To rescue marriage, address divorce

DenverPost.com ^ | July 31, 2002 | Al Knight

[Jeff Chandler]

This article makes some very good points, but it is only half right. The other half of the equation is the fact that men are no longer required to get married to have sex. The women give it away, and a guy can have sex with a different women every night if he so desires.

So, on the one hand, he gets what he wants out of the relationship without giving her what she wants, and if he gives her what she wants(marriage), she could take him for all he's worth.

Where is the incentive for a man to get married?

[RogerFGay]

The women give it away, and a guy can have sex with a different women every night if he so desires.

You've just created a market for your little black book.

So, on the one hand, he gets what he wants out of the relationship without giving her what she wants,

There's a rather obvious set of presumptions there, that at least partially contradict your point.

... and if he gives her what she wants(marriage), she could take him for all he's worth.

Stereotypes aside, I think men and women want the same things generally speaking more than you seen to believe. What we're left with is because of divorce laws, marriage creates too high a risk for men.

[RogerFGay]

ping

[John O]

They also need to reform the divorce laws to make divorce harder. Eliminate no-fault divorce and make the one who abandons the marriage without proven cause the one who gives up everything.

If a woman walks out on her husband without proving he committed adultery or is abusive then she walks out with nothing, no kids, no support, nothing but her clothes and personal effects. Likewise if the man walks out.

When we get back to marriage being forever the crisis will end. Now it's far to easy for one partner to walk out for no reason. (Usually stated as "I just don't love him anymore" Well boo hoo. You should have only two choices in marriage, either make it work or be miserable)

Of course Jeff is also correct, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free

God Save America (Please)

[RogerFGay]

They also need to reform the divorce laws to make divorce harder. Eliminate no-fault divorce and make the one who abandons the marriage without proven cause the one who gives up everything.

Ronald Reagan's no-fault divorce revolution certainly was a starting point for a lot of bad things. But we do not have to go as far as you suggest. I'm not laying down an argument against you, only stating a logical fact. Following the introduction of no-fault divorce, the federal government (largely under Reagan) took arbitrary control of divorce law -- which is an area they are not entitled to regulate according to the Constitution.

What we need -- along the lines of what you said but perhaps a less extreme version of it -- is a return to the fundamentals of the implied contract, whether that means the one who files for divorce always looses everything or not. That idea however would not be credible unless there was at least some serious leaning in the direction you suggest.

Initiating that process is not at all complicated. Get the federal government out of domestic relations. It doesn't belong there in the first place, and things are now all screwed up because the federal government is paying (our tax dollars and then some) to make it screwed up with the intention of having it be screwed up.

[Jeff Chandler]

You've just created a market for your little black book.

LOL! I threw away my little black book over a quarter of a century ago!

men and women want the same things

Gotta disagree with you there. Generally speaking, woman want to be cherished, while men want to be bedded.

[LibKill]

1. Eliminate no-fault divorce. Desertion makes you lose the house, other property, and the kids.

2. Make allegations of domestic violence without ironclad proof inadmissable.

3. Tie child support to visitation. No visitation, no support.

4. Eliminate the presumption that the mother should be the custodial parent.

[parthur]

No-fault divorce eliminates hate-filled, bitter, protracted litigation where divorce lawyers air the dirty laundry of the spouses (and in the process make themselves rich).

For this reason, I like no-fault divorce.

But adultery should not go unpunished. The problem is, if an adulterer were to face a less-than-favorable divorce settlement, is (s)he entitled to raise, as a defense, the spouse's unwillingness to satisfy his/her need for intimacy?

If so, we are back to square one, with dirty laundry being aired in public divorce proceedings. We can imagine the testimony:

- You cheated on your wife, isn't that correct?

- Yes, but she was not satisfying me. I wanted it 4 times a week, and she only gave it to me once, and although I love this position, she always wanted to do it that way.

(wife interjecting):
- It's not true. At least once a month I would let him do it how he wanted, although I hated it. Anyway, why should I care about satisfying him, when he never satisfied me. He always finished too fast and then went straight to sleep.

(husband, turning red):
- That's not true! I can last 20 minutes.

(wife, laughing bitterly):
- 20 minutes? Pleeeeeze! The best you could ever do was 20 seconds. Plus, don't you know how to use your tongue?

(husband, yelling):
- I would use my tongue if you bathed more often you skanky *&^$$@!

(judge, banging his gavel):
- Order in the court! Silence!!!!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I would suggest that if no-fault divorce were banned in the states, the situation would change drastically.  That way, divorces could not proceed unless the lack of fidelity was proven, or unless both parties agreed.  In the first case, throw the book at the offending party, in the second case nobody gets anything not agreed to in writing at the time of breakup.

[Entropy Squared]

The other half of the equation is the fact that men are no longer required to get married to have sex. The women give it away, and a guy can have sex with a different women every night if he so desires.

This points to one of the most moronic aspects of feminism. Feminists told women they would gain power by being sexually liberated but what the feminists really did was destroy one of the real powers women had. Supply and demand. Under the old system women could control men by limiting the availability of sex. Under the old system women controlled a biological need, like a water supply. That's real power. The sexual liberation movement was great for the demanders, but the suppliers lost control and power in the process.

[Jeff Chandler]

Feminists told women they would gain power by being sexually liberated but what the feminists really did was destroy one of the real powers women had.

BINGO!!!

But you should see the insults I get when I state this obvious fact. I've had Freepers accuse me of being myopic, of wanting to keep woman barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen (the keeping them pregnant part sounds kind of fun), and of being the product of Amish school.

[Entropy Squared]

Women gave up the control of supply with the sexual revolution and they were told they would gain power by doing so. It was a sucker move, there is no power like the power over a biological need and the feminists suckered women into giving up the enormous power they once wielded. Great for the demanders, terrible for the suppliers.

[FITZ]

The women give it away, and a guy can have sex with a different women every night if he so desires.

That assumes the women don't want sex without marriage, a woman can have sex with a different man every night and that might be the reason they choose to go this route --just like the men do.

[Jeff Chandler]

They were told that the societal rules governing sexual behavior were intended for their oppression, and besides, everything Western Civilization had built up until the moment of their "liberation" was obsolete. So, they reinvented the wheel. Look what it's gotten them.

[crystalk]

Marriages which are just ducky, where both partners are deliriously happy and madly in love with each other, presumably are not coming unglued. The divorces, which are causing such problems for the children and other sociological catastrophes, are from among the group of less-than-heaven-made marriages.

What is needed, therefore, is to make more women (since it is they who initiate nearly all divorces other than the flagrant CEO-runs-off-with-21-yr-old-secretary type...which are not the problem here)...willing to settle for a stable, stolid, somewhat unexciting, but loyal, hardworking type of average American guy. And to remain loyal to him, since he is loyal to her, despite whatever shortcomings each might have.

From what I have seen, most males understood on their wedding day that they were making certain tradeoffs, that this was not a person with ideal looks, not a glamour queen, not an heiress, not an Einstein. They knew they were settling for stability and someone who (they imagined) might be loyal and "of their own."

OTOH, so many women seemed to be starry-eyed on their wedding day, thought this frog was a prince, or that they could change him into one with determined applications of behavioural science and reward/punishment etc. They then are crushed beyond description, and feel outraged, cheated, and vindictive when the man turns out to be merely human and to have flaws.

That is the real problem-- women who want to be stars, queens of the world, but simply are not. They will simply not accept the humdrum in a marriage, so they end up with both humdrum and solitude, after wrecking the lives of two or three men and two or three children in the process.

[Jeff Chandler]

That assumes the women don't want sex without marriage, a woman can have sex with a different man every night and that might be the reason they choose to go this route --just like the men do.

Well, OF COURSE a woman can have sex with a different man every night. That's the point: she always could. Men are hardwired (no pun intended) to be ready, willing, and able to engage in sex at every opportunity. The sex drive in men is strong.

While woman are fully capable of enjoying sex (something I enthusiastically encourage), it is NOT the natural primary motivator for their entering into relationships (with rare exceptions). Unscrupulous men who understand women often take advantage of this aspect of female psychology to seduce them, telling lies about loving them, giving false hope of commitment, etc. It's as old as the hills.

In the past, most men had to control their drives because women demanded that sex be confined to marriage, which was to her, and the subsequent children's advantage.

Now, men don't need marriage to have sex, so the ladies are out of luck.

[FITZ]

Have you been to a single's bar lately? The girls don't look or act like they're looking for husbands but just one-night-stands. Also it seems that just as many marriages break up over the wife's affair as the husband's affairs. I'm not so sure about that hard-wiring stuff.

[Jeff Chandler]

You also make my point. The women have been sold a bill of goods. They think that acting piggish(like men naturally do)is what they're supposed to do. It goes against their nature, though, and it ends up leaving them as lonely and soleless as the predatory men.

I come in contact with many young, single men on my job. I see what the pattern is. The man picks up the bimbo at the bar, night club, whatever, or she picks him up, they have sex all weekend long, then he's done with her and she practically stalks him for days or weeks, desperately trying to build a greater relationship than he ever intended.

So here's the news flash everyone:

MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT..

Sheese, how did so much obvious common knowledge ever get lost?