A Misconception about Marriage

[PRMoon]

I think alot of people in our era, get married for the wrong reasons. I know personally people who got married because the girl got pregnant and "it was the right thing to do" and now they fight all the time. They still try to be young and hip and go to parties where one get's drunk, the other doesn't like it and they fight all the time. Horrible situations where they're trying to hold on to something that's completely artificial. I also know some people who got married right out of highschool because they were dating some girl for four years of adolecence and assume "this is the one". Again the same stuff happens as time passes and they realize they haven't spent anytime in the real world ie away from home, at all.

If you're going to get married you both have to be on the same team and it shouldn't be a passing thing like we have compatible astrological signs. When I'm out promoting in the casinos and get bored I'll just talk to random people. Sometimes I'll plug five dollars in a slot machine next to an older couple and talk to them. Since I'm a promoter, I'm pretty social (and I drink alot) so I'll start talking to them. Almost all of the time, the people who have been married for 40 plus years will say that this is their best friend. They don't want to be apart and they've always been on the same page more or less. They realize that the other person will do things that they don't completely approve of but at the same time when they go to sleep, they dream of their time with that person. They live for each other is the final conclusion that I came up with after countless encounters.

 

[dietzcoi]

Well if 90% of women are not worthy of marriage, this means only 10% of men should be married, but we know that's not the case.

Remember that when you marry, one of two things are true:

1. You are the best man she ever met and she wants to marry you for that reason
2. She could not get the best man she ever met so she settled for YOU.

Which do you think occur more often?

I just do not see the risk, given that men do not benefit from marriage (as seems to be the concensus here).

So, why do it? WHY??

Because AFCs are sheep who follow silly romantic notions.... and cry at thier own weddings!

DIetzcoi

 

[blueguy]

1. You are the best man she ever met and she wants to marry you for that reason
2. She could not get the best man she ever met so she settled for YOU.

Which is sadly the way many women marry, which is (I wonder why) those same marriages end up awful.

But you're forgetting #3...

Both you and her have never found a better match and want to make a commitment to each other strong enough to stay even during hard times.

 

[grinder]

Lets get back to the start of this thing, shall we?

What has amazed me about this place for all the years I've been here is the generally negative opinion that people have about marriage and even LTRs. I keep reading from experienced Don Juans about the "institution of marriage." Instead of looking at all the failed marriages all over the world, start looking at the CAUSE of them (and no, it's not money)

In most of the failed relationships and marriages I've seen, there is one root cause: the guy is an AFC. He allows the woman to treat him like garbage, spend all his money, and fvck his best friend, and yet he still remains faithful for the sake of love or for the children.

If you look back at marriages before women's rights came into play and society labelled women as creatures to be worshipped, divorce was WAY down, and it's not all because of the shame that came with a failed marriage. The woman stayed home doing the cooking, cleaning, and raising the kids while the man went to work. The woman wouldn't dare say that she "won't be the traditional woman", and that she will do anything she wants. She respected her husband, because he wouldn't put up with her bull5hit.

Things have been flipped upside down today. The woman is generally the one who wears the pants in the family, and she makes decisions based on her emotions while the man blindly goes along with them. He'll experience frustration, sadness, confusion, and will remain unhappy because men are SUPPOSED to sacrifice themselves for the beautiful woman.

Thus, marriage is an institution for the AFC. A Don Juan wouldn't let it become an institution. He wouldn't marry a woman who constantly treats him with disrespect, and he'd put his foot down if the woman happened to cross the wrong line. Women will respect a man that shows leadership, and stands up for himself. These are things that most men today do not posess, and that's why a Don Juan would succeed at marriage.

Hey, Desdinova, where the hell you been on this great thread you started?

The tone of this enormous thread has swung back and forth, for and against marriage.

You never said a damn thing for or against marriage itself, you referred only to that numero uno participant in the marriage: US. And whether WE go into or become AFC in the marriage is the only critical thing that matters.

Whether one should get married or not and whether there is any benefit for the man to get married are basically irrelevant to the central issue of: “What kind of man are you who makes this decision?”

And I quote you “…and that’s why a Don Juan would succeed at marriage.”

And that’s why I conclude that it does not matter whether you choose marriage or not, for if you have made the principals espoused here on this site your own and become a Don Juan, you will succeed no matter what you choose.

 

[Latinoman]

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.

I'm not marry anymore (well...will be officially divorce soon). However, I had a great marriage by society standards. I left for what many might view as selfish reasons (and I didn't leave because of other women either). And I must admit that because of the way I treated her while we were married, it had an impact on how things are going during our divorce. We are what many view as an "exception to the norm" in the sense that we are not in a war.


All said, I also see your point too. Especially the health care stuff and getting some help around the house/clothes stuff.

Thankfully, my girlfriend also take care of my clothes and from time to time helps me with my house. In exchange, I don't have a problem taking her to fancy places and even washing dishes from time to time. Heck, when I get sick, she takes care of me too!

Now...would she do all those things forever? My guess is...she will only do it IF we marry. But...I know how to wash my clothes...and I know how to cook and clean...so...

 

[azanon]

Thanks for being less reactive than me, Latinoman. I get too spirited sometime. You know i like you man. I like RT too. Also man, i know divorce is tough no matter how one goes about it; its a damn stressful thing.

And I quote you “…and that’s why a Don Juan would succeed at marriage.”

A Don Juan definitely has what it takes to succeed at marriage. But ultimately, there's one other person involved too that has free will to do what they want.

 

[Latinoman]

Thanks for being less reactive than me, Latinoman. I get too spirited sometime. You know i like you man. I like RT too. Also man, i know divorce is tough no matter how one goes about it; its a damn stressful thing.



A Don Juan definitely has what it takes to succeed at marriage. But ultimately, there's one other person involved too that has free will to do what they want.

I agree with that. I just felt that I wanted to be alone in order to focus on other things. I just didn't want to work toward my marriage anymore as I wanted to be happier. And "happier = no negativity" at this stage of my life.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

AZANON, don't be so quick to pull me over to your side of the playing field. I'm not anti-marriage, but I am anti bad, uninformed, pollyanna-ish marriage, which is precisely why I continually advocate that men not even consider monogamy until they're 28-30 (and that's not marriage, that's monogamy). Considering you yourself married at 21, I think it's much easier for you to endorse marriage since you've known nothing else for the past 14 years.

In fact you have to endorse marriage. You have so much invested in staying married since you're most likely with the only woman you've ever had sex with, much less shared intimacy with. You're ego-invested in your point of view because your experience has been limited by the decision you made at 21. The reason you're so adamant in your view on monogamy is because it's all you've known throughout your 20's and half your 30's. Naturally anything counter to this is going to challenge not only your belief, but the personality you've developed as a result of it. For me to say that monogamy may not be all it's made up to be is like telling you you've been living your life incorrectly The matter is that you simply don't have the depth of experience necessary to form an objective opinion based on your one association with your wife.

Someone of FRANCISCO's persuasion hits too close to home for you so naturally you'll look for affirmation in your decision to get married by obstinately refusing to accept what he and others are saying. As I stated previously, my experience is an anomally, I happen to be (somewhat) an exception to a rule, and perhaps you are too, but the exception proves the rule. And again, like I said, I'm not saying that the rewards I seem to enjoy in marriage aren't possible to experience outside of marriage.

And this brings me to the dreaded term, 'Generalization.' Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees. It's not isolated abnormalities in a system that we use to describe the circumstances of that system, it's the whole. We study majorities to assess overall condition, not isolations. That's the scientific definition of generalities, but when they refer to things that are close to us we tend to put ourselves into the generalization and cop the "not-in-my-case" menality. We'd like to think that our experiences are unique and special (and they are, to us), but in the generality we're simply statistics. So the word 'Generalize' gets a negative connotation and the person using it is vilified, because it's an afront to our "special" conditions.

I'm just saying you might step back and see a bigger picture with respect to your narrow scope of experience. Like I tried to explain in our last debate, on the whole, I don't regret getting married to the person I did. There are some aspects of it I do regret sometimes, and other aspects I'm glad I enjoy, but anyone telling you it's all peaches & cream all the time is selling you something. Committment in marriage, in business, in conflict or anything else for that matter automatically closes you off to experiences and opportunities you would've otherwise had remaining uncommitted.

 

[joekerr31]

marriage is like watching the same porno over and over and over for 30 years.

it better be a pretty damn good porno i say!

 

[azanon]

AZANON, don't be so quick to pull me over to your side of the playing field. I'm not anti-marriage, but I am anti bad, uninformed, pollyanna-ish marriage, which is precisely why I continually advocate that men not even consider monogamy until they're 28-30 (and that's not marriage, that's monogamy). Considering you yourself married at 21, I think it's much easier for you to endorse marriage since you've known nothing else for the past 14 years.

I haven't pulled you anywhere. When you state how great your marriage is, you do that yourself.

This is probably the opportune time for me to point out something I noticed early on. You married at 28, and your position is to not marry before 28. I doubt i'm the only one that noticed how convinent that is for you.
Thus, your position is easy for you too.

In fact you have to endorse marriage. You have so much invested in staying married since you're most likely with the only woman you've ever had sex with, much less shared intimacy with.

I dont understand why you have to continue to resort to insults. Tell ya what, i wont do it back and lets see if you quit.

If you must know, i've had sex with about 7 different women (i could be off by one, hazy memory) in my life, but most of those "relationships" were not ONS. I've fooled around with twice that (but didn't go all the way). I'm not really a ONS kind of guy, and probably never would be. The main reasons are as follows: 1. I was just too scared i'd catch something 2. I've never liked condoms, thus i get too tempted to go without one (thus, see #1). 3. I was a hard-core christain prior to my marriage, so i turned down some opportunities due to feeling guilty.

For mainly reason #1, I honestly dont have any regrets regarding the number of women i've been with. I have 0 STD's, and 0 issues down there, and for that, I'm very thankful.

You're ego-invested in your point of view because your experience has been limited by the decision you made at 21. The reason you're so adamant in your view on monogamy is because it's all you've known throughout your 20's and half your 30's. Naturally anything counter to this is going to challenge not only your belief, but the personality you've developed as a result of it. For me to say that monogamy may not be all it's made up to be is like telling you you've been living your life incorrectly The matter is that you simply don't have the depth of experience necessary to form an objective opinion based on your one association with your wife.

Your opinion is noted. I've either had an enjoyable marriage or i lied. So i guess others can decide for themselves what's true; my actual testimony or your unsubstantiated guess.

Someone of FRANCISCO's persuasion hits too close to home for you so naturally you'll look for affirmation in your decision to get married by obstinately refusing to accept what he and others are saying.

Or what he said was so misguided, that i had to call him out on it.

As I stated previously, my experience is an anomally, I happen to be (somewhat) an exception to a rule, and perhaps you are too, but the exception proves the rule.

Now perhaps I am (an exception... happy marriage)? * scratches head *

And this brings me to the dreaded term, 'Generalization.' Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees.

I already agreed to that. Its when you make misguided, ultimatum conclusions (ie: stating that without question marrying before 28 is a mistake) based on a generalization is where you go wrong. That's where you basically tell me "I'm not a dynamic person because I apply unalterable rules in my life, and endorse them to others with no exceptions".

I'm just saying you might step back and see a bigger picture with respect to your narrow scope of experience.

You had one experience, and one life just like I have. You need to realize I'm the ones thats saying the way you did it is fine, and the way i did it is fine. Your're the only saying only your way is right. Thus, take your own advice here please.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Or what he said was so misguided, that i had to call him out on it.

Again someone who has derailed the purpose of a thread to justify his choices. To answer your questions:

1. Yes, I was married for many years, I said in in the thread but you chose to ignore it.
2. Yes, I underlined the statement that marriage was not for the benefit of the man BUT the very next sentence I put in bold that for a marriage to succeed a man can't assume that things will work out just because he was married, he has to actively work at making it successful (substantiating Des' original post). Again you chose not to ignore that too and not speak of it.
3. I called marriage a gift that a man gives wife as a promise to do whatever it takes to make the relationship healthy and viable. How you came to the conclusion that I was against marriage from this is beyond me.

So through this you have singlehandedly derailed a thread where people were look at things at a deeper level and not to take the act for granted. You made your statements and tried to end the thread with you having the final, definitive word (without even understanding the thread) to step up and twist it for your own purpose. Can you deny it especially you felt it was your duty to call me out on it?

I agree with RT, you're affirmation in your decision to get married by obstinately twisting and editing the message to substantiate you point of view. The bad thing about it is that the thread was created and sustained to point out how to keep a relationship viable, but you chose not to see it. I don't blame Des for not jumping in, he knew that their was going to be a train wreck and I chose to hope for the best (silly me).

Now, consider yourself called out.

 

[azanon]

Breath in deep Francisco... hold it for 8 second..... Breath out.

Feel better?

 

[wayword]

If you look back at marriages before women's rights came into play and society labelled women as creatures to be worshipped, divorce was WAY down, and it's not all because of the shame that came with a failed marriage. The woman stayed home doing the cooking, cleaning, and raising the kids while the man went to work. The woman wouldn't dare say that she "won't be the traditional woman", and that she will do anything she wants. She respected her husband, because he wouldn't put up with her bull5hit.

Things have been flipped upside down today. The woman is generally the one who wears the pants in the family, and she makes decisions based on her emotions while the man blindly goes along with them. He'll experience frustration, sadness, confusion, and will remain unhappy because men are SUPPOSED to sacrifice themselves for the beautiful woman.

Um, that was also before feminist dogma and "no fault" divorces.

Today, 70% of no-fault divorces are initiated by women. Why? Well...why not? You can take 1/2 your hubby's net worth and live with your new bad-boy bf for no justifiable reason at all. There is a great financial incentive for women to dump their hubbies.

Fact is, all hubbies now are AFC's by nature due to the current marriage & divorce laws. Once you agree to the legal framework of marriage, you pretty much have lopped your nuts off and accepted indentured servitude to your wife. Hence, AFC's say I do. DJ's say I don't.

 

[azanon]

Um, that was also before feminist dogma and "no fault" divorces.

Today, 70% of no-fault divorces are initiated by women. Why? Well...why not? You can take 1/2 your hubby's net worth and live with your new bad-boy bf for no justifiable reason at all. There is a great financial incentive for women to dump their hubbies.

Fact is, all hubbies now are AFC's by nature due to the current marriage & divorce laws. Once you agree to the legal frameworrk of marriage, you pretty much have lopped your nuts off and accepted indentured servitude to your wife. Hence, AFC's say I do. DJ's say I don't.

That's a good point, and of course it depends on whatever state you live in what the laws are.

The only thing is, is that the last few articles/studies ive read on divorce and how it ended up affecting both of their financial life showed that in more cases than not, the woman was worse off financially after the divorce than the man. I dont recall the exact reason(s) why, but i'm guessing because a couple's snapshot networth is usually less than the value of the man's job, and the income it can produce over time. Of course that's just an average scenario, and certainly there will be cases where the couple's net worth can be massive.

But generally speaking, divorce is expensive for both the man and the woman.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

This is probably the opportune time for me to point out something I noticed early on. You married at 28, and your position is to not marry before 28. I doubt i'm the only one that noticed how convinent that is for you.
Thus, your position is easy for you too.

Wrong sir. My assertion was, as you quoted:

I continually advocate that men not even consider monogamy until they're 28-30 (and that's not marriage, that's monogamy).

Now what part of that confuses you? I explicitly state not to be monogamous until 28-30.

In fact you have to endorse marriage. You have so much invested in staying married since you're most likely with the only woman you've ever had sex with, much less shared intimacy with.

I dont understand why you have to continue to resort to insults. Tell ya what, i wont do it back and lets see if you quit.

You don't understand because this wasn't intended to be an insult, but you took it so because of exactly what I stated - you are so ego-invested in your point of view that anything that even approaches it as a challenge is perceived as a personal afront.

I was a hard-core christain prior to my marriage, so i turned down some opportunities due to feeling guilty.

Bingo. My friend you fit the classic profile for the AFC Christian. Marriage is the only recourse available to you to express your sexuality so of course you'll marry the first acceptable woman who is convinced of the same adolescent convictions as yourself.

I honestly dont have any regrets regarding the number of women i've been with. I have 0 STD's, and 0 issues down there, and for that, I'm very thankful.

Justified like the perfect AFC. You can't argue that STDs are dangerous and you're thankful that you didn't get one, but then again you never really risked it did you? I've had sex with over 40 women and never got an STD once, boy am I thankful,..

When you shoot an arrow and paint the target around it you get a bullseye every time.

 

[wayword]

in more cases than not, the woman was worse off financially after the divorce than the man.

That is wrong (unless her name is "Britney Spears," lol). Basically, the richer spouse who came into the marriage with more (generally the man) ends up poorer than before they got married. It's common sense here - if one brings in more but both end up with half at the end...obviously one got richer and the other got poorer from the merger and ensuing split.

Basically, a smart DJ who truly has power and options (like K-Fed) will only marry a richer woman...or not at all.

 

[kyphan]

Um, that was also before feminist dogma and "no fault" divorces.

Today, 70% of no-fault divorces are initiated by women. Why? Well...why not? You can take 1/2 your hubby's net worth and live with your new bad-boy bf for no justifiable reason at all. There is a great financial incentive for women to dump their hubbies.

Fact is, all hubbies now are AFC's by nature due to the current marriage & divorce laws. Once you agree to the legal frameworrk of marriage, you pretty much have lopped your nuts off and accepted indentured servitude to your wife. Hence, AFC's say I do. DJ's say I don't.

Typically 70% of someone's net worth is... what, a few hundred thousand in debt? Mortgage payments, car payments, college loans, and credit card debt are the norm and not the exception in America. If she has been out of work for years and divorces her man she's on far worse footing heading forward, since he is most likely making more than when they first met and is in far better position to move forward on his own and she is looking for her first job in years with no recent experience. If she takes the kids he'll have to make child support payments - but should those kids want to go to college the financial burden falls squarely on her shoulders unless he CHOOSES to help out. Don't think that never happens, my last landlord went through that. Her ex probably makes $300K per year but refused to help with college bills suddenly for whatever his excuse du jour is.

Then there's my parents, both with Master's Degrees and decades of experience in their fields. My mom has struggled far more than my father since they got divorced, and she took the house with four apartments (re: potentially free mortgage) while he owns the expensive lakefront property. Her living accomodations are great in there, too - she has an eight room apartment! Thing is, his career choices have put him in a much better financial situation, even after he married a woman making literally $20K per year AND began helping her raise her granddaughter.

It's not all smooth sailing for women in divorces, unless he's filthy stinkin' rich and she did nothing to help out.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Breath in deep Francisco... hold it for 8 second..... Breath out.

Feel better?

Not necessary, just decided to set things straight with facts instead of allowing misinformation based emotions and conjecture.

 

[azanon]

That is wrong (unless her name is "Britney Spears," lol). Basically, the richer spouse who came into the marriage with more (generally the man) ends up poorer than before they got married. It's common sense here - if one brings in more but both end up with half at the end...obviously one got richer and the other got poorer from the merger and ensuing split.

Basically, a smart DJ who truly has power and options (like K-Fed) will only marry a richer woman...or not at all.

It was some article i read linked from msn.com. Maybe it was wrong *shrug* I didn't do the research myself so I'm only the messenger.

Still, you should recognize that a man's job has long-term value too, and if the man brings home the bacon, she doesn't get that anymore post divorce (in most cases) with the exception of possible alimony. Once a woman is divorced, she's partially damaged goods even if she doesnt have kids so finding another man to replace that lost income is often a challenge she cannot overcome. Regarding the alimony, what man wouldn't want to support his own child conceived within a marriage anyway? No man i know. I'd pay that anyway.

RT/Franciso, i read your last comments, but I have nothing further to say on the matter since the exchanges have long since been constructive.

 

[Desdinova]

WTF happened to my thread?

Modern western women are just as good, if not better than men, at trashing a marriage.

Perhaps this is the only other thing I'm going to touch on in this thread, before you guys get back into your debate.

Marriage starts before the ceremony. A man SHOULD decide if he's going to get married before finding a woman to marry him. He SHOULD also define what he wants in a wife, and a mother. If he meets a woman who treats him like garbage, is an alcoholic, and even considers a long term relationship with her, he's already ruined the marriage by choosing a bad mate. And if she happens to get pregnant, he's given his child a lousy mother.