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

Because the wife would say no, and you two will be fighting over it for a long time.

But she'll throw a fit if you dare to question her decision to spend $2K on a handbag.

Once a middle distance runner wrote:

LM wrote:

WTF? Lmao ????

Why would you not be able to spend on video games or anything else within a reasonable budget

Because the wife would say no, and you two will be fighting over it for a long time.

But she'll throw a fit if you dare to question her decision to spend $2K on a handbag.

If you have some stereotypical dysfunctional relationship, yes. In a healthy relationship you have clear lines of communication, a clear budget, and a desire to support each others loves and passions.

If you're on the same line with budget, and that's within your discussed personal spending, you're wife is not going to have a problem with spending money on yourself in a healthy relationship.

Yep. And I think you're in the majority. Single works for those who truly choose it, and dont just end up in it...but to advocate that its THE path to happiness is ridiculous.

Run007xx wrote:

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.

POTD I

+1

Dude. Very harsh. I guess you haven't read the stats (no surprise there) that 48% of Americans aren't getting married. I guess it makes sense to marry someone just to marry someone.

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?

Don’t get married unless you really want children, and are ready to start a family. For men, do not get married too young. (See below).

Frank TJ wrote:

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.

I don’t agree with this. Most divorces are initiated by women. I don’t believe women are, inherently, any more faithful than men.

subelite hobbyjogger wrote:

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?

Don’t get married unless you really want children, and are ready to start a family. For men, do not get married too young. (See below).

https://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/

This assumes you buy into any of this. These aren't scientific graphs. They are visually representations of one mans opinion. His opinions seem to place females at "peak" in their early twenties, assuming that the main interest in a female is ferility and looks. I don't think I agree.

Most dudes don't want kids at 23, or with a 23 year old. Huge marital instability at that age. Low maturity as a general rule of thumb. All kinds of things going on.

SMV, if we want to call it that, is going to peak at different times for different reasons. That said, it probably peaks for most reasons and most people by early 30s, for reasons similar to what NotPC was crusading on. SMV is not an argument for not getting married young, the goal of marriage is not to marry the most sexually appealing, fertile female available (if you want long term happiness and harmony anyway); it's to find a wonderful life partner and mother to your kids if you intended to have them. This has only a little to do with sexual attractiveness.

Mikeh33 wrote:

Frank TJ wrote:

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.

I don’t agree with this. Most divorces are initiated by women. I don’t believe women are, inherently, any more faithful than men.

Thank you. I strongly agree here. I think women, in their mind, do want monogamy quite a bit more than men. There are more men okay with the general concept of sleeping around in a relationship (although many of this men envision it as a one way, non equitable street) than women.

However, it's clear long term sexual monogamy is not the natural state for people. That does NOT mean it's inherently bad. If monogamy were natural, it wouldn't be so hard. We wouldn't have 60% divorce rates. We wouldn't have estimated cheating rates of between 40-75% (with about 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 outright admitting it), we wouldn't have nearly 80% saying they would cheat if they knew they wouldn't get caught (honestly that's the most telling one, most people want to cheat: e.g. not be monogamous).

If women, especially, loved monogamy so much more than men, they wouldn't initiate 82% of divorces as they do in the USA. Women, as studies continue to find, also seem to lose sexual interest in monogamous partners over time. This is a general trend. It does not happen to all women, but it's consistent enough to be generalizable.

This might sound like a crusade against monogamy. It isn't. Despite all the above, lots of people do have successful, harmonious lifetime marriages. It can, and clearly does, work on a regular basis for many people. And for MANY of the ones it doesn't work for...it's not hard to see obvious problems in the relationship resulting in the problems or ultimate relationship failures. Monogamy is not natural, but that doesn't mean it's a poor choice. It remains one of the best ways to raise children. It can bring a fulfilling life if you know what you're dealing with, why you want it, and lay down the foundational qualities for a good relationship.

spartacus39 wrote:

Dude. Very harsh. I guess you haven't read the stats (no surprise there) that 48% of Americans aren't getting married. I guess it makes sense to marry someone just to marry someone.

There is also the problem that marriage has swung. 80 years ago it was a pretty good deal for both parties, maybe even better for men.

Nowadays, it's hard to argue a man benefits from marriage (legal) in a significant way. At a minimum takes on a significant amount of risk (speaking legal marriage here, not the idea of a lifelong monogamous commitment). I may well choose to get formally married, but if I do it will something I do for my wife, because it's meaningful to her.

Married 15 years. Two kids. We are still 3-ish times a week. More if we are feeling it. So far this week 2 for 2.

Younger women make healthier mothers, it's as simple as that.

The older the woman gets, higher risk is involved in the pregnancy, the more likely it is for your kid to be born with autism, Down syndrome and so on

There exists a clear cut peak for motherhood, it's not something up for debate

?? wrote:

Younger women make healthier mothers, it's as simple as that.

Pregnancies later in life are associated with longer life expectancy:

Nope! wrote:

?? wrote:

Younger women make healthier mothers, it's as simple as that.

Pregnancies later in life are associated with longer life expectancy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/pregnancy-baby-thirties-live-longer-life-expectancy-coimbra-fertility-a7867901.html%3famp

He's talking about the baby. Of course it would help the mother. A woman's biology is largely based around having kids. See menopause.

According to:

A woman's peak reproductive years are between the late teens and late 20s. By age 30 years, fertility (the ability to get pregnant) starts to decline. This decline becomes more rapid once you reach your mid 30s.

?? wrote:

Younger women make healthier mothers, it's as simple as that.

The older the woman gets, higher risk is involved in the pregnancy, the more likely it is for your kid to be born with autism, Down syndrome and so on

There exists a clear cut peak for motherhood, it's not something up for debate

Yes, absolutely. No is debating it. You quoted me, not sure why, because I clearly acknowledged that fertility peaks in the younger years.

Which is relevant, but I'll happily take on the moderate increase of risk in a low overall risk situation in exchange for being far more equipped to provide better for the kid financially, with more emotionally stable parents who have a healthier relationship, etc. In other words, fertility peaks very young. Finances, parenting ability, relationship stability, wisdom/knowledge, etc. all peak later.

Exceptions always exist, but in general people closer to, or past 30, are far better equipped to be parents than those between 18-25 in peak fertility years. The increased risk (overall risk is still fairly low) of birth conditions is well offset by the improvements in the nurture side of of the equation.

DSFljkjsdfsldkf wrote:

Nope! wrote:

Pregnancies later in life are associated with longer life expectancy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/pregnancy-baby-thirties-live-longer-life-expectancy-coimbra-fertility-a7867901.html%3famp

He's talking about the baby. Of course it would help the mother. A woman's biology is largely based around having kids. See menopause.

According to:

https://m.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Having-a-Baby-After-Age-35-How-Aging-Affects-Fertility-and-Pregnancy

A woman's peak reproductive years are between the late teens and late 20s. By age 30 years, fertility (the ability to get pregnant) starts to decline. This decline becomes more rapid once you reach your mid 30s.

So it's still in the woman's interest to get pregnant in her 30s. She gets to spend her 20s on career and adventure while still getting the benefits of an increased lifespan. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Rational wrote:

DSFljkjsdfsldkf wrote:

He's talking about the baby. Of course it would help the mother. A woman's biology is largely based around having kids. See menopause.

According to:

https://m.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Having-a-Baby-After-Age-35-How-Aging-Affects-Fertility-and-Pregnancy

A woman's peak reproductive years are between the late teens and late 20s. By age 30 years, fertility (the ability to get pregnant) starts to decline. This decline becomes more rapid once you reach your mid 30s.

So it's still in the woman's interest to get pregnant in her 30s. She gets to spend her 20s on career and adventure while still getting the benefits of an increased lifespan. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Yes....if no birth defects. Probably still better for reasons like LM said, but it's not a 100% obvious choice.

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.

I wouldn't trade my married life either. The hormones don't flow like when you're dating and falling in love; kids and stress dont make it easy. You need to fall in love with your spouse, to romance her, woo her. It's not always easy but it is worthwhile and if you do you won't experience the "shut off."