Study findings on husband/wife interaction in news headlines this week

[wayword]

That's the thing though Rollo...she LETS you lead. Your leading the household is great because she ALLOWS it.

You are correct. This is not merely semantics. It is the legal reality now.

Regardless of how submissive she is, her legal position is still far superior to his, and if push should ever come to shove, she has the hammer. The marriage finally succeeds or fails on the whim of the wife. Thanks to over seventy years of female emancipation, she is in the catbird seat, period

Look, once a man says "I do," he legally gives all his leverage away to his wife. If she bails, she takes half his shyt. So, you better believe he becomes a yes man after that! What choice does he have? He already dug his own grave when he decided to GET married.

This survey only confirms the obvious now. Unless you marry a wealthier woman - your wife will enjoy far more leverage in your marriage. This is not rocket science, folks...

 

[Mr.Positive]

Rollo, just for the sake of getting where you are coming from with marriage (I think)...

If a man and a woman are in a LTR, the man and woman are the LTR, they make up the relationship. If the LTR ends, the man and woman are essential no better, or worse, of than before.

But once they get married, the marriage itself is something different. A third "entity" that needs to be realized.

Such as football. They quarterback leads the team to win the game, however the backup quarterback is ready to step up should something happen to the quarterback, such as injury, not playing well (afc), etc.

The backup quarterback wants to win the game as much as the quarterback does, and will lead if needed, or at least attempt to lead...for the sake of the game (marriage).

The backup quarterback fills the void as you would say. The end goal is winning the game, everyone who's part of that team knows that.

However, the problem arises when the backup quarterback sucks..ie, women aren't the best at leading the team by nature.

 

[Mr.Positive]

You are correct. This is not merely semantics. It is the legal reality now.Look, once a man says "I do," he legally gives all his leverage away to his wife. If she bails, she takes half his shyt. So, you better believe he becomes a yes man after that! What choice does he have? He already dug his own grave when he decided to GET married.

This survey only confirms the obvious now. Unless you marry a wealthier woman - your wife will enjoy far more leverage in your marriage. This is not rocket science, folks...

Wayword, a positive spin on this...just something to throw out there.

It could be that natures roles in marriage are greater then all the double standards and legality of marriage in our society today.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we get married and, despite how messed up our current culture and marriage are...If we take the role of men in the marriage, we can lead a marriage in the right direction and can be successful at it.

Just don't fvckup and pick a low-quality woman. No pressure there or anything....

 

[bigjohnson]

You are correct. This is not merely semantics. It is the legal reality now.

Get a prenup, and make sure you both use good lawyers. Ironically making sure SHE has excellent legal representation goes a long way to making the contract solid. IANAL.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Another example of Geographical bigotry.

I've lived all over the US from the West Coast, to the Midwest, worked alot in the South and South West and even the East and I cant believe the geographical bigotry I find.

I have to say in particular East Coasters tend to be the biggest geographical bigots. Than again just saying that makes me a geographical bigot!

Just learn to love all the areas of this country. Sure we're all different, but that's what makes the USA the best country in the world. (An example of world geographical bigotry!)

So it was alright that the study included only Iowans? What would their excuse be to exclude everyone else yet give the blanket conclusion which was based on a limited geographic sample?

 

[edger]

Ever since finding this article and posting it here, I've thought about how the study was only limitted to those in Iowa, and it had me reverting to the fact that aren't women, women, no matter where they're from? So does it really matter if the study was limitted to Iowans?

I'm assuming the majority of women in this study were attracted to men who are "passive", which really throws me off, because, like I said, my personal experiences have proven otherwise to this particular study.

 

[PeeGee]

Incidentally guys, a pre-nup is not a very good 'safety harness'. A woman can argue that the pre-nup was signed in duress (ie you tell her 'I will not marry you until you sign this'), and thus it will be legally voided.

Fun times. Basically do NOT get married unless you are damn sure she's the one.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Ever since finding this article and posting it here, I've thought about how the study was only limitted to those in Iowa, and it had me reverting to the fact that aren't women, women, no matter where they're from? So does it really matter if the study was limitted to Iowans?....

At their core, people are people (men and women). However, the norm is for people to be swayed by the actions of people in their immediate social/living surrounding. People who live in the city as opposed to those who live in the suburbs as opposed to those who live in rural areas. Religious or political leanings, socio/economic differences. These all influence a person's immediate actions unless they consciously choose to do otherwise. Hell, we hang out at this site because we aren't like the typical guys out there in society and it shows.

 

[MatureDJ]

I think that there is a large amount of slackness in what would be considered as controlling. Would a man who just lets his wife micromanage the household and budget be considered as being "controlled"? I would have no problem with my wife nagging me that I was being sloppy - since that would mean that she would be taking a strong interest in keeping the house neat and tidy. Likewise, if she placed a stern time for meals, that would mean that she be taking a strong interest in being the cook. If she would nag me about going to the see a physician, that's another good thing. I would also like the mother of my children to be a good disciplinarian, such that I would not have to always be the heavy.

Now, if being controlling means that we would have to move to a bigger house every 4.5 years because there is more money in the bank, and we need to keep up with the Joneses, etc., well, that's a negative. Or if I'm nagged to not retire early, or to get another job because she wants to spend more money on craap, that's another negative.

I also wouldn't mind my wife working, just as long as the homemaking duties would be done - and of course that I continue to get "some" on a regular basis.