lot tends to have a lot of neural connections.
Obrek wrote:This is precisely how I feel. While I'm only 20, my girlfriend of four years recently tried to talk me into getting married, or at least engaged. Apart from the fact that we're both in school and I'm the only one employed, I explained to her that I have no incentive for marriage anymore. She won't be obligated to do anything, and if things don't work out the state I live in will give her the car I bought (we share it), the apartment and then I'll be paying her alimony for who knows how long. Even if I met my "soul mate" I still wouldn't want to get married, just because the knowledge that I'm completely at this person's whim isn't something I can square with. This is modern society and if women can provide for themselves then marriage becomes obsolete, as there is no obligation to one another(women to take care of the home, men to provide money). It's just going to be awhile until the people steeped in their tradition can realize it.
Marriage is the public recognition of two people's love for each other, and their commitment to stay together. Some people don't want or need that public recognition, while others do.
While there has traditionally been a social expectation for marriage, it's a wild and entirely unfounded assumption that this is the only reason people get married.
SOFDC wrote:Not wanting to sign a disadvantageous legal contract and not being committed to a person are not the same thing.
Framing marriage in terms of advantageous and disadvantageous legal conditions, and ignoring the personal, emotional commitment you make to another person is really out there.
Marriage involving love is a relatively new concept. Historically marriage is about combining assets for a better quality of life and tying bloodlines together, not love. Marriage is also not about commitment, and we can deduce this by applying simple logic. Marriage cannot be about commitment. These are the definitions of commit:
1.
to give in trust or charge; consign.
2.
to consign for preservation: to commit ideas to writing; to commit a poem to memory.
3.
to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.): Asked if he was a candidate, he refused to commit himself.
4.
to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge: to commit oneself to a promise; to be committed to a course of action.
5.
to entrust, especially for safekeeping; commend: to commit one's soul to God.
As long as divorce exists, none of these apply to marriage. You are not preserving, pledging, obligated, or entrusted to anything. There is always an out, so saying marriage is about commitment is wrong. Marriage would only be a commitment if the people involved were forced to be married for the rest of their lives. Additionally, nowhere did I state that people married only out of social expectation, I stated that there is no obligation to the other sex for survival, which makes the traditional idea of marriage obsolete. And finally, there is nothing "out there" about being honest about the risks of marriage. Refusing to be honest to yourself and others about real world situations only weakens your ability to make good decisions.
Ahtman wrote:
SOFDC wrote:If that was the wrong conclusion to get from Ahtman`s post, I stand corrected.
It was the wrong conclusion. One does not need to be married to be in a long term relationship. My concern is that the poster is in a long term relationship and mocking his partners desire for marriage as well as being rather cynical to the motivations of this person as well. If after four years one thinks the other person has just been waiting to trap them they may want to reevaluate their relationship. It came across as mean spirited and paranoid toward women, which is not actually what Polonius was arguing.
sebster wrote:Well, sure, I agree on that, if that's what both partners want.
Considering that she wanted to discus marriage and he was "lolno" after four years it would seem that there was a disconnect.
Nowhere did I state I was mocking anybody, nor did I mention anything about trapping, and condensing my post into "lolno" in an attempt to cast my position into a different light is dishonest and sad. If you read my original post, I clearly stated that I explained my reasons for not wanting to get married. Also, it is in no way mean spirited or paranoid to be honest about circumstances. She could, in fact, do anything and I would be a fool if I believed I could predict everything another human brain will desire each day until that human died. People get married these days because they WANT to, and wants are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and are always changing. There is a real risk of getting married and then deciding you don't WANT to anymore, to say that acknowledging that risk is paranoid is wrong. There is no disconnect. If she had any objection to what I said, she is free to leave at any time, just like she would be if we were married.
Obrek wrote:Marriage involving love is a relatively new concept. Historically marriage is about combining assets for a better quality of life and tying bloodlines together, not love. Marriage is also not about commitment, and we can deduce this by applying simple logic. Marriage cannot be about commitment. These are the definitions of commit:
1.
to give in trust or charge; consign.
2.
to consign for preservation: to commit ideas to writing; to commit a poem to memory.
3.
to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.): Asked if he was a candidate, he refused to commit himself.
4.
to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge: to commit oneself to a promise; to be committed to a course of action.
5.
to entrust, especially for safekeeping; commend: to commit one's soul to God.
As long as divorce exists, none of these apply to marriage. You are not preserving, pledging, obligated, or entrusted to anything. There is always an out, so saying marriage is about commitment is wrong. Marriage would only be a commitment if the people involved were forced to be married for the rest of their lives.
I agree that love as the precondition for marriage is a relatively new concept. People of the past believed that love would grow in a marriage (see Song of Songs, Fiddler on the Roof, and other ancient love literature...), not that it would be the cause for a marriage.
However, your conclusion is incorrect. Marriage has always, and will always involve commitement. That there is an "out" and that the commitment is in some cases voluntary does not negate the commitment factor of a marriage. Most philosphers would even say that the existance of an out makes the commitment factor even greater as the commitment is even more based upon a person's will and steadfastness.
As for the definition you use as evidence for your conclusion, Though they may have varying degrees of consequences, all of the definitions you list of commitment have an "out" and can be broken. Even into the ancient past, there have usually been ways to break a marriage, though often only by the man.
There's no earthly contract that can't be broken. You might not like the price, but you can get out of any committment (except possible student loan debt....)
To say that just because there's an out means that it's not a commitment isn't very accurate.
Obrek wrote:
As long as divorce exists, none of these apply to marriage. You are not preserving, pledging, obligated, or entrusted to anything. There is always an out, so saying marriage is about commitment is wrong. Marriage would only be a commitment if the people involved were forced to be married for the rest of their lives.
No, that's incorrect. Neither pledge, preserve, or trust imply permanence or the inability to renege. They are all commitments, and all commitments can be broken, even those that exist as a result of compulsion.
There is always an out, so long as you're willing to pay the price.
I once worked with a guy who had been married three times, once for 5 years, once for 7, now currently 13. Before I left that job, he gave me some great words of wisdom, those being "If something is working fine, why change it?". This was in regards to his relations, and then when the women would end up suggest marriage. He said that it generally went downhill from there. It never ended the relationship, but there was definite hardships he underwent because of it.
Me personally? As others have mentioned, I find it akin to PDA. Just about every girl I've ever been with has always wanted some form of PDA, some way to let people know what's going on, and I hated it. I don't like people knowing my business, and I especially don't like it when other people are telling people my business. So in a sense, it's the same for marriage. I imagine after 8+ years are so, you get into the "why not?" territory. Still, with the way society is today, and how the courts will always favor women, marriage is like playing Russian roulette for me.
Obrek wrote:Nowhere did I state I was mocking anybody, nor did I mention anything about trapping, and condensing my post into "lolno" in an attempt to cast my position into a different light is dishonest and sad. If you read my original post, I clearly stated that I explained my reasons for not wanting to get married. Also, it is in no way mean spirited or paranoid to be honest about circumstances. She could, in fact, do anything and I would be a fool if I believed I could predict everything another human brain will desire each day until that human died. People get married these days because they WANT to, and wants are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and are always changing. There is a real risk of getting married and then deciding you don't WANT to anymore, to say that acknowledging that risk is paranoid is wrong. There is no disconnect. If she had any objection to what I said, she is free to leave at any time, just like she would be if we were married.
I get the impression you have no idea what you wrote, or how people work for that matter. For instance, people don't say "I am about to mock you" when they are about to mock someone, they just do it. So the fact you never said you were going to mock this person is meaningless. I condensed your post into "lolno" becuase that is was a pretty accurate summation. Just becuase you don't care for it doesn't make it so. You did state your reasons and they come across as paranoid and mean spirited, as opposed to Polonius, who came across as a bit detached, but thoughtful. Acknowledging that people can separate isn't the problem so much as you seem fixated on it. I don't know that she is free to leave at any time becuase I only know what you say about your relationship and you aren't presenting it in a very positive light. For all I know you are stringing her along becuase you don't really want to be in a long term relationship becuase you are obsessed with being hurt by loss, but you don't want to be alone either so do enough to keep her around and then rationalize the whole thing in vaguely misogynistic terms about how women have all the rights and perks.
Necroshea wrote:This was in regards to his relations, and then when the women would end up suggest marriage. He said that it generally went downhill from there. It never ended the relationship
It seems like the common factor in all his failed relationships was him. Might have been a nice guy but I don't think he would be someone to take serious advice on relationships with the opposite sex, long term or not.
Ahtman wrote:It seems like the common factor in all his failed relationships was him. Might have been a nice guy but I don't think he would be someone to take serious advice on relationships with the opposite sex, long term or not.
So you're saying that it's entirely impossible for him to find 2 women that were unable to handle a marriage that they proposed?
Ahtman wrote:It seems like the common factor in all his failed relationships was him. Might have been a nice guy but I don't think he would be someone to take serious advice on relationships with the opposite sex, long term or not.
So you're saying that it's entirely impossible for him to find 2 women that were unable to handle a marriage that they proposed?
I think he's saying that the best advice a man can give you when he's been divorced 3 times is:
1. Where to find a good divorce lawyer.
2. What NOT to do.
Ahtman wrote:It seems like the common factor in all his failed relationships was him. Might have been a nice guy but I don't think he would be someone to take serious advice on relationships with the opposite sex, long term or not.
So you're saying that it's entirely impossible for him to find 2 women that were unable to handle a marriage that they proposed?
I misread that he had been divorced three times. Still, the only common factor of his previous relationships given is him.
X+N=Divorce
Y+N=Divorce
Out of curiosity, have you talked to the two exes or are you just taking his word that they pushed marriage on him? Still, obliviously something wasn't "working fine" and the idea that one can keep something in stasis is foolish. Part of any relationship (friends, family, or romantic), is the ability to cope with change, both yours and the other people. Essentially his advice was to try and maintain the status quo just you are comfortable with, which isn't possible. He might have thought everything was fine until then but that doesn't mean his partners felt that way.
Of course it could be that he made bad choices when he was younger and dated women he wasn't really compatible with and got married to quickly. It may be no coincidence that now that he is older he is able to carry on a stable relationship.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Marriage isn't tangible. It means something if you want it to, or doesn't if you're so inclined. Subjectivity ftw.
A lot of people are afraid of change. It's part of being human to some extent, as often change means we have to look to some other-- often unknown or less known-- source for our needs, be they emotional or otherwise.
Ahtman wrote:It seems like the common factor in all his failed relationships was him. Might have been a nice guy but I don't think he would be someone to take serious advice on relationships with the opposite sex, long term or not.
So you're saying that it's entirely impossible for him to find 2 women that were unable to handle a marriage that they proposed?
I misread that he had been divorced three times. Still, the only common factor of his previous relationships given is him.
X+N=Divorce
Y+N=Divorce
Agreed.
Someone who has been divorced is not usually the best person to take marriage advice from, as the statistics show us that they arent' more likely to get it right the second time.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986 Those who are divorced once are as or more likely to get divorced from their second marriage as those getting married for the first time.
Notable and possibly related to this gentleman in the refferenced narrative is that cohabitations before marriage with the expressed intention of marriage have roughly the same success rate as other marriages, while cohabiations-before-marriage (possibly his situation) without the expressed intent of marriage ("just seemed like the next step..." sydrome) have a much higher divorce rate than the general marriage pool.
My view is that...Marriage is pretty awesome. Polonius is only against marriage because he's jealous that he will never find a woman as awesome as mine.
My view is that...Marriage is pretty awesome. Polonius is only against marriage because he's jealous that he will never find a woman as awesome as mine.
I keep forgetting to scan the pic of the wife in wedding dress and sunglasses pumping gas before the wedding. Thats probably about the same time, in another part of town, Frazzled's getaway van broke down and all the relatives caught up with him and made him go to the church, even those his new ID and ticket to Matamoros said "Pablo Sanchez."
My view is that...Marriage is pretty awesome. Polonius is only against marriage because he's jealous that he will never find a woman as awesome as mine.
There's more truth to that than you'd think. I'm not so much against marriage as I'm against marriage to the women I've dated (with one notable exception).
Well, women can be scary to some people. I can talk to a girl for hours on end, hell I've been talking to a girl for hours on end recently and we have a lot in common... but I'm waiting for her to give some kind of signal because I don't want to feel like I am forcing myself upon someone, it also doesn't help that its my first time courting someone but I have been told that this is common for some people. It also doesn't help that she's in the Coast Guard and is underway as of yesterday.
Obrek wrote:Marriage involving love is a relatively new concept.
Sure, cars are also a relatively new concept, but if you were walk up to a Toyota Camry and ask "is this bizarre contraption the 'horseless carriage' I've been told about?" people would think you very silly.
Live in the times you're in, and here marriage is a couple looking for public recognition of their desire to live together the rest of their lives.
Marriage cannot be about commitment. These are the definitions of commit:
1.
to give in trust or charge; consign.
2.
to consign for preservation: to commit ideas to writing; to commit a poem to memory.
3.
to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.): Asked if he was a candidate, he refused to commit himself.
4.
to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge: to commit oneself to a promise; to be committed to a course of action.
5.
to entrust, especially for safekeeping; commend: to commit one's soul to God.
As long as divorce exists, none of these apply to marriage. You are not preserving, pledging, obligated, or entrusted to anything.
The commitment that matters above all else is the commitment between the couple. It doesn't matter that they 'can' get out of the arrangement, what they're saying is that they have no intention to get out, they plan on being with each other for the rest of their lives.
And you might respond 'well they're just saying they're committing to each other, anyone can do that' and well, you're right, anyone can do that. And some people don't get it, and probably are going to fail to stay together, but that's their business. What matters is you and your partner committing to each other, and doing whatever you can to make it work.
The OP made me chuckle. I hope one day if I try hard enough I can grow to be a bitter old man set in his ways who fears the new generation he doesn't understand. I spend the majority of my time playing video games and playing with toy soldiers, I make above median wage for my location, and I have a girlfriend. Not really sure what Mr. Bennett would have me do other than maybe go to his church and start praising his god. I guess I could always flagellate myself for wanting to have hobbies beyond populating the Fatherland also. That might be good.
I have numerous reasons why I'm not married at 27:
- I have zero concern for how the church/society looks upon me or any union with a female I may wish to have.
- I can not see any sort of benefit, financial or otherwise, in doing so. When I can have a healthy relationship that lasts years on end, why do I need someone to approve it?
- While I believe that a permanent union of two people is necessary to raise a healthy child and I believe in the concept of the 'wholesome nuclear family', I don't intend on having children. There's too many people out there already, and this is a horrible time and place to bring one I would actually care about into.
- I only intend on getting married once. I'm not even religious, but if you promise 'till death do us part' then there's no takebacks. Just how I am.
- I've already loaded that gun, cocked it back, and almost pulled the trigger. Thankfully her mom talked me out of it about two weeks before the ceremony. That's one kindness I will never manage to repay.
Furthermore:
- "Where are all the decent single men?" I'm guessing they're not single anymore and with the decent not-single-anymore women. Based upon the things my female friends have said, this is what I seem to observe.
What they say they want:
What they actually go for:
And realistically, they probably don't even end up with as nice a toolbag.
daedalus wrote:I have zero concern for how the church/society looks upon me or any union with a female I may wish to have.
Marriage and religion are not mutually inclusive. You don't have to be religious to care about someone enough to want to publicly declare you are willing to make some sacrifices to be exclusive to one another.
daedalus wrote: When I can have a healthy relationship that lasts years on end, why do I need someone to approve it?
It doesn't have to be about getting others approval. It is about having the intestinal fortitude to stand up in front of your friends, family, and community and saying you are making a lifestyle choice to share your life with another human being. It is about what you are willing to do, not what others approve or disapprove of.
when you're 60 with a beer belly?
do it! It 
