sweetjasmine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Prior to the 20th century idealism that people should get married for love, people married for practical reasons: wealth and to pass on their legacy, both the rich and poor. Love was secondary. Many marriages were unhappy but the church prohibited divorce. That's why adultery was so big among both men and women; in fact, in Victorian England it was fashionable. The concept of marrying purely or mainly for love and being monogamous doesn't seem to be working well. Maybe it's time to go back to the old ways. I'm sorry, I don't see how what you wrote has anything to with what I wrote. It's irrelevant that love wasn't really a factor in marriages in the 19th century. Today you have the option of remaining single if you want to screw around and if you are happier and better off not being married. "Love wasn't the main motivation for marriage" doesn't mean that getting married even though you KNOW that you fully INTEND to cheat on your partner is okey-dokey. Lying, deceit, and deliberately causing your partner pain is wrong. I don't care what century we're in - cheating is a very sh-tty thing to do to another human being. "I'll get married but I'll still screw around" is a horrible attitude to take unless you and your partner have agreed to an open marriage.
Rhythmic Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 But then women get accused of being gold-diggers? Only by broke guys pissed they might not have what it takes to get a girl or by other women who wish they had a boyfriend/husband with the same financial resources(jealous)
xXMarlboro_ManXx Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I'm neither for or against marriage and I have never really thought about it (im only 21) but can someone please tell me what the m/f, pros/cons for marriage. I read through this thread and the guys say the women get all the benefits and vice vesa. The only things I can think of is that the men provide for the family and the wives are the housekeepers and the men think they getting all the benefits. Or maybe the women get the short end of the stick by having to deal with the housekeeping and kids while still working and the men being lazy around the house.
St. Nick Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 But then women get accused of being gold-diggers? If both partners brought equal amounts of wealth in the marriage then it was okay. A woman was only a gold-digger if she was poor and trying to marry a man with greater wealth mainly for his money (i.e. a barmaid wanting to marry a nobleman). Incidentally, the Cinderella story could have never happened; a poor woman like that would have been Prince Charming's mistress at best and the prince would have married one of the wicked sisters instead. I'm sorry, I don't see how what you wrote has anything to with what I wrote. It's irrelevant that love wasn't really a factor in marriages in the 19th century. Today you have the option of remaining single if you want to screw around and if you are happier and better off not being married. "Love wasn't the main motivation for marriage" doesn't mean that getting married even though you KNOW that you fully INTEND to cheat on your partner is okey-dokey. Lying, deceit, and deliberately causing your partner pain is wrong. I don't care what century we're in - cheating is a very sh-tty thing to do to another human being. "I'll get married but I'll still screw around" is a horrible attitude to take unless you and your partner have agreed to an open marriage. Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote because I didn't read it; I was adding a little bit of info on marriage for the OP. Why'd you assume I was responding to you? And it's not irrelevant that love wasn't a factor in marriage prior to the 20th century. He's asking about marriage today and wondering why marriage today isn't as sacred as it was in the past. That's why I posted that bit of history. And who cares if it was horrible. It was the norm for centuries and the institution of marriage was never questioned or bitterly rejected by both sexes back then, unlike today.
Author Green Posted March 12, 2010 Author Posted March 12, 2010 It depends. All this caretaking that women talk about does not apply in my marriage. I am perfectly ca[able of taking care of myself and do not need a mother. If more men relearned the independence that we have lost most modern marriage would be of little to no benefit to us. Who actually enjoys living with a person that pretty much hates your guts and resents the hell out of you. I think that most women want their princess day and that is the peak of their commitment to a union. Finding a woman that is willing to put her money where her mouth is after the honeymoon is a very rare find. Princess day is exactly what it is. And to the other posters, yes women seem to do most of the divorcing... they like getting married and then ending it. Most of the women I have dated don't know how to clean or cook either. A lot of women even refuse to change their last name... how fun
sweetjasmine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote because I didn't read it; I was adding a little bit of info on marriage for the OP. Why'd you assume I was responding to you? I assumed you were responding to me because you quoted my post. Princess day is exactly what it is. And to the other posters, yes women seem to do most of the divorcing... they like getting married and then ending it. Most of the women I have dated don't know how to clean or cook either. A lot of women even refuse to change their last name... how fun Do you know how to cook and clean? Are you willing to change your last name?
New Again Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 If both partners brought equal amounts of wealth in the marriage then it was okay. A woman was only a gold-digger if she was poor and trying to marry a man with greater wealth mainly for his money (i.e. a barmaid wanting to marry a nobleman). Incidentally, the Cinderella story could have never happened; a poor woman like that would have been Prince Charming's mistress at best and the prince would have married one of the wicked sisters instead. I was a history major for one of my degrees, I understand the basics that you are explaining here My statement was in regards to your statement that maybe we should go back to how things were. I took this to mean, marrying for social status and money, as opposed to love. This basically equals gold-digger to people on this board, and many people IRL as well. Unless of course you also meant that people today should only be allowed to marry into certain social classes (which was actually not always and only based on wealth....). Princess day is exactly what it is. And to the other posters, yes women seem to do most of the divorcing... they like getting married and then ending it. Most of the women I have dated don't know how to clean or cook either. A lot of women even refuse to change their last name... how fun Just curious what a woman changing her last name means to you? And do you think that her not changing her name benefits her unfairly over you? Because then of course the inverse would have to be true, that her changing her name unfairly benefits you over her.... Ditto on the cooking and cleaning... Seriously, everyone's throwing around all these accusations and assumptions, and implied values and so on....so what's the deal? I was so interested in this thread at first, then I started reading and said "meh."
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 If both partners brought equal amounts of wealth in the marriage then it was okay. A woman was only a gold-digger if she was poor and trying to marry a man with greater wealth mainly for his money (i.e. a barmaid wanting to marry a nobleman). Incidentally, the Cinderella story could have never happened; a poor woman like that would have been Prince Charming's mistress at best and the prince would have married one of the wicked sisters instead.This isn't quite correct. Nowhere in the story do they mention the bloodlines of either Cinderella or the wicked step sisters. The impression I got from the story, was that Cinderella and her assorted blood or marital family, were part of the merchant class, hence none of them would have been considered for marriage to nobility, wicked step sisters or Cinderella. In reality, the royal family would have gone seeking a good match for the Prince, in another kingdom, probably a cousin or second cousin, to ensure that power and money remained within the same inbred bloodlines. But I do agree that Cinderella wouldn't have been considered, hence the fairytale... And it's not irrelevant that love wasn't a factor in marriage prior to the 20th century. He's asking about marriage today and wondering why marriage today isn't as sacred as it was in the past. That's why I posted that bit of history. And who cares if it was horrible. It was the norm for centuries and the institution of marriage was never questioned or bitterly rejected by both sexes back then, unlike today.Well, in order for marriages to go backwards in time, women's rights would once again have to disappear, suppressed by the Church or other organized religion. Ain't gonna' happen again, for certain!!
Woggle Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I assumed you were responding to me because you quoted my post. Do you know how to cook and clean? Are you willing to change your last name? I know how to cook very well and I keep my house clean even when I was single. As for changing my name sometimes think it might be a good idea to remove myself from my cursed blood line.
sweetjasmine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Seriously, everyone's throwing around all these accusations and assumptions, and implied values and so on....so what's the deal? I was so interested in this thread at first, then I started reading and said "meh." I think part of the problem is that there's not much about the actual institution of marriage that benefits one gender or another. It's hard to point to some objective aspects of marriage that would benefit a woman over a man or vice versa. Well, unless you want to talk about certain sets of laws in different societies, like in some traditional religious law, only a man can initiate divorce, and a woman has no choice. It comes down to whatever balance there is in an individual relationship. In a relationship where both partners are basically equal, both are going to benefit equally from marriage. In a relationship where one partner benefits more than the other, the same dynamic will exist if they happen to get married. It's not about gender but about individuals.
sweetjasmine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I know how to cook very well and I keep my house clean even when I was single. That's a good thing. Everyone should be able to cook and clean for themselves.
Lovelybird Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Is marriage mostly for the sake of women? It some times seems like men benefit more from just dating. These days you might even be expected to help pay for the wedding as well as an expensive ring. I personally do want to get married one day, but it some times seems like a one sided thing in favor of women. As opposed to the dating model which doesn’t sway the power. Dating seems "benefit" men more because women made it too much easier for men. when you say benefit men more, you mean sex without all that comitment stuff, right? Yes, women should take the responsibility that they actually make men NOT want to commit
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Bottom line, what I'm seeing here is a lot of male members who don't really want equality in a marriage, they want to be taken care of, rule the roost, without any effort from themselves. And yet, when you present to them how they do benefit more, they're determined to ignore it. Absolutely, this is about the duality of human nature. Don't ever give me what I want, especially if it's good for me.
Woggle Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I also don't mind eating out or ordering damn near every night. I am not a man who needs my wife to do the domestic duties or anything like that. All I ask of her is to be faithful, respect me as a man and treat me the way she would want to be treated. If I have that I am good and I already have a better marriage than most men.
New Again Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 (edited) It comes down to whatever balance there is in an individual relationship. In a relationship where both partners are basically equal, both are going to benefit equally from marriage. In a relationship where one partner benefits more than the other, the same dynamic will exist if they happen to get married. It's not about gender but about individuals. Generally I agree with you, though to be perfectly honest, I do believe that social conditioning (while slowly changing/evolving) still has many women in a caregiving role (even if she is also working outside the home full-time), and men as simply workers - women's roles in society changed, but their roles as a partner/wife hasn't changed too much; while men's roles haven't changed much at all. I also think that individuals' values come into play here, which most people in this thread aren't accounting for (beyond valuing marriage or not). **Please take notice of the qualifiers** Oh, and of course gender DOES play a role, as men are physically incapable of getting pregnant and giving birth. There's an inherent inequality there. Edited March 12, 2010 by New Again
calizaggy Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Marriage is good for men and women, especially if you are looking at it from an economic standpoint. I honestly believe if 2 people marry at 18 and work together, they are far ahead of people earning advanced degrees that stay single until 35-40..
sweetjasmine Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Generally I agree with you, though to be perfectly honest, I do believe that social conditioning (while slowly changing/evolving) still has many women in a caregiving role (even if she is also working outside the home full-time), and men as simply workers - women's roles in society changed, but their roles as a partner/wife hasn't changed too much; while men's roles haven't changed much at all. Yeah, I agree with you. I think a lot of expectations are still around, but I guess the way people respond to them will vary from couple to couple. Although women are still expected to take the role of caregiver (and many of them want to), it's more common these days for men to share some of those responsibilities. Oh, and of course gender DOES play a role, as men are physically incapable of getting pregnant and giving birth. There's an inherent inequality there. Yup, good point. At the same time, when it comes to pregnancy/childbirth, men are at a disadvantage in that it's less common for workplaces to grant paternity leave.
Lovelybird Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Marriage is good for men and women, especially if you are looking at it from an economic standpoint. I honestly believe if 2 people marry at 18 and work together, they are far ahead of people earning advanced degrees that stay single until 35-40.. I highly doubt this. Many married young couples after many years, one of them would go to find themselves and have an affair, or "I don't love you anymore, we are just too different", or for sake of kids they are living in a home like two dead persons without passion, love and warmth Marry late can do better I believe
xxoo Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Princess day is exactly what it is. And to the other posters, yes women seem to do most of the divorcing... they like getting married and then ending it. Most of the women I have dated don't know how to clean or cook either. A lot of women even refuse to change their last name... how fun As a woman, I find the Princess day phenomenon fairly annoying and depressing. I know LOTS of women, though, who want nothing to do with that--skipped it altogether. Maybe it is a "type" that attracts you? "High maintenance"? Maybe those of us that don't care about that stuff aren't shiny and polished enough to notice We're out there! Also....WHAT is with all the gender role stereotyping in this thread? What year is this? Don't the women you know have careers? Don't the men you know cook and clean? WTH? Benefits of marriage as I see them, for men and women: companionship sex shared incomes/living expenses parenting partner health insurance, tax breaks teammate in life I have a difficult time breaking it up by gender, because each couple is different--especially in this day and age.
calizaggy Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I highly doubt this. Many married young couples after many years, one of them would go to find themselves and have an affair, or "I don't love you anymore, we are just too different", or for sake of kids they are living in a home like two dead persons without passion, love and warmth Marry late can do better I believe Well it is my view that it is far easier to acquire wealth within a family unit, for many reasons..Of course if everyone did this and passed wealth down to their kids, there would not be much use for banks/debt industry.. So, we are indoctrinated into thinking being independent and single is the way to go..
Woggle Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 I don't know if marrying at 18 is the right idea but I wish more people would be open to the idea of building a life together.
Barky Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Heh, thanks? 85% of this thread consists of such general statements, hence I was wondering what specifics people were basing their "men benefit more" or "women benefit more" statements on. I'm not being snotty, I really am curious. I feel like I'm missing something. But, I am also having one of those days... Well, also consider the fact that 90% of the people posting here are absolute failures with the opposite sex. This might skew the opinions you receive.
Author Green Posted March 12, 2010 Author Posted March 12, 2010 Well, also consider the fact that 90% of the people posting here are absolute failures with the opposite sex. This might skew the opinions you receive. And 87% of the people here were born on an even numbered day... It all quite curiouse... 92% of the people here probably didn't even think about that.
New Again Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 Yeah, I agree with you. I think a lot of expectations are still around, but I guess the way people respond to them will vary from couple to couple. Although women are still expected to take the role of caregiver (and many of them want to), it's more common these days for men to share some of those responsibilities. Yup, good point. At the same time, when it comes to pregnancy/childbirth, men are at a disadvantage in that it's less common for workplaces to grant paternity leave. Oh yes, I agree with what you're saying; however, when you say that women are still expected to take the role of caregiver, and many of them want to - do they really want to, or is that desire a product of their social conditioning? See what I'm saying? I think those two things are linked. And then of course, the mother thing. Agree that it's more common for men to take on some responsibilities, but that's also what I was getting at, in that those roles are very slowly changing, if/when at all. How long now have women had full-time careers AND been mothers/partners (a full time job in it's own, obviously); and how long has it taken for men to begin to help out (as you said, men still don't have equal paternity leave...)
threebyfate Posted March 12, 2010 Posted March 12, 2010 and how long has it taken for men to begin to help out (as you said, men still don't have equal paternity leave...)In Canada, men have an almost equal number of weeks for paternity leave. Most turn it down, so the woman absorbs the additional weeks into her maternity leave.
Recommended Posts