nordic Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 a) True love is a very different thing from marriage. Otherwise, the divorce rate won't be so high. b) There are plenty to life than being married/love. For example, doing important work. yes, agree. i would not marry anybody i did not love though.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 16, 2011 Posted May 16, 2011 I believe that the truth is that both women and men are discovering that marrying is a choice that is up to the individual to make, using their own criteria. It is much less an absolute societal expectation than it has been in the past. This is a good thing.
Author musemaj11 Posted May 17, 2011 Author Posted May 17, 2011 (edited) I don't have the ability to graph this for you on this forum, and without that visual, I don't think you're going to understand what I'm saying. It doesnt matter what the influencing variables are, but its a fact that today the institution of marriage has a notorious reputation among the newer male generations. In Texas, what you have prior to a marriage (what you bring to it) is considered separate and personal assets so that theory doesn't hold water here. In other states, perhaps. I am not educated on their laws.So in Texas you dont need a prenup to protect your premarital assets? Hmm, finally there is something to like about Texas. Obviously you have some women who are with men who aren't wanting to marry. In my case, I've been proposed to a few times by different men and said no. My H asked me a few times before I said yes. So at least from my perspective and personal experience, your belief hasn't proven to be true. I also got married for the second time at the age of 40, and I've never been struck by lightening so go figure There was a man who survived a 1-mile fall. Does that happen all the time? No. The majority of such accidents ended up in death. OP, why post an article just to debunk its premise (that women are not married because they no longer have the socio-economic need, to the same extent as in the past, for the financial support provided by the institution of marriage); then turn around and vehemently defend that article's stated statistics?Thats their hypothesis as to the cause. I have my own hypothesis. We just believe in the same statistics. The Internet is crawling with articles that support your bias, like this one: http://www.intellectualconservative....have-children/ Why didn't you choose to post one of these? Thats a great article consisting of undeniable facts and invaluable arguments against marriage. I have read plenty of such articles. However, it is not exactly on topic. I already opened a thread about how marriage is a stupid life decision for men in the past. I believe that the truth is that both women and men are discovering that marrying is a choice that is up to the individual to make, using their own criteria. It is much less an absolute societal expectation than it has been in the past. This is a good thing. For women-since now they can make their own money and still marry up when they do decide to marry. Are you arguing that women are smarter than men? I have always believed that women have superior pragmatic approach when it comes to selecting a mate for marriage. Generally men judge a woman by her current quality while women judge a man not only by his current but also long term exploitability. Ironically when it comes to marriage, men make decisions more based on emotion while women make decisions more based on calculation. This is exactly what we've been saying. Financially independent women are less likely to seek marriage--first marriage, or subsequent marriages. Many women still are wanting to marry. But the trend is that, as women's incomes increase, fewer women are seeking marriage. I opened a thread about a study that shows that doesnt matter how much money a woman has, she still wants to marry up. So the reason that wealthier women are less likely to marry is not because they want marriage less, but its because they cant find the mate they want since the more money a woman has, the harder it is for her to find a pool of available men who meet their financial requirement. If Meg Whitman suddenly became single today, chances are she would rather remain unmarried since there is very limited available men with comparable social status. I mean its not like she is going to remarry with some UPS driver. As a woman and plus as a businessperson, she would be too calculating to not realize the danger of such a decision. You want the lower marriage rates to be about men refusing to marry, but--like you say--even the wealthy men marry again and again.I was talking about wealthy men from older generations (think Paul McCartney, Larry King) who are so set in their old ways that they cant comprehend that marriage is a financial scam. Among the newer male generations, the reputation of marriage is increasingly unpopular. Edited May 17, 2011 by musemaj11
Recommended Posts