Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

Not wanting to sign a disadvantageous legal contract and not being committed to a person are not the same thing.

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.

I don't see the connection between marriage/divorce and lack of achievement at school and university.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Brain size and intelligence aren't related.

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.

So, basically, you have no idea what feminism is.

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Think about it thiws way--

It's easier to get out of a relationship with someone yoiu're not married to than someone you are married to, all things considered,

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.

Marriage isn't tangible. It means something if you want it to, or doesn't if you're so inclined. Subjectivity ftw.

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?

Necroshea wrote:

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.

Necroshea wrote:

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.

The license is tangible.

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.