Posted on 03/10/2018 7:18:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Over the last few decades, we’ve seen a revolutionary change in the way marriage works in America.
In your great-grandparents’ heyday, relationships were more about raising a family and making a living than love. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any love involved; it just means the motivations were often a little different than they are today. Women wanted to get out from under the same roof as their parents and have kids. When a woman found a decent man who treated her well and seemed like he could provide for her and her children, that was often enough of a foundation to build a marriage. After all, the country was much poorer then, so her parents couldn’t necessarily support her and she didn’t have a lot of job options. A husband was the best financial option most women had back then.
Today, most women can take care of themselves and those who can’t have the federal government helping them, so they don’t NEED a man to take care of them financially. Combine this with the fact that financial opportunities for uneducated and unskilled men are dramatically reduced from the pre-shipping container/pre-computer age and marriage has been forever changed. That male dockworker can no longer support a family by himself and even if the wealthier, more educated female executive were to marry him (and she probably wouldn’t because he has less status than she does), the marriage would be far less stable because financial need wouldn’t hold them together.
This has a lot to do with why divorce happened much less frequently in the past. Not only was it a little scandalous to get divorced, a woman had a lot more worries about how to pay her bills if she decided to go her own way. That combination of financial need and social stigma held people together. Consider that “the 1967 crude (divorce) rate was 8.7 times as large as that for 1867” and it becomes obvious that marriage was a much more certain bet for previous generations of Americans.
As the need for financial security has fallen away, “love” has become the primary motivator of people who want to marry. The problem with that is that love can be one fickle b*tch.
For most people, that hot, passionate love driven by hormones that makes you crazy for someone else typically doesn’t last forever. Additionally, as people say, “familiarity breeds contempt.” When a woman is on year three of sex with the same person, she just picked his stained underwear off the floor again and what she thought were cute little idiosyncrasies early on have started to get on her nerves, “love” has turned out to be a much less effective cement than financial necessity. That’s very important because almost 70 percent of the time the woman is the one who files for divorce.
Given that we have a justice system that rewards women and punishes men at every opportunity during and after a divorce, it’s no surprise that women are more likely to be the ones ending the marriage. Courts heavily side with women over men when it comes to custody of the children. Chances are if you’re a man in a battle for custody, you’re going to lose and then you’re going to be forced to pay through the nose for the privilege of not getting to spend as much time with your kids as you like. Speaking of which, financially, the courts still act as if we’re in the thirties. Certainly, there could be a situation where a significant alimony payment would be the only fair solution, but that should be a fairly rare occurrence in this day and age.
Imagine a secretary who makes $30,000 a year who marries a CEO making 10 million dollars a year. Five years later, they get divorced. How much does she deserve? Most women would say “half.” At least “half” of what he made while they were together. The honest answer a lot of men would give you would be “nothing.” You know how much she contributed to the man’s success in his career? Nothing of significance. How much is she worth in the working world after the marriage? About the same as she was before, plus she’s had the advantage of having her much richer husband buy her things for years that she’ll take with her. Do you know what he should owe her in that situation after five years of marriage that didn’t work out in the end? Nothing, just like she owes him. Yet and still, in many states, her husband would be expected to keep her living in the “style to which she has become accustomed.” This is exactly the reason that any MAN WHO ALREADY HAS MONEY is crazy if he doesn’t insist on a prenuptial contract before a wedding. Is that romantic? No, but neither is giving a woman who hates your guts half your money. Does it imply you’re not 100 percent sure the marriage will last? Yes, it does, but in a world where divorce is so common, no one can really be sure a marriage will last anymore. You can claim otherwise if you like, but you’re just whistling past the graveyard. I’ve known women who divorced a husband because he lost his job and had trouble finding another one; because she wanted to relive her party years at 35 years old with two kids; because she decided her husband wasn’t manly enough; it goes on and on and on. What I am telling you is that there are no guarantees and your sweet, reasonable honey who loves you to death may decide she wants out of the marriage and turn into a monster once she has a lawyer whispering in her ear during the divorce. Guess what? Usually, the guy never sees it coming.
This can lead to a situation where you’re paying for the lifestyle of a woman who doesn’t want to be with you anymore and is using your kids as a weapon against you while you struggle financially. I know more than one man who has been in this situation. Almost every man does these days. Some people would tell you that’s just the price of marriage. “Hey, if she’s not worth that, then don’t get married.” But how often does the opposite situation happen? How often is a woman stuck paying the bills for her ex-husband while he has the kids after he decided he “just wasn’t in love” anymore? I’ve never heard of a situation like that, although I’m sure it has probably happened. This is an enormous risk that marriage entails for men, but generally not for women.
You also can’t underestimate the impact of having reliable female birth control and women pursuing their careers. Between college and many women trying to climb the career ladder, marriages are occurring later than ever. There was a time in American history when 80% of people were married by 21. That is no longer true.
Barely half of all adults in the United States—a record low—are currently married, and the median age at first marriage has never been higher for brides (26.5 years) and grooms (28.7), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data. In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years.
The longer you wait to get married, the less of a chance there is that the marriage will produce children. Take the potential of having children out of the equation and marriage is even less appealing to many men. Keep in mind that single women can now easily avoid pregnancy and have become much more promiscuous than they used to be. Does that mean every single guy is getting laid left and right? Not at all, but it does mean that sex is much more available to the average single man than it was 100 years ago. In other words, even if a man never gets married, he doesn’t have to forego sex. In fact, he has the opportunity to have sex with multiple women, an attractive proposition to most men that would be denied to him if he were married. On top of that, he doesn’t have to take on any burdens. He’s not financially responsible for his girlfriend. He doesn’t have to take care of the kid she had with another guy five years ago. There’s no potential for a brutal divorce if things don’t work out. Typically, women are the ones who grew up dreaming of the perfect wedding and the commitment that followed. Most men just grew up dreaming of having sex with beautiful women.
At one time, those two fantasies had to merge. When our society was less promiscuous, the man needed to get married to have regular access to sex. He got what he wanted and she got what she wanted. Is that still true today? The numbers say “No.”
Back in the early 1990s, the average American had sex about 60 to 62 times per year, but that number dropped to less than 53 times per year by 2014. Among married couples specifically, the drop was even more dramatic - from about 73 times per year in 1990 to 55 in 2014. This actually brings the sex lives of married couples below people who've never been married, who have sex about 59 times per year as of 2014. So if you’re a man, getting married may very well mean LESS SEX and with the same woman instead of potentially sleeping with multiple women. It also means risking a soul-ripping divorce where the court system will be stacked against you. Oh, and don’t even mention the old, “Getting married? Wow, I’ll be treated like a king!” fantasy that men had once. Today, you’re more likely to be treated to demands that you do half the weekly housework.
When you look at that sort of thing, it’s easy to understand why some men are simply opposed to marriage. I am not one of those men, but I will tell you the scales have tipped too far against men in marriage. By that, I mean that unless something changes that shifts the institution of marriage back onto more favorable ground for men, marriage will have great difficulty recovering in America. Since marriage is one of the most important building blocks of a successful society, that’s something none of us should want.
Forgot to mention.. her younger sister (and her best friend, who is still a good friend of mine) stopped talking to her because of that situation ;^D
Well, she basically threw her life up to that point away for a shot at a higher income strata by way of screwing her boss. Did he “put a ring on it?” If so, he’s stupid. Reward something, get more of it, penalize it, get less.
Yup.. 6 months after our divorce, he fell into the ‘contract’ with her.
:/
I don’t fault him at all, he never knew she was married until I met him face to face; I found out later that she took off the ring before she got to work every day.
Has she found a new and bigger wallet yet? Only a matter of time, she’s been trained.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!
And THAT my fellow FReepers was what I refer to as "online cosmetics!"
Too bad only one who thinks it covers up their embarrassing flaws is the user.
Papertyger seems to enjoy bashing women, and as I have read his comments for last month, it is unbelievable how he enjoys demeaning the opposite sex. Like his comment on 3/11/2018 at #248 of 305 on this thread:
papertyger says:
“the only difference between a liberal woman and a conservative woman is their politics” SAY WHAT?
That implies conservative women are hos, perverse, haters, and fake. I see that attitude a lot here. I did NOT read one positive word about women. If this were Twitter, I would BLOCK him. AS I read the comments to females on the thread...I decided to act as if he does NOT exist, after this post.
Whatever caused him to be a misogynist or narcissist isn’t fixable. So as he rants, and calls women names, just know he has an emotional issue, and should be ignored. No way to reason with such a woman-hater!
Goodbye papertyger...rant on!
Makes sense to me. In a situation where there is no insurance or assets, where there is no value in the "abusive" husband being dead, a woman who doesn't like the relationship could just walk away.
Will all, or even most, women take advantage of the current terms? No. But many will. Enough that marriage will increasingly resemble Russian Roulette, especially since so many men find themselves unable to tell, ahead of time, whether their prospective bride will wind up that way.
As a result, more and more men have decided that marriage is a bad deal for them (hence the title of the thread), and more are turning to other options.
As a result, the long-term prognosis for our society is bleak, unless marriage gets fixed to be more attractive to men.
What “other” options are we talking about? Blowup dolls? Actually the more I think about it the more appropriate it sounds for some of these poor schlubs. :-)
Snowflake response. Just sayin'....
You know what group are the most interested in marriage? Widowed and divorced men with full custody of 2-4 children.
The ones that just have to cough up a child support payment and babysit 2 weekends a month are on this thread sharing pathetic butthurt with each other. LOL!
Not getting married. Finding a woman (or series of women) willing to be an unmarried girlfriend, and NOT intermingling finances.
As far as housing, either maintaining separate residences, or the guy moving into the woman's house. While together, he may contribute his share of the living expenses, but if the relationship ends, then he moves out. She keeps the house, but his financial support immediately ceases and she pays her own bills at that point.
That’s called staying a bachelor. Its not new. :-)
I know someone who had a 97 page prenup. LOL Funny to read. It even spelled out who paid to get the drive-way plowed. They apparently didn’t trust one another enough to have a small joint checking account to cover such expenses. He pre-deceased her but until the day he died he never told her who he was leaving his estate to.
You guys! LOL
LOL....how funny!
And with both parties being old enough that there is no likelihood that the new marriage will result in additional kids (and thus child support obligations). If the new marriage ends, he still maintains full custody of his biological kids. It's an acceptable deal.
I could see this being a necessary condition for men regaining interest in marriage: that the husband gets 100% full custody of children born in the marriage. Child support, in current form, would be eliminated. If the kids are sufficiently young that it makes more sense to have them stay with mom, then HE could negotiate with her how much she would want in order for them to live with her.
If they stayed married until he died, then it obviously worked out.
It worked out in the sense that they still lived together. It’s hard to know how happy anyone is in a marriage. It was his 3rd and her 4th marriage.
It seems cruel not to tell her that right after he dies she must move out of the house because it’s to be sold. That’s a surprise while she’s grieving. He couldn’t have been real happy to do something like that. I guess they used each other for what they wanted.
Did she get any money from the estate?
If the house would need to be sold in order to have assets for the estate division, then I could see that. She would have had the option of buying the house, at fair market value, from the estate.
She was not hurting for money. She had her own assets and she is now living in a place that is even more upscale. It wasn’t really about money. (Of course it’s always about money or power in some way. )
But he refused to tell her what he had decided. And she apparently didn’t have the option to stay there and buy it at fair market value. She would have had the money to do that.
Beyond having to move, how cruel can you be if as you are dying you work deals with your lawyer, knowing that the spouse you are leaving is hurt by it. Maybe he was afraid she’d get angry and put a pillow over his head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.