Why does a woman need legal commitment?

[BadBoy89]

If a woman loves a man and will be with him forever and forever no matter what, what does she need marriage for? Why she want the relationship to be legal? She loves him no matter, right?

- is it because she needs security in case he loses his job, she needs to cash out?
- is it because she can show her friends she knows how to secure a man with sex?
- is it because women can’t be alone?
- is it because if the man doesn’t “behave”, she can destroy his life?
- is it because she knows her sex appeal decreases as she ages, and wants the man’s resources?

Because if it’s any of the above or similar, she doesnt love the man, she loves what the man can do for her.

Now people will say “marriage proves her love for him and vice versa” Well, what a legal commitment have to do with love? Just buy her an expensive gift, that means love as well, if not more.

Thoughts?

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Lets see...wars, pandemics, economic depressions, risk of nuclear war, famines even. All which were valid fears in the past 100 years

 

[Stuffnu]

To add, I’ve seen countless OLD posts from women who are either stay at home moms or with nominal jobs who own there own home.
Where do you think they got it from?. Legal commitments that favor them.
They may marry out of love but in the back of there minds, it’s instant security.

 

[bat soup]

If a woman loves a man and will be with him forever and forever no matter what, what does she need marriage for? Why she want the relationship to be legal? She loves him no matter, right?

- is it because she needs security in case he loses his job, she needs to cash out?
- is it because she can show her friends she knows how to secure a man with sex?
- is it because women can’t be alone?
- is it because if the man doesn’t “behave”, she can destroy his life?
- is it because she knows her sex appeal decreases as she ages, and wants the man’s resources?

Because if it’s any of the above or similar, she doesnt love the man, she loves what the man can do for her.

Now people will say “marriage proves her love for him and vice versa” Well, what a legal commitment have to do with love? Just buy her an expensive gift, that means love as well, if not more.

Thoughts?

She wants to make sure that if you ever find out that she's sleeping with your brother or your best friend, you won't be able to get her hand out of your pocket.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

Now people will say “marriage proves her love for him and vice versa” Well, what a legal commitment have to do with love?

None.

Women will never love you the way you want them to love you (For being who you are.), they will only love you for what you do for them.

We guys love unconditionally our girl, but she will only love you conditionally. It's a harsh truth, but that is the world we live in.

Throughout history women have always had the social contract of love for security and access to men's resources and they learn hot harvest that out of men. Now while the times and conditions have changed (Women's' right to vote, Women access to the job market to now free independent stronk woman that need no man etc. etc.), that social contract hasn't changed and women prefer to use men's resources than their own money as it proves even more security for them.

So they will always go a for a legal contract with you which allows them access to minimum 50% of everything you own; n most cases even more than that.

And why not?
It's 100% win/win for them where they in 99.9% of the cases cannot lose.

 

[Bokanovsky]

They don’t “need” it. But they act like they do because many men are too weak to say no.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Love has nothing to do with marriage.

The legal commitment is for security of the woman.

 

[BadBoy89]

However, it's also security for their children. Children need a stable environment and to feel safe.

For that reason and assuming they want children and family, marriage would be important, imo. Especially during their formative years.

Parents don’t need to be married for children to have security.

Sisters, environment, aunts, uncles, friends, sports, music, and relationships are way more important for a kids development than parents being legally committed to each other.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Parents don’t need to be married for children to have security.

Sisters, environment, aunts, uncles, friends, sports, music, and relationships are way more important for a kids development than parents being legally committed to each other.

No actually this is wrong. Married parents together in the same household with the child is most important for child’s development.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

They don’t “need” it. But they act like they do because many men are too weak to say no.

Yeah, that too.

 

[Barrister]

Women (and men) have been taught from an early age that it is the ultimate commitment you can make to a person and what you do with someone who you are in love with after a certain period of time.

Marriage makes sense if you plan to start a family. There is a lot to be had by having a nuclear family unit. However, the problem is there are so many societal pressures that are at work that make your family autonomy threatened. Social media in particular takes marriage, which was not easy to begin with, and makes it all the more difficult by exposing the wife to images of people who "appear" to be very happy and constantly having more fun than they are. It is almost a built-in resentment creator.

Add into that our societies modern-day views of men, "toxic masculinity," "female empowerment," etc. and it basically becomes a mine field. The deck is stacked against it working unless the guy is 100% blue pilled. But then the problem is the woman is unhappy anyway because her nature does not allow her to be truly attracted to a man who is geared that way. It is unnatural.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Married parents together in the same household with the child is most important for child’s development.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

She wants to make sure that if you ever find out that she's sleeping with your brother or your best friend, you won't be able to get her hand out of your pocket.

You do realize that it works both ways right? I know some women who made more money than their husbands and got divorced and they are the ones "getting screwed" by the courts with having to pay spousal support, child support, etc...

Yes, men still usually make more than women but that has been changing rapidly. If you are married to a female breadwinner you are able to take her to the cleaners.

Guys also tend to make mistakes during the divorce process like willfully move out of their house which then puts them behind the eight ball legally.

 

[Barrister]

You do realize that it works both ways right? I know some women who made more money than their husbands and got divorced and they are the ones "getting screwed" by the courts with having to pay spousal support, child support, etc...

Yes, men still usually make more than women but that has been changing rapidly. If you are married to a female breadwinner you are able to take her to the cleaners.

Guys also tend to make mistakes during the divorce process like willfully move out of their house which then puts them behind the eight ball legally.

Careful - you may short-circuit some of the women-haters here at SS.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Careful - you may short-circuit some of the women-haters here at SS.

Yes I know...the board is filled with them...you can tell just by what they write and their rants about them.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Fixed it for ya.

Also incorrect. Kids know when parents are bullshvtting.

 

[AureliusMaximus]

You do realize that it works both ways right? I know some women who made more money than their husbands and got divorced and they are the ones "getting screwed" by the courts with having to pay spousal support, child support, etc...

Yes, of course but it is still very rare and the courts do favor women in the family law. So it is not easy to win these cases where the women has been the bread provider and the guys has been the stay at home dad. Even then its hard to win.

But yes it is possible.

 

[Barrister]

Yes, of course but it is still very rare and the courts do favor women in the family law. So it is not easy to win these cases where the women has been the bread provider and the guys has been the stay at home dad. Even then its hard to win.

But yes it is possible.

Not sure of the family law landscape in Denmark, but I can tell you that this traditional way of looking at things in the court system is changing here in the States. Dads are being looked at in a much more favorable light and many times joint physical custody, or something close to it, is being considered the fall back as opposed to straight up "mom gets primary physical custody and dad has minimum parenting time." If the child is very young -- under 2 years old, mom is still favored for obvious reasons.

 

[Mike32ct]

Also incorrect. Kids know when parents are bullshvtting.

And it’s preferable for the kids to have the same last names.

 

[Bokanovsky]

K

Also incorrect. Kids know when parents are bullshvtting.

Kids don't care if their parents have entered into a legal contract (which is what marriage is).