Why Men Won't Marry

[Perianne]

An interesting and accurate article about marriage today.



[T]he share of American adults who’ve never been married is at an historic high—and men are more likely than women to have never made it down the aisle (23% vs. 17% in 2012).
There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.


What gives? Why are men here and abroad avoiding the altar in spades?


1. Because they can: Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.
When more women make themselves sexually available, the pool of marriageable men diminishes. “In a world where women do not say no, the man is never forced to settle down and make serious choices,” writes George Gilder, author of "Men and Marriage."
Scoff if you wish. Call me a fuddy-duddy. But how’s that new plan working out?


2. Because there’s nothing in it for them: What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of "Men on Strike (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620)." “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.”


Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.


What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/why-men-wont-marry/

[indago]

Men used to marry to have sex and a family. They married for love, too, but they had to marry the girl before taking her to bed, or at least work really, really hard to wear her down. Those days are gone.

Yes, women are so promiscuous these days, what's the point?

[Gunny]

An interesting and accurate article about marriage today.




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/why-men-wont-marry/

Men are morer likely to shy away from women now because everyone's after something nowadays. Naturally, I'm speaking from the man's POV. They use you when they need you, then throw you in the trash with some lame-ass accusation or the other when they're done.

And the man is ALWAYS wrong in the eyes of the law. Most especially so when Barny Fife wants to move in on your GF.

[DragonStryk72]

An interesting and accurate article about marriage today.




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/why-men-wont-marry/

Um, no. There are plenty of reasons, sure, but those two aren't it.

When a guy is really in love, he tends not to think beyond that. The paranoia we have isn't about divorce, I mean, no one goes into marriage thinking they'll divorce. Really and honestly, it is two things:

1. We feel like we're disposable. I hear so many women these days talk about what they won't do or won't put up with, and it leads to this feeling that we're job applicants trying to fulfill HR's hiring criteria, and we can be laid off at any time, or replace with someone else. Men have a need in us to feel needed, like we're more than just a placeholder, or like "we'll do."

2. Most don't really understand what marriage is about. Note that I didn't say "men". Women are just as guilty on this count, with this really just naive belief that there's going to be daily romance all throughout the marriage. I very rarely see women do romantic things for their husbands, and when they do, its generally the same stuff men do for them. This doesn't really work, because that basically breaks down to it being a romantic moment for you, meaning we're still on the clock.

See, we'll use me as an example. One of the more romantic things I've had done for me was pretty simple: me and my girlfriend just lazing in a hammock together, me with my book, and a pitcher of sweet tea next to me. Nothing sexual, just a nice slow day where I could relax at the end of the week from hell.

There are going to be fights in a marriage, and, well, dull periods. I mean, seriously, that's the majority of your married life, a routine. Or, at least, I sincerely hope it is, cause otherwise, you're living in a drama fest that's going to blow up in your face eventually. I think its the dull periods that are really the thing people aren't ready for. They want all this adventure, but reality is that basically, the whole point is to NOT be in a constant state of excitement, to have someone to share the mundane, day-to-day stuff with, to build a life with, not around.

[darin]

I think #2 above is probably right on the mark. There's not much business case or emotional case to marry.

The marriage will likely end - when it does there's probably a 94.5% chance the husband and father will lose everything. The Court will take the husband's ability to sustain himself and keep what he earns and give it haphazzardly to the wife because she "supported him" by simply being there. Now she gets in effect a $1000/month raise for no reason. On top of that he pays "Child" support - which is NEVER accounted for and does NOT reflect the financial costs of kids. It's really another stipend paid to the female for which she has no responsibility to use for child care.

It's a rigged system and there's no hope of improvement.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think #2 above is probably right on the mark. There's not much business case or emotional case to marry.

The marriage will likely end - when it does there's probably a 94.5% chance the husband and father will lose everything. The Court will take the husband's ability to sustain himself and keep what he earns and give it haphazzardly to the wife because she "supported him" by simply being there. Now she gets in effect a $1000/month raise for no reason. On top of that he pays "Child" support - which is NEVER accounted for and does NOT reflect the financial costs of kids. It's really another stipend paid to the female for which she has no responsibility to use for child care.

It's a rigged system and there's no hope of improvement.




It's a rigged system and there's no hope of improvement.

Rigged that way for a reason. Previously the money primarily was vested in the hands of the man. For lawyers to get at more of that money-the women had to be the ones getting the gold mine-- while the men get the shaft. That way the lawyers make more money from each party, be it male or female.
Lawyers/politicians write the laws or else did back before lobbyists wrote them.
Women enter marriage with an ace on their side, a man enters with a switchblade at his throat....
So, why did I get married a third time?
Answer--Hope.... and a need for true companionship with both parties respected and loved..
Did I get that? Yes, at least so far and its been almost 11 years!
Life is meant to be lived... I tried the sex with a half dozen women every week route back as a young man in the clubs, scouting for more--always more...
After 6 years it got old and boring--finally found that I wanted that person that truly cared and I wanted a family life..
I remember my dad saying we kids were his treasure, were his life(all 11 of us)! He meant it....-Tyr

[darin]

Rigged that way for a reason. Previously the money primarily was vested in the hands of the man. For lawyers to get at more of that money-the women had to be the ones getting the gold mine-- while the men get the shaft. That way the lawyers make more money from each party, be it male or female.
Lawyers/politicians write the laws or else did back before lobbyists wrote them.
Women enter marriage with an ace on their side, a man enters with a switchblade at his throat....
So, why did I get married a third time?
Answer--Hope.... and a need for true companionship with both parties respected and loved..
Did I get that? Yes, at least so far and its been almost 11 years!
Life is meant to be lived... I tried the sex with a half dozen women every week route back as a young man in the clubs, scouting for more--always more...
After 6 years it got old and boring--finally found that I wanted that person that truly cared and I wanted a family life..
I remember my dad saying we kids were his treasure, were his life(all 11 of us)! He meant it....-Tyr

You're mistaken. It's rigged because polital powers bow and cower before womens "rights" groups. (shrug).

Let somebody propose a law showing how the spouse recieving child support account for even FIFTY percent and Baltimore would look like a carnival.

[Gunny]

You're mistaken. It's rigged because polital powers bow and cower before womens "rights" groups. (shrug).

Let somebody propose a law showing how the spouse recieving child support account for even FIFTY percent and Baltimore would look like a carnival.

It goes back further than than "Women's Rights". "Women are Victims" was first.

[aboutime]

Why should any man feel any need to get married today when...WE THE PEOPLE have been selected, instructed, and told we must pay for Female Birth Control...per the ACA, better known as Obamacare?

If the young women are now feeling the CLINTON effect of "IT'S NOT REALLY SEX" anymore, and men can easily expect to have sex with any woman...without being expected to provide a RING in the bargain. Maybe that would also explain why so many young women, and men are choosing to MARRY Same Sex partners as well.

After all. Government is slowly destroying most, if not all Christian values, and those young women, and men now use the CLINTON effect to not feel any Guilt for breaking any of the TEN COMMANDMENTS if....They don't believe in a God, and consequently....NO COMMANDMENTS.

Then, take that a step further. No Commandments also must mean..Why pay attention to any LAWS, or that terrible old rag...the CONSTITUTION? That places too many demands on being RESPONSIBLE human beings.!

[DragonStryk72]

I think #2 above is probably right on the mark. There's not much business case or emotional case to marry.

The marriage will likely end - when it does there's probably a 94.5% chance the husband and father will lose everything. The Court will take the husband's ability to sustain himself and keep what he earns and give it haphazzardly to the wife because she "supported him" by simply being there. Now she gets in effect a $1000/month raise for no reason. On top of that he pays "Child" support - which is NEVER accounted for and does NOT reflect the financial costs of kids. It's really another stipend paid to the female for which she has no responsibility to use for child care.

It's a rigged system and there's no hope of improvement.

Actually, only 40% of marriages end in divorce, and of that figure, you have to look at how many are things like getting horribly drunk in Vegas and waking up hitched, or repeat divorces. As well, we should probably discount divorces where there was clear adultery involved, as well as abuse, since really, the spouse dropped the ball anyway in both instances.

However, women don't get *everything*, but yes, they're entitled to half the house, and since in most instances they're the ones who are still going to be taking care of the children going forward, they'll usually keep the residence, and a vehicle capable of toting them about in. Alimony isn't usually too much of a thing these days, unless you're fabulously wealthy, or there was adultery, and the wife wants to put the screws to you about it.

What's really wrong with the whole scenario is the mine vs. yours mindset that is prevailing in these things. In marriage, it's our house, our car, our kids (step or otherwise, you're both in it). People don't really think in terms of the team anymore, it's all about "getting mine", the exact antithesis of marriage.

It isn't even so much about Christian values, as there have been plenty of non-Christians with working marriages for literally thousands upon thousands of years. Literally, before 0 AD, the non-Christian marriage rate was 100%, so it's not really that.

[NightTrain]

First, men don't get married because they want sex. Sex should be a factor, but it isn't the reason.

And I'm here to tell you that the legal system isn't as biased as it used to be upon divorce. I went through it, and was completely shocked with how it worked out.

She rushed down to Child Support and filed to start getting money, plus signed up for every State of AK welfare program she could think of, filed with the courts to have me pay alimony, plus paying all of her legal fees, and wanted me to pay for any future education that she might want down the road. It was all a ruse on her part to show the courts that she was desperate for money and tried to paint me as the bad guy - but I had literally gigs of evidence of what she'd been up to after breaking into her email and social accounts after the split. Pictures, dates, names, money spent, etc.

I ended up with 100% legal and physical custody of the 3 kids and she now pays me child support. The Judge didn't buy her line of bullshit - and get this : Female Judge!

I kid you not, the Judge was so pissed at the ex during the court proceedings that there were times she was red-faced, leaning over the bench and doing the double-finger stab at her while yelling at her. I remember the pictures of the ex making 200 Jello Shots that I downloaded and printed for the Judge making her do this on one occasion.

It was pretty awesome, but scary too... because a Superior Court Judge can fuck you up in short order. Anyone that doesn't get real nervous when a Superior Court Judge gets that angry is a fool. Fortunately she was on my side.

[darin]

Actually, only 40% of marriages end in divorce
Actually you have no idea how many end in divorce because there are no reliable data.


and of that figure, you have to look at how many are things like getting horribly drunk in Vegas and waking up hitched, or repeat divorces. As well, we should probably discount divorces where there was clear adultery involved, as well as abuse, since really, the spouse dropped the ball anyway in both instances.

Then you’d have to factor in emotional cheating and abuse and neglect right? But again, you can’t discount those things because they don’t “end the marriage” – and the cause of the marriage termination isn’t relevant to the point.


However, women don't get *everything*, but yes, they're entitled to half the house, and since in most instances they're the ones who are still going to be taking care of the children going forward, they'll usually keep the residence, and a vehicle capable of toting them about in. Alimony isn't usually too much of a thing these days, unless you're fabulously wealthy, or there was adultery, and the wife wants to put the screws to you about it.

You’re glossing over an epidemic. None of that even relates to my point – the point is this: Child custody and “support” is OVERWHELMINGLY awarded to the mother. Custody amounts are arbitrary at best – and often serve to bankrupt good men. The way the courts bow to the pressures of Feminists hurts men and children in at least ONE way – they remove the Father’s guidance and input and skill raising kids and award it without cause to the mother because...”The kids need their mother!” – which is a crock of shit in terms of what kids “NEED”. Kids need their mother AND father. Apart from crime, or if one parent is a liberal, physical custody MUST be 50:50 and NO child support should be awarded that is NOT accounted for.

Here’s ONE poof of the fucked-up-ed-ness of “child” support. I’m middle class. If my ex has the kids 50% of the time I “owe” her about $200/month for “Child” support. Lets start there. That’s a problem. She should be 50% responsible for the costs associated with raising the kids. If she has the kids 50% of the time, there should be NO “child” support because when she has them SHE should cover those expenses. The kids are HER responsibility. That’s how it’s fucked part one. Part two – If she has the kid ONE MORE OVER NIGHT per Month, that “child” support doubles. Not doubling for twice the over nights, but for only 12 nights per year, "they" steal DOUBLE what "they" say it costs to raise a child. That is as wrong as two boys in a bathtub.

Fairness is this: Actual (real) cost to raise the kids, divided by 2. Anything left over goes to the kids’ personal bank accounts or is refunded back to the payer. That’d make more sense. The parent getting "child" support should have to itemize expenses and return even HALF what's left over. Nope. Any politician or Judge (since both are elected I think they're the same) would kill his/her career and likely be ran out of town if FAIRNESS or JUSTICE - which are the same thing - was the law of the land.

Alimony – the only break for fathers/husbands is alimony comes off income tax. That’s about it. It’s lie money. It’s coddling and pandering money paid in large part to women who are afraid to work to maintain what they once had. If I make $500,000 per year part of the benefit of being married to me is in the lifestyle I can help provide. If You want to live with me, and my income that’s what you get. When you choose to leave, you patently reject the benefits of living with me (my income/houses, cars, etc), and therefore relinquish your claim to my income. Except the courts and politicians pander to women by things like “You DESERVE to maintain that lifestyle apart from your commitment to the person earning it!”. God I hate this country’s systems so much, so often. And I detest the legion of fools electing the perpetrators of our systems.

Your bias leaks out in the last sentence – “unless the wife wants to put the screws to you about it”.


What's really wrong with the whole scenario is the mine vs. yours mindset that is prevailing in these things. In marriage, it's our house, our car, our kids (step or otherwise, you're both in it). People don't really think in terms of the team anymore, it's all about "getting mine", the exact antithesis of marriage.

Except the courts and public opinion disagree. Nothing is split. Nothing is fair. Fathers get shit-on, by vast majority. And we’re talking divorce, not marriage. Within a marriage – sure. My income and Her income share an account for the common good. The second a divorce happens that goes out the window. Then nothing becomes fair. Everything becomes cases of Fathers trying to protect their livelihood. Mothers are NOT better care-takers for kids. Of course, you get a politician to say that? Holy cow.


It isn't even so much about Christian values, as there have been plenty of non-Christians with working marriages for literally thousands upon thousands of years. Literally, before 0 AD, the non-Christian marriage rate was 100%, so it's not really that.

Christian values are non-existent. Nobody cares about values they care about blame. We hear “He CHEATED on me!!” Nevermind she may have spent the last 5 years emotionally isolating him, emasculating him, and cheating him out of the promises she made when they married. Or we’ll hear “That bitch spent all my money!” Nevermind he may have spent the past 5 years keeping her at arm’s length, and his praise and attention to other things.

Lastley, yes, I DO have most everything figured out. I know how to fix things and I am perfect in determining what is Justice.

But there is no hope.

[Gunny]

Actually, only 40% of marriages end in divorce, and of that figure, you have to look at how many are things like getting horribly drunk in Vegas and waking up hitched, or repeat divorces. As well, we should probably discount divorces where there was clear adultery involved, as well as abuse, since really, the spouse dropped the ball anyway in both instances.

However, women don't get *everything*, but yes, they're entitled to half the house, and since in most instances they're the ones who are still going to be taking care of the children going forward, they'll usually keep the residence, and a vehicle capable of toting them about in. Alimony isn't usually too much of a thing these days, unless you're fabulously wealthy, or there was adultery, and the wife wants to put the screws to you about it.

What's really wrong with the whole scenario is the mine vs. yours mindset that is prevailing in these things. In marriage, it's our house, our car, our kids (step or otherwise, you're both in it). People don't really think in terms of the team anymore, it's all about "getting mine", the exact antithesis of marriage.

It isn't even so much about Christian values, as there have been plenty of non-Christians with working marriages for literally thousands upon thousands of years. Literally, before 0 AD, the non-Christian marriage rate was 100%, so it's not really that.

Haven't been f-d over yet huh?

[darin]

Anecdote - coworker makes 60% of what his ex makes. She has kids three more days per month. He pays HER $600/month.

F'ing INSANE.

[Gunny]

Anecdote - coworker makes 60% of what his ex makes. She has kids three more days per month. He pays HER $600/month.

F'ing INSANE.

Oh yeah.

[LongTermGuy]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a2/2e/9e/a22e9e188bf1ce34ec38d7162c38d0bc.jpg

[SassyLady]

Just to set the record straight for all you men that got "screwed" through divorce. When I left first husband we shared custody of our daughter. I received no child support or spousal support even though I made half as much. He had company provided house, utilities paid and company vehicle. We had no debt other than the car, which I took and therefore, had to make the payments.

So, who got screwed in that divorce?

Second divorce .... he got one of the houses and I got the other. He got the Mercedes and Harley and I got the Yukon. He couldn't wait for housing market to rebound and did quick sale and didn't get any equity. I kept my house until market came back up and sold for twice the amount owed (which, BTW had second mortgage which was used to purchase the second home, and I'm the one that paid that debt).

Spousal ... yes I get spousal and it's because it is to help maintain a lifestyle that we created during 20 years of marriage. When it was our money being co-mingled we had a lifestyle. After the divorce I'm paying 50% of our debt on 50% less income than he is. Spousal helps to maintain the equilibrium that we created when married. Of course, the spousal is only received if I remain single and is for a limited time.

And, I have a life insurance policy that I pay for and it will cover the spousal support if he dies. I also gave him a 3 year grace period so he could go to school and get a 2nd Masters. So, now he's a teacher, married to someone that makes more than he does and is also collecting his pension from first career. So, his lifestyle actually improved after the divorce.

No children so no child support.

Pension/Retirement .... we spent mine while married and now I receive 30% of 50% of his (i.e. if he gets $2K per month I get 30% of $1K).

As for lawyer's fees .... I paid all of mine ($40K).

Also for consideration....he was paying off his first marriage debt, child support and spousal to his ex-wife when we got married. So, my income also went to their debt, child support and spousal. My lawyer wanted to use that as something he needed to repay but I thought that was going too far.

I'm sure he will say he got screwed, as most men do when they have to make any type of payment to ex-wife, whether it is for child support, spousal, portion of retirement or any other payment.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually you have no idea how many end in divorce because there are no reliable data.

What are you talking about? There are tons of studies of divorce, as well as statistics. Yeah, some go out of date, and some may contain some bad base, that still leaves a ton of studies on the subject. Its a major field of psychology.


then you'd have to factor in emotional cheating and abuse and neglect right? But again, you can’t discount those things because they don’t “end the marriage” – and the cause of the marriage termination isn’t relevant to the point.

But things that do end the marriage do count, period. Just because there is stuff that doesn't count, doesn't mean there isn't stuff that does count. Btw, plenty of people have left a marriage for abuse, so yes, it definitely has ended marriages.


You’re glossing over an epidemic. None of that even relates to my point – the point is this: Child custody and “support” is OVERWHELMINGLY awarded to the mother. Custody amounts are arbitrary at best – and often serve to bankrupt good men. The way the courts bow to the pressures of Feminists hurts men and children in at least ONE way – they remove the Father’s guidance and input and skill raising kids and award it without cause to the mother because...”The kids need their mother!” – which is a crock of shit in terms of what kids “NEED”. Kids need their mother AND father. Apart from crime, or if one parent is a liberal, physical custody MUST be 50:50 and NO child support should be awarded that is NOT accounted for.

Uh, no its not. Generally, the mother does take custody, yes, but most states have rules on the books for amounts based on incomes of the parents. And unless you want the child to live like a gypsy til college cause you and your wife can't get along, 50:50 physical custody isn't reasonable, and not healthy for the child. They need to live *somewhere*.


Heres ONE poof of the fucked-up-ed-ness of “child” support. I’m middle class. If my ex has the kids 50% of the time I “owe” her about $200/month for “Child” support. Lets start there. That’s a problem. She should be 50% responsible for the costs associated with raising the kids. If she has the kids 50% of the time, there should be NO “child” support because when she has them SHE should cover those expenses. The kids are HER responsibility. That’s how it’s fucked part one. Part two – If she has the kid ONE MORE OVER NIGHT per Month, that “child” support doubles. Not doubling for twice the over nights, but for only 12 nights per year, "they" steal DOUBLE what "they" say it costs to raise a child. That is as wrong as two boys in a bathtub.

Fairness is this: Actual (real) cost to raise the kids, divided by 2. Anything left over goes to the kids’ personal bank accounts or is refunded back to the payer. That’d make more sense. The parent getting "child" support should have to itemize expenses and return even HALF what's left over. Nope. Any politician or Judge (since both are elected I think they're the same) would kill his/her career and likely be ran out of town if FAIRNESS or JUSTICE - which are the same thing - was the law of the land.

Great let's work with that arbitrary figure, shall we? Your ex - wife swings a six figure salary, while your making about 60k A year. She enrolls the kids in a private school costing 10k/annum. 3 kids= 30k. Now, the regular expenses for them are 10k/year per kid all figured Between health insurance, clothes, food, housing and such. So, to be fair, 30 of your 60k should be getting paid in, right? I mean, that's justice.


Alimony is the only break for fathers/husbands is alimony comes off income tax. That’s about it. It’s lie money. It’s coddling and pandering money paid in large part to women who are afraid to work to maintain what they once had. If I make $500,000 per year part of the benefit of being married to me is in the lifestyle I can help provide. If You want to live with me, and my income that’s what you get. When you choose to leave, you patently reject the benefits of living with me (my income/houses, cars, etc), and therefore relinquish your claim to my income. Except the courts and politicians pander to women by things like “You DESERVE to maintain that lifestyle apart from your commitment to the person earning it!”. God I hate this country’s systems so much, so often. And I detest the legion of fools electing the perpetrators of our systems.

This is why most people with big Income and assets do a prenuptial agreement, usually contingent upon faithfulness




Except the courts and public opinion disagree. Nothing is split. Nothing is fair. Fathers get shit-on, by vast majority. And we’re talking divorce, not marriage. Within a marriage – sure. My income and Her income share an account for the common good. The second a divorce happens that goes out the window. Then nothing becomes fair. Everything becomes cases of Fathers trying to protect their livelihood. Mothers are NOT better care-takers for kids. Of course, you get a politician to say that? Holy cow.

Christian values are non-existent. Nobody cares about values they care about blame. We hear “He CHEATED on me!!” Nevermind she may have spent the last 5 years emotionally isolating him, emasculating him, and cheating him out of the promises she made when they married. Or we’ll hear “That bitch spent all my money!” Nevermind he may have spent the past 5 years keeping her at arm’s length, and his praise and attention to other things.

Lastley, yes, I DO have most everything figured out. I know how to fix things and I am perfect in determining what is Justice.

But there is no hope.

So.... thanks for proving my point. A simple thanks on the post would've done just as well, but good of you to really nail it in here.


A few points:
1. As the OP was about marriage ("Why Men Don't Marry"), not divorce, I was speaking of marriage. Like i said, men getting ready to marry a woman generally aren't thinking they're going to divorce them (well okay, outside of stuff like marriage for citizenship, etc.)

2. Fair does not mean Equal. It is equal and fair for a murderer and a car thief to go jail, but it is not fair for them to stay for an equal length of time. By the same token, a single mother does not have the free time in the day to go after higher paying work, and many times, is directly limited by the children's schedules, and yeah, they kinda have to be the priority. Unless you're espousing that they should be having live-in nanny support, that's pretty much just not gonna be feasible. Then there are the single mom's who had no job, who purely were homemakers. What happens there? Cause, no, they aren't going to make as much as you. Who would you hire faster? The guy who has a 4 year degree and worked in the industry for the last 10 years, or the person with a 4 year degree who hasn't worked in 10 years? You signed off on her staying home to raise the kids, but that puts her at the back of the line for any high paying work, and most if not all middle class work.

3. The problem with marriage these days is the foundation of the people *getting* married. If you're walking into with this idea of mine vs. Hers, it'll fail. If you walk into it expecting it to be all romance, all the time, it'll fail. Marriage won't fix any problems, just as having a baby won't solve them, instead more or less putting them under a microscope.

[darin]

Actually you have no idea how many end in divorce because there are no reliable data.

What are you talking about? There are tons of studies of divorce, as well as statistics. Yeah, some go out of date, and some may contain some bad base, that still leaves a ton of studies on the subject. Its a major field of psychology.


I'm talking about data. Subjective interpretation. Studies. There's little consensus.




then you'd have to factor in emotional cheating and abuse and neglect right? But again, you can’t discount those things because they don’t “end the marriage” – and the cause of the marriage termination isn’t relevant to the point.

But things that do end the marriage do count, period. Just because there is stuff that doesn't count, doesn't mean there isn't stuff that does count. Btw, plenty of people have left a marriage for abuse, so yes, it definitely has ended marriages.

Things that end the marriage do NOT count when talking about 'what'. We're talking 'what' not 'why'.




You’re glossing over an epidemic. None of that even relates to my point – the point is this: Child custody and “support” is OVERWHELMINGLY awarded to the mother. Custody amounts are arbitrary at best – and often serve to bankrupt good men. The way the courts bow to the pressures of Feminists hurts men and children in at least ONE way – they remove the Father’s guidance and input and skill raising kids and award it without cause to the mother because...”The kids need their mother!” – which is a crock of shit in terms of what kids “NEED”. Kids need their mother AND father. Apart from crime, or if one parent is a liberal, physical custody MUST be 50:50 and NO child support should be awarded that is NOT accounted for.

Uh, no its not. Generally, the mother does take custody, yes, but most states have rules on the books for amounts based on incomes of the parents. And unless you want the child to live like a gypsy til college cause you and your wife can't get along, 50:50 physical custody isn't reasonable, and not healthy for the child. They need to live *somewhere*.

Uh. Yes it is. Great argument there. See how easy that is? 50:50 Custody is the only thing that's reasonable apart from abuse and stuff. You're falling into the logical fallacy of Consequences of a Belief. You're saying "IF my position is enacted, Kids would live like gypsies. Define "healthy for the child". Who determines? Ph.D's? Parents? Courts? "somewhere" should be "With the parents".





Heres ONE poof of the fucked-up-ed-ness of “child” support. I’m middle class. If my ex has the kids 50% of the time I “owe” her about $200/month for “Child” support. Lets start there. That’s a problem. She should be 50% responsible for the costs associated with raising the kids. If she has the kids 50% of the time, there should be NO “child” support because when she has them SHE should cover those expenses. The kids are HER responsibility. That’s how it’s fucked part one. Part two – If she has the kid ONE MORE OVER NIGHT per Month, that “child” support doubles. Not doubling for twice the over nights, but for only 12 nights per year, "they" steal DOUBLE what "they" say it costs to raise a child. That is as wrong as two boys in a bathtub.

Fairness is this: Actual (real) cost to raise the kids, divided by 2. Anything left over goes to the kids’ personal bank accounts or is refunded back to the payer. That’d make more sense. The parent getting "child" support should have to itemize expenses and return even HALF what's left over. Nope. Any politician or Judge (since both are elected I think they're the same) would kill his/her career and likely be ran out of town if FAIRNESS or JUSTICE - which are the same thing - was the law of the land.

Great let's work with that arbitrary figure, shall we? Your ex - wife swings a six figure salary, while your making about 60k A year. She enrolls the kids in a private school costing 10k/annum. 3 kids= 30k. Now, the regular expenses for them are 10k/year per kid all figured Between health insurance, clothes, food, housing and such. So, to be fair, 30 of your 60k should be getting paid in, right? I mean, that's justice.

Of course not. That's stupid. That's not 'cost of raising kids'. Come up with real discussions.



Alimony is the only break for fathers/husbands is alimony comes off income tax. That’s about it. It’s lie money. It’s coddling and pandering money paid in large part to women who are afraid to work to maintain what they once had. If I make $500,000 per year part of the benefit of being married to me is in the lifestyle I can help provide. If You want to live with me, and my income that’s what you get. When you choose to leave, you patently reject the benefits of living with me (my income/houses, cars, etc), and therefore relinquish your claim to my income. Except the courts and politicians pander to women by things like “You DESERVE to maintain that lifestyle apart from your commitment to the person earning it!”. God I hate this country’s systems so much, so often. And I detest the legion of fools electing the perpetrators of our systems.

This is why most people with big Income and assets do a prenuptial agreement, usually contingent upon faithfulness


Instead of simply changing the laws....it's sad.




Except the courts and public opinion disagree. Nothing is split. Nothing is fair. Fathers get shit-on, by vast majority. And we’re talking divorce, not marriage. Within a marriage – sure. My income and Her income share an account for the common good. The second a divorce happens that goes out the window. Then nothing becomes fair. Everything becomes cases of Fathers trying to protect their livelihood. Mothers are NOT better care-takers for kids. Of course, you get a politician to say that? Holy cow.

Christian values are non-existent. Nobody cares about values they care about blame. We hear “He CHEATED on me!!” Nevermind she may have spent the last 5 years emotionally isolating him, emasculating him, and cheating him out of the promises she made when they married. Or we’ll hear “That bitch spent all my money!” Nevermind he may have spent the past 5 years keeping her at arm’s length, and his praise and attention to other things.

Lastley, yes, I DO have most everything figured out. I know how to fix things and I am perfect in determining what is Justice.

But there is no hope.

So.... thanks for proving my point. A simple thanks on the post would've done just as well, but good of you to really nail it in here.


By destroying your point you feel validated? Or maybe if I agree with any aspect of your point you think I agree with it entirely. Interesting.




A few points:
1. As the OP was about marriage ("Why Men Don't Marry"), not divorce, I was speaking of marriage. Like i said, men getting ready to marry a woman generally aren't thinking they're going to divorce them (well okay, outside of stuff like marriage for citizenship, etc.)

Duh.



2. Fair does not mean Equal.

I'm talking Justice. Justice. Equality under the law and Justice.



It is equal and fair for a murderer and a car thief to go jail, but it is not fair for them to stay for an equal length of time.

That's a TERRIBLE example. Jail IS defined by length-served. Perhaps your 'equal' argument could be, I dunno...if a man and woman muder another, both are procecuted. But the woman will serve less time in jail and probably have a reduced sentence. That's unfair. That's "Injustice".


By the same token, a single mother does not have the free time in the day to go after higher paying work, and many times, is directly limited by the children's schedules, and yeah, they kinda have to be the priority. Unless you're espousing that they should be having live-in nanny support, that's pretty much just not gonna be feasible. Then there are the single mom's who had no job, who purely were homemakers. What happens there? Cause, no, they aren't going to make as much as you. Who would you hire faster? The guy who has a 4 year degree and worked in the industry for the last 10 years, or the person with a 4 year degree who hasn't worked in 10 years? You signed off on her staying home to raise the kids, but that puts her at the back of the line for any high paying work, and most if not all middle class work.

And a single father does not have the free time to go after higher paying work, and many times is directly limited by the kids' schedules, and yeah, they kinda have to be a priority.

That whole paragraph is progressive bullshit.

First - "Kids' schedule". What the hell does a kid have a schedule for? Get up. Get to school. Get home. Do homework. Go to bed. That's the schedule. That should be the schedule. Nothing more is required. Other things are 'nice to have'.

Single moms who had no job except homemaking need to get a fucking job to take care of themselves. They aren't going to make as much because they don't have experience. In that case the father - IF he makes more - pays her (2 kids) 50% of the difference between a 3 BR apartment and a 1 BR. Then pays 50% of 2/3rds of the electric and heat bill. If she lives in a shit hole because she will not find more employment, she should do the right thing and have the kids live with Dad until she gets on her feet.

SHE signed off on staying home to raise the kids, too. The FATHER agreed to forego lots of quality time with the kids because he was more-capable as a wage-earner. So now he's screwed by the system because "Mommy stayed home and built a relationship with the kids, so lets fuck-over the dad because he was too busy providing substinence for them, by taking away even MORE time from the kids!" It's a case of "She new she'd have little experience to find employment when she agreed to stay home; he knew he'd miss out on a lot with the kids. Her price is "lack of experience" - HIS is 'lack of relationship' with the kids.

50:50 physical and legal custody is the ONLY way justice is served.



3. The problem with marriage these days is the foundation of the people *getting* married. If you're walking into with this idea of mine vs. Hers, it'll fail. If you walk into it expecting it to be all romance, all the time, it'll fail. Marriage won't fix any problems, just as having a baby won't solve them, instead more or less putting them under a microscope.

Yup. It's that way for probably a lot of reasons - off the top of my head: "Everyone gets a trophy!" mentality. Nobody knows how to be okay in failure - except the Seahawks who did the stupidest play ever at the 1 yard line. Nobody knows how to adjust to times-that-suck. People DEMAND their needs are met and if they are not there is hell to pay. People view sex as a physical act more than a pysiological act or spiritual act. With promescuity people are hard-wiring themselves to easily form and break bonds. When folks committ their very souls to an intimate relationship only to break it off and move on when it's convienient, there's little to no compelling feelings to stay.

Further, women (gross generalization) can be cold hearted bitches when it comes to "Cheating". Women frequently rally their supporters when "he cheated on me!" neverminding perhaps years and years of emasculation, over-eating, laziness, emotional dominence, minimalization and neglect. All are forms of emotional abuse. All are "Cheating". Almost NONE of those things matter when a self-justified, not-knowing-how-to-admit-fault, motherfucker (male or female) feels "cheated-on" because they drove their spouse away.