If post-nupital shut off is real, why get married?

How is filing taxes together a benefit? If you both work then you pay a higher rate and you also lose whatever husseincare benefits you or your spouse qualified for

dfa wrote:

I can see some benefits, like filing taxes together, pooling money for mortgage, splitting bills..

But.. why? What's in it for guys.. or girls?

(Assuming you don't want kids right away). Why not just wait till you want kids?

PNS is generally real. Like all things, it does not always happen but its generally something that does, or trends that's way.

It's less PNS though, and more the "three year" rule. Anecdotally this has been around a while and most I know have experienced it, and researchers are beginning to see that as a consistent trend that female sexual desire declines over time in a relationship, whereas males generally remain more constant.

Always exceptions where that doesnt happen, or the opposite happens, but that's the trend. It's one of the biggest arguments against the idea of monogamy as the default system.

There are lots of reasons to get married that dont have to do with sex though, and it's not hard to picture guys that think those positives outweigh the negatives of a decline in sex frequency and enthusiasm over a relationship.

Because everyone thinks their marriage will be different.

The main reason to get married is security. Financial security for women; emotional security for men.

If you don't need either of these things, don't get married.

warren_thompson_uk wrote:

Because everyone thinks their marriage will be different.

The main reason to get married is security. Financial security for women; emotional security for men.

If you don't need either of these things, don't get married.

If you think marriage provides either of these things, in the modern age, I couldnt disagree more.

Although, before I commit to that statement I should ask you for sure what you mean by emotional security.

If you think sex and taxes are why people get married then you shouldn't.

Probably ever.

dfa wrote:

(Assuming you don't want kids right away). Why not just wait till you want kids?

Because the kind of woman that you want to be the mother of your kids is also the kind of woman that shuts you off.

You are picking out a mother to be your wife, not your eternal sex partner.

Stop looking at sex as the sole reason for marriage or a relationship. Marriage benefits everyone in society, especially the children of married parents. If you want to understand why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, all you have to do is look at marriage statistics. If you want a stable future with a STD-free, financially secure household and happy kids, then seek out a relationship (not solely sex) with someone of similar values and get married. If you want a life of chaos, disease, terrible kids that despise you and financial ruin then keep on seeking out strange. There are many more important things in life than sex.

joedirt wrote:

Stop looking at sex as the sole reason for marriage or a relationship. Marriage benefits everyone in society, especially the children of married parents. If you want to understand why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, all you have to do is look at marriage statistics. If you want a stable future with a STD-free, financially secure household and happy kids, then seek out a relationship (not solely sex) with someone of similar values and get married. If you want a life of chaos, disease, terrible kids that despise you and financial ruin then keep on seeking out strange. There are many more important things in life than sex.

I agree with you that marriage shouldn't be based around sex, and that if you're looking to have kids or a LTR that is stable and harmonious you need to look way past sex.

I have a problem with the rest of your post, as it implies that remaining single is a poor choice that will leave you unhappy, unhealthy, and in a poor financial spot.

A single person making okay money can easily have a stable, secure financial life. A single person can remain disease free.

I might agree on the kids, I have read stuff that suggests nuclear family produces best outcomes in kids (although I have seen happy, well adjusted, stable kids from non traditional arrangements) .

By emotional security, I mean a friend, someone to talk to, share a life with, etc. Women don't need this from men bc they have female friends they can share with for hours and hours. This is all in the heteronormative sense. From my experience, no one talks at me more than men. Why? Bc they can't talk to their male friends quite like they can to me, a female.

I generally don't think women need financial security as much, but that element is still there. I live in Northern VA and even those women with good paying jobs are looking for someone who brings home the bacon. You can't get little Ethan or Emma into Tulane on one income.

For the record, I am single with no kids and have no interest in marriage. But this is generally how it works. You can love someone for a long time, even forever, without getting married so marriage provides other benefits other than love or sex. My guess is security, although I only base this on observations.

Post-nuptial shut off? Things wax and wane in any relationship. I haven’t experienced any “shut off”.

It’s a commitment that you are in it together. That no matter how hard life gets, there is someone out there who has your back.

It’s a public declaration of a deep and abiding bond between two people. All the legal stuff is really meaningless.

I’ve only been with my wife for about 30 years, but it’s pretty amazing. It’s a lot of work sometimes, for both of us, but it’s totally worth it.

I've been married for 11 years. We have two kids with another on the way.

Do we have as much sex now as we did when we were dating or when we first got married? No, but there are many reasons for that: we have both continued to move up in our respective careers, which means more responsibility, traveling for work, etc. We have two kids, which is a drain on both time and energy. We have friends, volunteer responsibilities, hobbies, etc. It has more to do with bandwidth than anything else.

We still have sex regularly and neither of us has ever expressed feeling like we aren't connecting or that we need to be more physical, etc. We're 1000% closer to each other now than when we were humping nightly like rapid animals while dating.

Relationships aren't sex. As you mature, you realize that sex matters much less than more important things: being loving and supportive, being a good mother to our children, being trustworthy and honest, etc.

It's not real. unless you are a dummy who didn't set clear expectations and have an open, honest discussion with your GF or finance.

Sex is important, but it's not the most important thing. However, a person shouldn't be expected to live in a sexless marriage unless both parties are OK with it. I'd bet most of the people complain just aren't having sex enough to their personal liking. They want more and aren't happy with what they get.

I've been married for nearly 30 years and our activity has remained fairly steady the last decade or so, but it does take some effort.

Lots of reason to get married beside sex...in fact if you are only looking for sex, I suggest you don't get married and get a sugar baby.

Marriage Fan wrote:

Post-nuptial shut off? Things wax and wane in any relationship. I haven’t experienced any “shut off”.

It’s a commitment that you are in it together. That no matter how hard life gets, there is someone out there who has your back.

It’s a public declaration of a deep and abiding bond between two people. All the legal stuff is really meaningless.

I’ve only been with my wife for about 30 years, but it’s pretty amazing. It’s a lot of work sometimes, for both of us, but it’s totally worth it.

This pretty much nails it. Life gets a lot more interesting once you are married, and especially if you have kids. It does state to the world that you are mature enough to commit to something like that.

And having sex every ten minutes is what your 20s and 30s are for. Eventually you reach a point where you don't need to get laid every weekend with a different person and you are content with one partner, even if it's less frequent. That's how you know you're ready for marriage. If you never reach that point and enjoy dating various people, then go for it.. doesn't matter to me.

It's always funny when someone comes on here, trying to argue being single is better. If so, then go be single.. who cares? Why bring it up?

1. That is a big "if". Certainly not universal - or even close to it - in healthy marriages.

2. Usually, any slow down in sex is mutual, and an unintended side effect of busy, conflicting schedules.

3. Assuming your assumption is correct, though: There are reasons to get married other than sex. Really good ones, in fact.

4. Don't marry a tramp. PNSO only applies if you have been getting the milk for free before buying the cow. If you marry a fast girl, she can only slow down.

It’s real when you pick the wrong person to marry (get married for the wrong reasons, etc.). Picking and choosing to spend your entire life with someone is the most important life decision anyone will make. The reasons why you choose that person are important. Infatuation, thinking you’re “so in love”, have “found your soul mate”, etc. are all things that make people make rash decisions. You 100% need to be in love with the person you marry, but you also need to sit back and be pragmatic about your choice. It’s easy to feel that you are in love with a beautiful girl, but there needs to be a lot more than that feeling. Mutual respect, trust, similar goals, intelligence levels, interests... the list goes on.

When you choose wisely, there may be periods of time where sexual activity will decrease for various reasons, but there will never be an absolute shut off. Based on personal experience and the people I know who are happily married. Choose wisely.

Hard disagree (pun intended). People who are virgins at marriage do not have less sex after marriage.

Jokes aside, every study I have seen shows that married couples who have the most sex throughout their marriage are ones who didn't have sex before marriage.

joedirt wrote:

Stop looking at sex as the sole reason for marriage or a relationship. Marriage benefits everyone in society, especially the children of married parents. If you want to understand why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, all you have to do is look at marriage statistics. If you want a stable future with a STD-free, financially secure household and happy kids, then seek out a relationship (not solely sex) with someone of similar values and get married. If you want a life of chaos, disease, terrible kids that despise you and financial ruin then keep on seeking out strange. There are many more important things in life than sex.

Exactly.

I have no problem with people staying single so long as they are not popping out kids (I was single until I was 29 and was happy, financially secure, etc.). Although I wasn't really chasing women that much as I cared more about triathlons, hiking, fishing and work. Financially, a person should be fine as it is not that hard to support oneself (again as long as they are not popping out kids), although marriage does provide an extra level of financial security for situations where one individual cannot work (unforeseen health issue, child birth, loss of a job, etc.) and married people tend to have more wealth on a per capita basis.

The real issue I is with the illegitimacy rate over 40% (and closer to 50% for millennials) it has become evident that people are prioritizing their recreational sex lives over the interest of the children that invariably come from their indiscretions. People should never have sex with someone unless they are fully committed to the financial and personal ramifications of the activity and the individual they are sleeping with. The abandonment of children by their fathers is this generations biggest blight and is leading to all of the other ills in society.

Because non-nuptial shutoff is far more common.

Seriously, though, marriage provides some degree of blueball insurance that singlehood does not.

Now obviously insurance policies vary greatly, but as long as you continue to pay your premiums, you should expect some standard of service.

About a decade ago, my wife's sister found herself single after her husband left (went gay, but that's a whole 'nother story). For a year or two, she was a very hot catch: vibrant, pretty, fit. She'd even had a boobjob while with the gay dude, so she was a low-mileage trade-in. Her competition, if you'd call it that, was worn, tired, and generally nowhere near her level. But as BF1 rolled into BF2, then BF3 . . . each flawed and less-committal than the next, she morphed into the crowd she had beat. And really there's no substantial difference in looks - it's just mentally she's beat and the most she can offer is what the 23-year-old slut is willing to do for a dinner and a glass of champagne.