It’s the chance to act like a grownup and be with only one woman.
It’s the chance to pass your religion/values the next generation.
It’s the chance to provide for something more important than yourself.
It’s the chance to act like a grownup and be with only one woman.
It’s the chance to pass your religion/values the next generation.
It’s the chance to provide for something more important than yourself.
lol not this again wrote:
joedirt wrote:
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. .
lol surely this explains the entire economy
Illegitimacy is probably the number one indicator for a life of poverty. It is not a coincidence that Asian Americans have the highest incomes and the lowest rate of illegitimacy and African Americans have the opposite.
I say you have to have a partner who is your equal. If she puts on weight, sorry, I 'aint trying to be supportive.
No woman has ever been in my corner to help me maintain my fitness throughout my life.
I've always gone to the gym or run or whatever. I've never allowed myself to put on the pounds too much.
Entering any relationship, I think I'd just be very direct, 'You are not attractive to me' and that's the end of the relationship.
Maintaining a healthy body is like breathing. A successful relationship requires two people who see things the same way and have the same expectations.
I think many women just want a guy to spend time with them when they don't bring an attractive physique to the table.
Sorry, overweight, doesn't make you a bad person, but figure out your weight loss on your own. I 'aint interested in a relationship with you.
NotPC wrote:
For men I think the idea of having a wife, having the one that you lean on you truly care about and is the mother of your children, but also having one or two girls on the side for fun is completely natural. I think our brain is wired to where we can really divide the two situations. Its why a guy can say to a woman he's cheated on that "I just had sex with her, but I love you." and totally mean that.
I'm not sure the female brain can really make that separation. Even the few women that say they are Ok being "FWB" really want more out of the situation, where a guy can be 100% fine with that- no hidden agendas at all.
I know some guys can, but there are also guys that struggle.
Women struggle more than guys (at least that's how it feels to me), but I've met some I'm pretty damn confident can compartmentalize it.
For the bolded part about FWB...I think a BIG part of that is how most guys manage FWB. In almost every FWB situation I've seen typical behavior is: texting regularly, spending the night, cuddling, occasionally even going out and hanging out, etc. This is essentially verbally saying "we just friends" but acting very similar to a boyfriend. So, combined with the bonding hormones of sex, makes it very easy for someone to get attached and then things are confusing and you run into problems.
I never ran into much drama back when I was in college and in that playing the field phase, and I think that's a big part of it. I would maybe hang out once a week or two, never spent the night, not much texting, etc. But it was something resembling friendship. It wasn't "hey come over baby" and then we had sex and I said "k bye thx". There were conversations, we'd talk about things in our lives before and after, maybe plays games or watch a movie sometimes, etc. I never had a girl try to initiate a relationship or seem frustrated. Usually it was pleasant, no drama, good sex for a while and then...silence. Or "I'm seeing someone now", and then for a few months or a year or three it would go dark and then I'd hear from them again one day out of the blue.
I still prefer that relationship model myself: an open relationship with one pair-bonded true connection, having the occasional FWB on the side. I don't have any problems at all with jealousy, and so have no problem that it goes both ways. If I trust my partner/wife, I have zero problem if she occasionally sees other guys. Trust is key though. Overall, if you both have the right mindsets and temperaments, I think it's a really strong model that keeps the core of the relationship there, but alleviates the issues that often occur later on down the road with sex. Sex isn't the end all, be all of relationships but all else equal I'd prefer to have a solid sex life as well.
Greg wrote:
I say you have to have a partner who is your equal. If she puts on weight, sorry, I 'aint trying to be supportive.
No woman has ever been in my corner to help me maintain my fitness throughout my life.
I've always gone to the gym or run or whatever. I've never allowed myself to put on the pounds too much.
Entering any relationship, I think I'd just be very direct, 'You are not attractive to me' and that's the end of the relationship.
Maintaining a healthy body is like breathing. A successful relationship requires two people who see things the same way and have the same expectations.
I think many women just want a guy to spend time with them when they don't bring an attractive physique to the table.
Sorry, overweight, doesn't make you a bad person, but figure out your weight loss on your own. I 'aint interested in a relationship with you.
The issue here is that usually when you start dating, she is attractive to you. Spend time together, get into a committed relationship, and grow to really care about and love that person and....it's really not as easy as just leaving. You might not be attracted physically (although sometimes what you like about the person still maintains some of that attraction), but you care deeply about that person, their happiness, etc.
I honestly think if someone puts on 30lbs and you can just walk away the second that happens...you're probably not in love or particularly attached to that person.
mdettweiler wrote:
Why? Peer pressure.
Family members want you to be married, co-workers think that unmarried 35+ year olds are weird, and friends are going to start thinking that you're gay. This is especially true if you live in the Bible Belt.
I'm sure this happens for many, and if you care about such things then sure. All else equal though, that seems like a pretty trivial reason to rush into marriage. Now, maybe it justifies formal marriage if you have someone you care about already...but if you go out and get married at 35 just cause....I'm skeptical.
NotPC wrote:
mdettweiler wrote:
Why? Peer pressure.
Family members want you to be married, co-workers think that unmarried 35+ year olds are weird, and friends are going to start thinking that you're gay. This is especially true if you live in the Bible Belt.
Because it's true, whether in the Bible Belt or Rust Belt or NYC. If you aren't married at 35, you have some serious flaws. The market hath spoken, and you are broken. If you are lucky you can get your stuff together, or stumble into someone as broken as you and you can get married and deal with each other's baggage.
And....let the "this person doesn't share my values, and so they are wrong" logic begin!
Some people don't want to be married. Some don't even want a significant other. In your mind, that's "broken". That's your own personal value judgement though. I've got friends like this, and at least two of them are among the happiest people I know. They have major passions and goals in their life, and are deeply fulfilled and having a blast chasing those. Successful, kind, fun to be around. Not much more you can ask for. That isn't broken to me.
Now, you're not wrong in that for many this is true. For every satisfied 35+ single guy, there are probably a dozen or more guys who are unhappy, unfulfilled, dejected, and lonely. It's generally true, but not a guarantee someone is broken. Some people have the market value and choose not to do anything with it.
Greg wrote:
Marriage is a big deal where papers are signed and legalities become a reality.
Not something I would entertain any time soon.
If you did get married and weren't getting any, there is always divorce.
I'll spell it for you again D I V O R C E
in the meantime you can seek out action outside of your marriage, which clearly would not be a good relationship for you
Divorce huh? If you don't mind losing half your earnings or more and potentially most of your access to your kids if you have them. It's a messy, angry, drama filled process most of the time.
Being like "oh well if the sex gets cut off I'll just get divorced" is fvcking nuts dude. If that's your plan, brace for drama and I hope to god you get a rock solid prenup witnessed by a judge and live in a state that generally honors prenups, have separate finances and zero co-owned assets, and a parenting plan if you have kids. If not, you're REALLY going to have fun, especially if you get divorced simply cause the sex isn't good enough.
Some possibilities wrote:
thinker wrote:
Is there a particular reason anyone can identify as to why 2 people cannot live their lives together and have a house\kids\love etc., without signing a contract, i.e., getting married?
Religion
Societal pressure
Tax benefits
This is a good answer. Society results in vast majority of women, and majority of men wanting it. If you meet someone of like mind, just making a commit to each other obviously is acceptable and works fine.
tlm1959 wrote:
There is a very intellectually clever guy in my office who keeps a spreadsheet that compares his expenditures on escorts to his theoretical expenditures on a girlfriend/wife. He actually asks the rest of us what we spend so his theoretical numbers are accurate.
He spends, according to his worksheet, about $1500 a month and claims that he is saving quite a bit of money, although, like most cost/benefit analysis, the answer depends upon the assumptions one makes.
I am not advocating his approach, but he is aware of the slowdowns in our relationships. His biggest complaint is that his "bros" have all bit the bullet and get married or hooked and therefore don't have the time or inclination to gator hunt, fish, hunt, or spend weekends tailgating and getting wasted at the college games. His crew has shrunk to nothing and don't even go running with him as they slowly get of out shape. He bought 15% of a college bar so he can go there and hang with a new set of guys but it gets harder and harder. For some reason, he never meets coeds at the bar.
I told him that a bust for solicitation is a no-go for the business and he assures me he never goes to hotels and avoids police stings. He actually met one woman and found out her Mom worked down the hall from him! He speaks to the Mom every day but has not told her about her daughters' sideline. An honest rogue.
He claims the rest of us are nuts and that he has it all figured out.
I am on the fence as to whether he really is as happy as he says he is. Based upon the Mom's daughter that he met and I also know, the women he hires are very good looking.
This is....an odd approach. I'm not going to judge it, but it's odd to pay for escorts when you could just meet women yourself. Obviously cheaper, and I guess I can't see having sex with someone who isn't attracted to me as very fun or exciting.
As you say, the actual financial value of that depends completely on the assumptions one makes. I know some couples where the wife doesn't cost the husband anything, or even provides for the husband (fairly rare though).
The problem he describes is the one that seems the hardest for single guys. Feels like almost all people need meaningful human interaction. You lose the "guaranteed" part of that if you go single, and as you said your friends get married, get more involved with work, lose interest in partying and going out, etc. so it's hard to have a strong crew and keep those relationships going.
He can probably hang out with the college kids for a bit, but I suspect eventually he will start to feel out of place, and the college kids will also start to be "who is this old guy drinking with us and why?". If he isn't meeting coeds, it basically means he isn't particularly good looking and is already starting to give off "wierder older guy" vibes. I've seen mid 30s guys do fine in that arena, but they are usually good looking professionals flaunting a little money, or just very social attractive guys giving off more of a bad boy/crazy lifestyle vibe. If you mean coeds as in people in their 30s and 40s...I have no idea what he is doing wrong...but something is definitely off if he needs escorts.
And, of course hard to know whether he is happy. Guys I have known living this lifestyle are definitely having fun, of that I have no doubt. It seems to me that eventually they start feeling a bit lonely, and/or that their life is a bit hollow. The guys for whom being single really seems to work, and who I really believe are fulfilled are the ones who have burning passions/missions are spending most of their time into that, and have basically decided their mission is more fulfilling or important than having a wife.
I kind of suspect that party lifestyle might be fulfilling if you move to a place in a big city, particularly LA, where that scene continues into adulthood. Surrounded by that crowd I could see having enough meaningful connections and not feeling out of place such that you can sustain that lifestyle indefinitely. Maybe.
I dont always agree with you LM, but you lay out your reasoning, accept criticism, and bring some unique viewpoints. Underrated poster imo
theJeff wrote:
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.
Seems unlikely - give us some links to studies published in a respectable peer-reviewed journals (not some crackpot family values mouthpiece) showing that this is so.
Cleveland browns head coach wrote:
Sub 15, $250k/year and a supermodel wife? None of those guys accomplished any of those things.
And that's just the conditio sine qua non to write here. Most of us, especially me, did much better.
Wanting to start a family is the only reason to get married.
theJeff wrote:
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.
Are you clearly not a married man, as I don't know any married man who would claim that a slow down in sex in marriage is mutual. 9 times out of 10, it is due to the the woman.
Greg wrote:
I say you have to have a partner who is your equal. If she puts on weight, sorry, I 'aint trying to be supportive.
No woman has ever been in my corner to help me maintain my fitness throughout my life.
I've always gone to the gym or run or whatever. I've never allowed myself to put on the pounds too much.
Entering any relationship, I think I'd just be very direct, 'You are not attractive to me' and that's the end of the relationship.
Maintaining a healthy body is like breathing. A successful relationship requires two people who see things the same way and have the same expectations.
I think many women just want a guy to spend time with them when they don't bring an attractive physique to the table.
Sorry, overweight, doesn't make you a bad person, but figure out your weight loss on your own. I 'aint interested in a relationship with you.
Greg: serious question here...are you single by any chance?
pr100 wrote:
theJeff wrote:
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.
Seems unlikely - give us some links to studies published in a respectable peer-reviewed journals (not some crackpot family values mouthpiece) showing that this is so.
That's because it's not happening as much as it used to.
In my case post-nuptial shut off is not real. I have more and better sex now than I ever did as a single guy. I thought that the one woman thing would be depressing when I was single but turns out its better. Kids has slowed us down but not as much as being single did.
Actually some really good discussion/responses here, so I'll add mine.
A lot of what I think has been said quite well, but I'll ask this question to you... How many 40/50 year old single guys do you know who have an AMAZING sex life? Probably not very many. I'm in my 40's and all the single guys I work with (small sample admittedly) seem like they are living a life that passed them by already. And they don't know what they are looking for, because once you bust a nut, you have that thought of, okay what now? Decline in testosterone affects everyone eventually. And at that point (or earlier in 20's or 30's if you're not just about the physical part), I think a lot of people see the value in marriage. Lots of studies have shown that married people live longer, more contented lives, for lots of reasons.
If post nupital shut off is your main concern, then I would advise against marriage. There's much more to marriage than the physical part. Sounds like you aren't mature enough to appreciate those things just yet. But the passage of time and life experience changes a lot of minds.
"And....let the "this person doesn't share my values, and so they are wrong" logic begin!"
Nope not a values thing at all, just human behavior. Someone can be very accomplished in work, sport, or hobbies but the inability to form a meaningful relationship with another person is a flaw.
Anyone past 35 that's not married has a major flaw (or two) that have cropped up enough that others have said "Thanks but no thanks." and moved on. Sure anyone can be happy enough by themselves (and yeah better to be happy and alone than miserable with someone just for the sake of being with someone) BUT the natural order of things is to couple up. The inability to do that is not seen as a good thing, in any culture on earth.
NotPC wrote:
For men I think the idea of having a wife, having the one that you lean on you truly care about and is the mother of your children, but also having one or two girls on the side for fun is completely natural. I think our brain is wired to where we can really divide the two situations. Its why a guy can say to a woman he's cheated on that "I just had sex with her, but I love you." and totally mean that.
I'm not sure the female brain can really make that separation. Even the few women that say they are Ok being "FWB" really want more out of the situation, where a guy can be 100% fine with that- no hidden agendas at all.
What NotPC said.
I'm not opposed to marriage and think many here have outlined numerous benefits. But ask 100 engaged men -when ostensibly many are at the height of their attraction to their fiances- whether they relish they idea of *never having sex with any other person again* and see what answers you get, and if those answers are what their fiances would expect. (Then ask again in 1 year, 3 years, 7 years).
IMO, a huge underlying problem is that most women are perfectly okay with -once married- life-long monogamy, and -on some level- most men are...not. But of course it would be relationship thermonuclear radiation for men to admit it, and not something one is to say in mixed company. "No, actually the biological imperative loaded into my DNA for thousands of years doesn't make me want to only have sex with one person for the rest of my life." isn't something you can say without a fair amount of social cost, and you're a pig for suggesting it.
No, we don't have to act on all our natural urges, and being a productive member of society and successful person, generally, requires attenuating desires of all types. But NotPC is right: what men and women want out of a long-term relationship is often somewhat to quite different when sex is involved. Then overlay the model of traditional marriage over that tension, and...well, have fun.
Read Esther Perel and Alain de Botton. Both acknowledge these difficulties and have interesting things (and in some cases) solutions.
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?
Here we go again. Guys on the spectrum debate an emotional issue by parsing it down to its most reductive viewpoint.
Cue Greg while we are at it!