A Misconception about Marriage

[blueguy]

Hey Francisco, it is possible. But in most cases of sustained live-in relationships I suspect that at least one of the partners has not mentally committed themself to the relationship for life. They just take it as it goes knowing that one day it may end. You say 'legalities' of marriage. I think it is the entire marriage ritual (engagement, ceremony, vows, rings, etc) that statistically commits two people together longer than most live-in relationships. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing (the mentality of either of you knowing you have the other for LIFE) is easily argued. But as I said, any time you perform so many duties as is involved in the marriage ritual that all work toward the goal of commitment, you take it more seriously. Any reputable organization (business, college, government, world cultures, etc.) knows this as they all establish rituals and standards of entry themselves to keep loyal workers, students, citizens, etc. SO the only benefit (or detriment) of marriage is the altered mindset. And you cannot argue that a married relationship normally does have a different mindset than a non-married one.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Hey Francisco, it is possible. But in most cases of sustained live-in relationships I suspect that at least one of the partners has not mentally committed themself to the relationship for life. They just take it as it goes knowing that one day it may end. You say 'legalities' of marriage. I think it is the entire marriage ritual (engagement, ceremony, vows, rings, etc) that statistically commits two people together longer than most live-in relationships. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing (the mentality of either of you knowing you have the other for LIFE) is easily argued. But as I said, any time you perform so many duties as is involved in the marriage ritual that all work toward the goal of commitment, you take it more seriously. Any reputable organization (business, college, government, world cultures, etc.) knows this as they all establish rituals and standards of entry themselves to keep loyal workers, students, citizens, etc. SO the only benefit (or detriment) of marriage is the altered mindset. And you cannot argue that a married relationship normally does have a different mindset than a non-married one.

Good stuff!

Is this altered mindset dependent on marraiage?

 

[Phyzzle]

But specifically, what does a guy gain from marriage that he couldn't get from a mutually committed relationship?

In this day and age, there is certainly nothing the man himself gains from marriage. In the eyes of the law, the man incurrs obligation. And that's it.

In marriage, the wife agrees to . . . nothing. In fact, she doesn't even agree to stop doing other guys! (in England, Australia, and in certain states).

The only reason to agree to marriage is altruism. A man pledges to do his best to stick it out and raise his children (not just finacially support them.)

I mean, there should be legal and social consequences for leaving your family to "go get some coffee" and then never coming back. There needs to be some sort of agreement to that effect. I don't know if modern marriages fit the bill.

 

[blueguy]

Good stuff!

Is this altered mindset dependent on marraiage?

No. You know there are all kinds of things that people can do to make themselves more committed to each other. But most people have grown up in an atmosphere where marriage is seen as the ultimate form of commitment. That takes a lot to reprogram.

I personally see marriage as something that can be beneficial when two very quality people come together. Like joekerr31's "stumbling through the dark" analogy, sometimes you and your partner will be lost, and without that extra form of commitment your partner may even think about letting go of your hand and going on her own. That's when she can either look back at making a lifelong commitment or leave and wander alone because times are hard and you both went astray a little. Sometimes it's best to stick it out and wait for things to get better. Quality people make mistakes, but quality people know how to fix them.

Like I said, I think marriage (or life-long commitment) is beneficial when two very quality people meet and know what they want out of life. As jokerr31 also said, you marry somebody you respect. It's always better to work on a team as long as the team members cooperate.

Non-married couples do not have the same level of commitment. That is unless they share financial resources and have declared similar vows to each other to a similar extent. Even in this case, if the non-married couple is sharing financial resources, then the same 'divorce' problems exist that do in a legal marriage - except for the fact that the split of assets is not determined by the government.

So it is all a risk either way.

I think lifelong commitments should be made in the proper circumstances and are more beneficial in proper circumstances than temporary commitments.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...I think lifelong commitments should be made in the proper circumstances and are more beneficial in proper circumstances than temporary commitments.

So, is there a benefit to a guy getting married that he wouldn't be able to gain through a mutual, committed relationship? If there is, what?

 

[Bourne]

This is one of the most insightful threads I've read. We don't talk much about long-term relationship/marriages on these forums at all and this is much needed thread, even if it is one of the rare few.

 

[RedPill]

So, is there a benefit to a guy getting married that he wouldn't be able to gain through a mutual, committed relationship? If there is, what?

I'll clarify my answer. Credibility through conformity. That ring says "he's a good sheep" even if that's not the case. And regardless of whether the marriage is good, whether he's an AFC or not, the implied message says "I have a wife. I'm important. I have responsibilities. I respect tradition. I step up to the plate and make commitments in life. One of those commitments is to being a good family man. You should give me some default trust on this basis alone."

Outside of this, I do not see a specific benefit. Now, I don't even think marriage is necessarily such a bad thing, but the financial noose placed around the neck of the groom is such a bad deal because it carries such great potential to corrupt the psychology of the wife. We all react to our conditions in life, and even if the subject of this power card comes up only in jest, it certainly tips the unspoken dynamic of power in the relationship heavily toward the woman's favor.

Francisco, you've been dishing out some good questions here, and pouring gas on the white-hot fire that is the topic of marriage. What specific gain(s) do you see for men in a marriage that they can't get in a mutually committed relationship?

 

[Latinoman]

My last comment there was not meant to suggest that anyone's advise here was bad. I'm just saying its naturally going to tilt on the "stay single, and game many women" as long as possible side, for inherently obvious reasons.

Despite that, its all good discussion, i think.

I personally believe that if you are over 30 years old...being in a LTR is a great thing. Especially if you choose the correct woman. It allows you to focus on your career, training, and other life goals more, while keeping "sarging" women to a much lower rank in your priority list.

Of course...some men have a nature of still sarging...even in LTR. That's their prerrogative. But still...even with those guys...women would rank lower in their priority list if they have a LTR one.

Now...LTR does NOT necessary have to translate into marriage.

I would have NO ISSUES staying with my girlfriend for a very long time (reason is that she respects me and she only has eyes for me). Even with some of her attitude. But I would be CRAZY to marry her (as she is right now) as I wouldn't be able to tolerate her attitude and as I'm almost sure her attitude would get worst due to "entitlement".

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I've asked Francisco's question of myself many times and the answer is simply "nothing", there is no advantage for a man in being married and if anything you assume more responsibilities, liability and accountability than even if you were in just an LTR. No one can answer this sufficiently and this is the question that all women dread, so they're forced to create social contrivances that rely on a guy's sense of lonliness, isolation and powerlessness with regards to intimacy that are fostered throughout a man's formative years. Like most feminine operative conventions, this is a sexual acceptability culling or filtering process in order to encourage (really shame) a man into living up to a perceived ideal in order to ensure long term security, while keeping him just confused, frustrated and insecure enough to make him believe that he's powerless with women because they're this unsolvable mystery.

This may be changing now, but, most men I know, only ask themselves "what does a man really benefit from marriage" after they're married. Some never do and proceed into marriage number 2, 3 maybe 4 all the while still trapped in this Matrix of the expectation of being an 'empowered' man, but not so much as to be independent of a woman's intimacy. The main parodox in all of this is that for a woman to achieve her fantasy of long term security, a man must necessarily give up, in part or in whole, his own ambitions and autonomy, or in the very least limit them. This is, for the main part, a sacrifice that women can never fully appreciate because from a very early age they've been socialized to believe that not only is their idealization of long term security a beneficial entitlement due them, but also that anything less, any man unwilling or unable to provide that security, by definition is not a man at all. The sacrifices of autonomy and ambitions a man makes in order to provide security (or at least perceived security) will never be appreciated in the feminine because it's been so socially conditioned in both sexes that it's simply and unquestionably something a man "ought" to do.

When you introduce a very valid question like "what does marriage really benefit a man?", it shatters this convention so the men who do ask it HAVE to be marginalized, and increasingly this comes from both genders now. As I suggested, most men who come to this conclusion are married themselves and are experiencing this imbalance or are divorced. This makes their marginalization very easy; they're made to be bitter, resentful, mysoginitic, or finding a way to vent their marital frustrations, etc. In any case, under the current social attitudes prone to ridiculing anything masculine, both men and women don't even need to speak the argument to marginalize a man asking a question like this - the knee-jerk automatic presumption is that he's bitter, etc. and thus the valid argument is avoided and makes those avoiding it feel better about themselves.

It's the man that asks these questions prior to marriage who's the real threat and needs to be "re-convinced" of the merits of marriage. He needs to be shamed back into accepting the convention, so he's called a 'Playah' or unromantic or told he's too immature to see that he gets love and intimacy, things he could get outside of marriage, but is told that the quality of them is inferior to the same in marriage - "boy, are you missing out." Or worse still, he falls prey to an "accidental pregnancy" and is shamed into "doing the right thing."

Remember, all of this is coming from a man with a fantastic marriage. There are a lot of internal rewards in marriage, but I'll be the first to say that I suspect I could've also experienced them outside of marriage as well. I should add that there are many experiences and rewards I won't enjoy because I am married. I also firmly believe that raising children in a married relationship with a strong, positively masculine father and positively feminine mother offers the best environment for them to develop a good understanding of gender. Parental investment needs to be shared and while it's entirely possible to raise children by a single parent, this will always developmentally and psychologically hobble a child in their gender knowledge. So, to be specific, one could still have children outside of marriage, but when a husband and wife play on the same team and both are mature, with a healthy understanding of their gender roles, then I think this is one advantage being married affords a man in a more or less ideal marriage.

 

[Latinoman]

Excellent post by RT.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

This is one of the most insightful threads I've read. We don't talk much about long-term relationship/marriages on these forums at all and this is much needed thread, even if it is one of the rare few.

You're right. It's a DJ thing...

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I've asked Francisco's question of myself many times and the answer is simply "nothing", there is no advantage for a man in being married and if anything you assume more responsibilities, liability and accountability than even if you were in just an LTR. No one can answer this sufficiently and this is the question that all women dread, so they're forced to create social contrivances that rely on a guy's sense of lonliness, isolation and powerlessness with regards to intimacy that are fostered throughout a man's formative years. Like most feminine operative conventions, this is a sexual acceptability culling or filtering process in order to encourage (really shame) a man into living up to a perceived ideal in order to ensure long term security, while keeping him just confused, frustrated and insecure enough to make him believe that he's powerless with women because they're this unsolvable mystery.

This may be changing now, but, most men I know, only ask themselves "what does a man really benefit from marriage" after they're married. Some never do and proceed into marriage number 2, 3 maybe 4 all the while still trapped in this Matrix of the expectation of being an 'empowered' man, but not so much as to be independent of a woman's intimacy. The main parodox in all of this is that for a woman to achieve her fantasy of long term security, a man must necessarily give up, in part or in whole, his own ambitions and autonomy, or in the very least limit them. This is, for the main part, a sacrifice that women can never fully appreciate because from a very early age they've been socialized to believe that not only is their idealization of long term security a beneficial entitlement due them, but also that anything less, any man unwilling or unable to provide that security, by definition is not a man at all. The sacrifices of autonomy and ambitions a man makes in order to provide security (or at least perceived security) will never be appreciated in the feminine because it's been so socially conditioned in both sexes that it's simply and unquestionably something a man "ought" to do.

When you introduce a very valid question like "what does marriage really benefit a man?", it shatters this convention so the men who do ask it HAVE to be marginalized, and increasingly this comes from both genders now. As I suggested, most men who come to this conclusion are married themselves and are experiencing this imbalance or are divorced. This makes their marginalization very easy; they're made to be bitter, resentful, mysoginitic, or finding a way to vent their marital frustrations, etc. In any case, under the current social attitudes prone to ridiculing anything masculine, both men and women don't even need to speak the argument to marginalize a man asking a question like this - the knee-jerk automatic presumption is that he's bitter, etc. and thus the valid argument is avoided and makes those avoiding it feel better about themselves.

It's the man that asks these questions prior to marriage who's the real threat and needs to be "re-convinced" of the merits of marriage. He needs to be shamed back into accepting the convention, so he's called a 'Playah' or unromantic or told he's too immature to see that he gets love and intimacy, things he could get outside of marriage, but is told that the quality of them is inferior to the same in marriage - "boy, are you missing out." Or worse still, he falls prey to an "accidental pregnancy" and is shamed into "doing the right thing."

Remember, all of this is coming from a man with a fantastic marriage. There are a lot of internal rewards in marriage, but I'll be the first to say that I suspect I could've also experienced them outside of marriage as well. I should add that there are many experiences and rewards I won't enjoy because I am married. I also firmly believe that raising children in a married relationship with a strong, positively masculine father and positively feminine mother offers the best environment for them to develop a good understanding of gender. Parental investment needs to be shared and while it's entirely possible to raise children by a single parent, this will always developmentally and psychologically hobble a child in their gender knowledge. So, to be specific, one could still have children outside of marriage, but when a husband and wife play on the same team and both are mature, with a healthy understanding of their gender roles, then I think this is one advantage being married affords a man in a more or less ideal marriage.

Oh just steal my fvking thunder Rollo! :cuss: But you are absolutely right.

The fact is men to walk into marriage blindly with a ton of unspoken expectations of what marriage should be. Many times its a romanticized ideal we learned from external sources, seldom (if ever) is it defined by ourselves. HUGE RED FLAG!!!

This thread began with the fallacies and misconceptions about marriage, then the question was posed that I'm willing to guess most of you had never been asked or even considered on your own. The proof of that is the initial answers that were given. No offence but they were sweet as if they came from a romance novel. I wonder where they got their answers from because I'm pretty sure it wasn't an ideal that they came up with on their own. Again, not faulting anyone, I'm just bringing some things out into the open.

As we started really digging into the question reasons were posted of what guys were proud of achieving during their marriages. Relationship longevity, great kids and stability to name a few. Then the challenge, was this possible just because you got married? Is it not in your capacity to achieve such great things without getting married?

The purpose of my question was to achieve two things; first I thought it would be fun to learn why guys in this forum would get married and to bring up a concept to consider. Marriage is not for the benefit of men. A couple of you guys were able to figure this out, good job. I'm not saying that men shouldn't get married, however it would be beneficial to understand the purpose of marriage.

Marriage is an insurance policy for the immediate family which is created from the marriage. Sounds cold and dry, but that is what it is. Even some of the examples you gave as the benefits of marriage showed your wife or your children as the benefactors of this insurance policy. Anything that you deemed beneficial to you could be gained without marriage. It’s sad but true.

Now here’s the important thing to realize and Rollo and a couple of other guys who have jumped the broom (myself included) can attest to this. As a man, do not assume that your relationship will sustain itself just because you committed yourself via marriage. You must actively sustain the functions necessary to keep the union viable and functional. Use the analogy of car maintenance as an example, it’s self explanatory.

In a nutshell, romanticized beliefs about what marriage benefits you are just dreams. You must take action to bring those dreams to fruition. If you have the capacity to fulfill those dreams within a marriage, you definitely have the capacity to achieve these things without it. Think about it, it’s quite empowering.

So if you want to get married, please do! Just understand it’s not for your benefit. Getting married is your gift to your wife promising to do what’s necessary to keep the relationship and the family healthy, viable and prosperous. In a bazaar way it can be compared with some type of indentured servitude; scary thought huh? And women thought their giving their virginity was the greatest gift that any person could give of themselves…

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Duh... I forgot the other reason why I posed the question. Contrary to popular belief (well, maybe not too popular), SoSuave has not completely hit a new low in quality. The forum still has a solid foundation with enough quality members to have thought provoking, enlightening discussions without the need of self promotion nor the backlash of infighting that those threads create. It just takes a little effort. Good job everyone.

 

[Latinoman]

Very good post Francisco.

Once again...this place is not discouraging anyone from marrying. What this place is doing is providing people with an understanding of what they might be giving up. At the end, it is YOUR (DJ or not) choice to marry. If you do...you better choose good. And you better NEVER lose your DJ skills. And do, under the understanding that more likely than not, the one WINNING in this situation is the woman.

Because, even if she is unhappy - all she has to do is DIVORCE your ass. But if YOU are unhappy...getting divorced could mean losing $$$.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Well, well, well...


So I guess that's it, huh? lol

For us guys who have YET to take the marriage step, I believe this has been a very valuable thread that we can use to either broaden our perspectives, or commit to re-examining them more thoroughly.

Francisco and Latinoman, it's good how you two FINALLY steered this thread all the way back to Desdinova's original intent:

DJ your WIFE and you can STILL have a good married LIFE.

I guess all this thread is waiting for now is for somebody to come and stick a fork in it, guys...looks like we might be DONE.


COOLNESS.

 

[azanon]

Again, to third parties, remember many of these guys here advising against marriage are in their 20s or younger, have never been married, or got burned by a previous bad marriage (the reality of which was probably their fault). Many of them dont know what its like to have a second paycheck, your laundry done, your food cooked, your groceries and house s*** bought for you, a f*** on demand within 1 minute of deciding you want one, someone to raise your children, all of the legal marriage financial benefits afforded by the state you live in, to be able to f*** without a condom and be 100% for sure you wont catch anything, a family health care plan that covers your woman and child because you're married, .... i could quite literally list 100 other things but I think the point may be sinking in.

People like Francisco would have you believe you could get a woman to do most all of this without a ring on her finger, but that's only going to happen when you dream at night. We also know that if Francisco has the same health plan i do, any woman and child of his isn't covered. A smart woman that's even worth being with for the long-term is simply not going to do all of these things for you without a marriage. You can look at very powerful actors and businessmen and see the truth of this because even they know they have to marry them eventually to keep them, and pretty much all of them do just that. The ones that don't get their asses sued for child support after they make a baby out of wedlock. That sure sounds like fun! * sarcasm *

So with THAT, enjoy you guys single life. I know that "strange" is really good; believe me i do. I'm serious about that. But that strange costs an aweful lot compared to what i get instead. I wouldn't trade my married position for anything; not now, and not when i was 21 either.

Let ends the thread this way; To each his own.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Let ends the thread this way; To each his own.

Actually let's end it this way; you completely missed the message of this thread.

 

[azanon]

Actually let's end it this way; you missed the message of this thread.

Disagreeing with a message doesn't equte to not getting the message. I dont think you got my message either. Your last lengthy post was proof of that.

Have you ever been married Francisco?

By the way, I put people like Latinoman and RT on my side. They're married. They're either on my side or they're hypocrites, and who wants to be a hypocrite? It'd be different if they said their marriage sucks and they regret it.

 

[azanon]

Now that i think about it and this whole thread, the point of contention isn't marriage, its AGE.

Folks, age is 95% an arbitrary thing, and 95% just a number. You can be at a given stage in your life at 21, that someone else is at 35. By 21, you can have dated 30 different women or more. I know this because i lived it.

I would hold in high suspect anyone that conditions advise based on age, unless we're talking about pre-adult years.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Disagreeing with a message doesn't equte to not getting the message. I dont think you got my message either. Your last lengthy post was proof of that.

Have you ever been married Francisco?

By the way, I put people like Latinoman and RT on my side. They're married. They're either on my side or they're hypocrites, and who wants to be a hypocrite? It'd be different if they said their marriage sucks and they regret it.

Fellas, did azanon get the message?