Why Men Won't Commit: Men's Atitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage

(Preface and Explanation)A special essay on young, not-yet married men’s attitudes on the timing of marriage finds that men experience few social pressures to marry, gain many of the benefits of marriage by cohabiting with a romantic partner, and are ever more reluctant to commit to marriage in their early adult years.

Available evidence on marriage trends over the past four decades indicates that marriage has declined dramatically as a first living together experience for couples and as a status of parenthood. However, in recent years, there are signs that some marriage-weakening trends are slowing or in some cases leveling off.

Marriage has been much in the news lately, but we hear little about the actual state of marriage. How is marriage faring in American society today? Is it becoming stronger or weaker? Sicker or healthier? Better or worse?

Answers to these questions from official sources have been hard to come by. The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life, from what we eat to how many hours we commute each day. But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage. Indeed, the National Center for Health Statistics, the federal agency responsible for collecting marriage and divorce data from the states, has scaled back this activity. As a consequence, this important data source has deteriorated. Neither the Congress nor the President has ever convened a bipartisan commission or study group to investigate and report on the state of contemporary marriage. And no private agency, academic institution or private foundation has stepped forward to take on the task of monitoring the indices of marital health.

The neglect of marriage is all the more remarkable because mating and marrying behavior has changed dramatically in recent decades. Although some measures of these changes, such as the rise in unwed childbearing, have been duly noted, discussed and monitored, the state of marriage itself has been slighted. Why this is so remains a great puzzle. Marriage is a fundamental social institution. It is central to the nurture and raising of children. It is the "social glue" that reliably attaches fathers to children. It contributes to the physical, emotional and economic health of men, women and children, and thus to the nation as a whole. It is also one of the most highly prized of all human relationships and a central life goal of most Americans. Knowledge about marriage is especially important to the younger generation of men and women, who grew up in the midst of the divorce revolution in the 1970s and 1980s, and are now approaching their prime marrying years. Without some sense of how marriage is faring in America today, the portrait of the nation’s social health is incomplete.

The National Marriage Project seeks to fill in this missing feature in our portrait of the nation’s social health with The State of Our Unions. The report is divided into two sections. The first section is an essay in a continuing series devoted to exploring the attitudes toward mating and marrying among today’s not-yet-married young. The second section includes what we consider the most important annually or biennially updated indicators related to marriage, divorce, unmarried cohabitation, loss of child centeredness, fragile families with children and teen attitudes about marriage and family. For each area, a key finding is highlighted. These indicators are updated annually and provide opportunities for fresh appraisals each June.

We have used the latest and most reliable data available. We cover the period from 1960 to the present, so these data reflect historical trends over several decades. Most of the data come from the United States Bureau of the Census. All of the data were collected by long established and scientifically reputable institutions that rely on nationally representative samples.

The mating and marrying behavior of today’s young single men is a topic of growing interest in the popular culture and among young women. To a large degree, this popular interest reflects the delay in the age of first marriage. Both men and women are putting off marriage until older ages. The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in the nation’s history. (The median age for women stands at 25.) However, it is men more often than women who are accused of being "commitment phobic" and dragging their feet about marriage. Our investigation of male attitudes indicates that there is evidence to support this popular view.

The men in this study express a desire to marry and have children sometime in their lives, but they are in no hurry. They enjoy their single life and they experience few of the traditional pressures from church, employers or the society that once encouraged men to marry. Moreover, the sexual revolution and the trend toward cohabitation offer them some of the benefits of marriage without its obligations. If this trend continues, it will not be good news for the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility.

2. They can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying

For the past three years, as part of its Next Generation Program, The National Marriage Project has been conducting research into the attitudes toward dating, mate selection and marriage among young, unmarried adults. Last year, we reported on the results of a national survey of young men and women, ages 20 to 29. This year, we take a closer look at a select group of young, heterosexual, not-yet-married men.

As a first step toward understanding male attitudes about marriage and their timing of entry into first marriage, we conducted focus group discussions among not-yet-married heterosexual men in four major metropolitan areas: northern New Jersey, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Houston. The participants, sixty men in all, came from a variety of religious, ethnic and family backgrounds.

These men range in age from 25-33. The majority are employed full-time, with reported annual incomes between $21-$35,000 and above. Most have had some college or hold a baccalaureate degree or better. No one reports ever being married. Three of the men have a child.

This report highlights key findings from this preliminary study. These findings are impressionistic and exploratory but they provide valuable leads for further research into changing male patterns in the timing and commitment to marriage.

For the young men in these groups, the early adult years are a time of insecure job and residential attachment.

More than half report having changed jobs in the past five years, and twelve said they had been laid off or unemployed during that same time period.

Living arrangements also tend to be fluid and unstable. The men report a variety of living arrangements since leaving the parental home. It is common for a young man to shift from sharing an apartment with roommates to cohabiting with a girlfriend to moving back in with one or both parents and then, perhaps, leaving home and living on his own again. A couple of the men moved back home to help a parent who was sick or recently widowed, and at least one moved back into the parental home because his parents said they would "do everything" for him.

Compared to work or living situations, friendships tend to be a source of more secure and stable attachments. Many of the male participants say they hang out and socialize with friends they have known since their high school or college days. These friendship groups can be male-only or can include women friends as well. These groups go out to clubs, bars, sports events, or spend time together in private apartments.

Men say that they meet women in a variety of ways: through friends; at bars, clubs and Happy Hours; at work; and through casual encounters at the gym or the grocery store. When and where men meet women influences their expectations for a relationship. They view the women they meet in bars and dance clubs as casual sex partners rather than as "marriage material." According to the men, the common and mutual understanding between men and women is that bars are for sexual hookups. "When you meet a girl in a bar, they’re the worst . . . twenty different guys have hit on them already." Clearly, the amount of alcohol consumed is a factor, as is the time of day. For example, when men get together with women during the "happy hour," after work, they may be meeting in a bar, but they engage in a different kind of socializing. They are likely to be in the company of friends and to drink less. Consequently, a woman they meet in a bar after work might be someone they would be interested in for more than casual sex.

In general, a time and place that is conducive to a conversation with a woman is more likely to lead to something more than casual sex, they say. However, several men said that they felt awkward striking up a conversation with a woman. "It’s damn hard to get the courage to go up and talk to someone," one man admitted. Some say that it is easier to get to know a woman if they are introduced by friends. And they are also more likely to contemplate a serious romantic relationship with a woman they meet through mutual friends.

Men are generally opposed to having a romantic relationship with a woman who works in their place of employment. If you break up, they say, "she’s on the other side of the cubicle."

The Internet is an increasingly accepted and popular way to find romantic partners. Some men say that it is good way to generate a high number of prospective candidates. However, no one reported achieving a long-term relationship as the result of an Internet contact, and several commented that deception and misrepresentation were commonplace.

The men say that they rarely ask women out on a date. "That’s the old way," one man commented. "I’ll meet them and we’ll just hang out," one man said. Some contend that women don’t want to be asked out on a formal date because the women themselves are

not ready to be in a serious relationship. Generally, men hold the view that you should become friends and get to know each other by hanging out before you go out on a date.

Men are divided over the question of who should pay for a date. Most believe that men should pay if they are the ones who ask for the date. However, others think that it is acceptable to split the costs of a night out or let her pick up the check occasionally. "Why shouldn’t you both pay?" one man asked, "You both work." Another commented: "Sometimes a woman wants to pay, so she can feel a little independent."

Men expect the women they date to be economically independent and able to "take care of themselves." This represents a major change from earlier times. Moreover, this expectation figures in one of the most common dating complaints among these men. They resent being evaluated on the size of their wallet, their possessions or their earning potential. Therefore, they say, they are turned off by "golddiggers. " Likewise, they avoid "material girls," women who are into "the big house and car."

A woman who wants a baby is another dating turn-off for these men. They fear that she might use them to achieve her goal of having a child and even to "trick" them into fathering a child.

These men also say that they try to avoid going out with women who already have children. Some say they are uncomfortable in the presence of a woman’s children and not eager to be thrust into the role of a play "daddy." Moreover, they feel bad if they establish a relationship with the children and then break up with their mother. Finally, they want to avoid competition and conflict with the children’s biological father. One man says that it is easier to date a woman with children if the father is entirely "out of the picture."

Half of unmarried men, ages 20-29, agree that there are people with whom they would have sex even though they have no interest in marrying them, according to last year’s Gallup survey commissioned by The National Marriage Project. More than half of unmarried men, 20-29, agree that if two people really like each other, it’s all right to have sex even if they have known each other only for a short time. Although young men are more likely to hold these views than young women, there is widespread agreement about the prevalence of casual sex in today’s youthful dating culture. Among all young adults, 20-29, eight in ten agree that it is common for people in their age group to have sex just for fun without any expectation of commitment. This view is more strongly held by those with higher levels of educational attainment.

However, once they have casual sex, men say, they are less respectful and interested in pursuing a relationship with a woman. "If a girl wants it on the first night we go out, I definitely lose respect for her, ‘cause she’s probably doing it with someone else." They are more likely to "take it slow" sexually when they are romantically interested in a woman. Again, this is consistent with the Gallup survey. Seventy-four percent of single men agreed that if you meet someone with whom you think you could have a long-term relationship, you will try to postpone sex until you know each other. Apparently, "waiting" for sex typically means holding off until the fourth or fifth date, though one man said he waited seven months. At the same time, some men expressed the opinion that it was up to the woman to hold them in check. "We’ll always push for more," one said.

Men realize that casual sex places them at risk for STDS, including HIV, and also at risk for unplanned fatherhood. Their concern about "diseases" and pregnancy is further heightened because a significant number admit that they don’t use condoms every time they have sex.

For some, the risk of unwanted fatherhood arouses more worry than the risk of disease. With DNA testing, it is now possible to establish biological paternity beyond a reasonable doubt and thus to hold men legally responsible for the financial support of any child they father. These young men express concern of "spending my life connected to someone I’m not in love with." They worry that a woman who got pregnant after casual sex might deny them the opportunity to get to know and bond with a child whom they are nonetheless legally required to support. Moreover, they are concerned about the financial burden associated with unwed and unplanned fatherhood. "For eighteen years, it’s like $70,000 or $100,000 dollars," one man remarked. Their anxiety is greatest when it concerns the risk of pregnancy that might occur as the result of a one-night stand. As one man put it: "If it’s a girl I just met in a bar, I used to wake up in a cold sweat worrying about pregnancy."

Some men express resentment toward a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy or to have a child without any say-so from the biological father. There is also mistrust of women who may "trap" men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill and then to exploit his resources in order to have and rear a child "of her own."

At the same time, these men are generally accepting of the social trend of women having children "on their own." "I could deal with a woman using a sperm donor a lot better than I could deal with a messed up marriage," one man remarked.

Cohabitation is a common and popular form of romantic partnership for young adults today. Slightly more than 44 percent of single men, 20-29, agree with the statement that they would only marry someone if she agreed to live together first. Close to a third of the men in this study say that they have lived with someone in the past or are currently cohabiting with a girlfriend.

There are several reasons why men say that they choose to live with girlfriends. One is to test compatibility for marriage. They believe that living together is a good way to get to know a woman intimately, since "it’s the little things" that can wreck a marriage.

Another reason has to do with the convenience of having a regular sex partner. Living with a woman reduces the risks of sex with a stranger. Men believe that they can dispense with condoms if they are in a monogamous living together relationship. Moreover, they can avoid the time-consuming effort of searching for a sex partner when they have one living at home.

Also, there are economies of scale associated with shared living. One man commented on how helpful it was to have a girlfriend who could look after the house, pay the bills and take care of the dogs when his work took him away from home for extended periods of time. Several others noted that they were better able to save for the purchase of a house if they lived together. For some, this economy was associated with shared plans for future marriage, or at least, future joint home ownership. For others, buying a house was part of the try-out for marital compatibility. "If the house works out, then maybe we’ll talk marriage," one man said.

Moreover, for some men, cohabitation is desirable because they are less answerable to their partner. "We have an interesting relationship," said one cohabiting man. "I come and go as I please . . . as long as she understands, we’re together . . It’s the same as being married. We’re totally happy."

Finally, these men see living together as a way of avoiding an unhappy marriage and eventual divorce. This view is widely shared among people their age. Sixty-two percent of young adults agree that living with someone before marriage is a good way to avoid eventual divorce, according to last year’s Gallup survey for the National Marriage Project. "Everyone I know who’s gotten married quickly – and failed to live together [first] – has gotten divorced," one man said. Another commented: "It should be a law, you should move in together and have a one year trial period. Then you have to wait another year before you have kids."

Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will "take you for all you’ve got" and that "men have more to lose financially than women" from a divorce.

Several men expressed the opinion that there was little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment to marriage. According to them, marriage is "just a piece of paper," a "legal thing" that you do for family and friends. One observed that cohabitation was just like being married, so why go through the hassle of an expensive ceremony and legal contract? However, this was not the majority view. Most men put marriage on a higher plane of commitment than a living together partnership.

Most of the men in these groups want to marry at some future time in their lives. They expect their marriages to last a life time. Like the majority of young adults today, they are seeking a "soul mate." They envision a soul mate as a woman with whom "you are completely compatible right now," "someone you’re not putting on a show for," the one person you connect with. Notably, they emphasize a soul mate’s willingness to take them as they are and not try to change them.

Until they find a soul mate, however, they are willing to wait. They don’t want to "settle" for second best in their choice of a marriage partner, though they don’t have the same standards for a choice of a live-in girlfriend. Indeed, in some cases, they see her as a second best partner while they continue to look for a soul mate.

Men want to be financially "set" before they marry. For many men, this means owning a house before they marry. However, most of the men in these groups are not yet homeowners, and some are living with a parent, relatives, roommates, or girlfriends.

Most men had no ideal age or timetable for their own eventual marriage. They say: "I’ll know when I’m ready" and "Whatever happens, happens." One man referred jokingly to the Larry King syndrome: you can get married and have kids at any age.

A number of the men stated that having children was the main reason to marry. However, these men are in no great hurry to have children. Unlike women, they have no biological clock to impose a strict time limit on fertility. Several men expressed a desire to have children at a young enough age to enjoy them. As one put it, "I don’t want to be a grandfather to my kid." But for most of these men, having children was a remote life goal. At their age, they did not yet feel ready for the financial responsibilities or disruptions of a child. Some recognized that children would burden their relationship with their partner, and that the presence of children would require compromise and change. Notably, none of these men expressed a burning desire for children, a view that would likely have been different if the study participants had been childless unmarried women of similar age and background.

Today’s young men encounter few, if any, traditional pressures from religion, employers or society to marry. Some men in the group reported mild, teasing pressures from parents who wanted grandchildren, or from married buddies, but they shrugged this off. A few noted that they first began to think about marriage when their friends began to get married. However, since some of their friends’ marriages seemed ill-advised or doomed, they were not unduly influenced by peer pressure to marry either.

Men support the idea of women working outside the home. Indeed, most say that they expect their future wives to work for pay outside the home. Underlying this expectation is the idea that women should be independent-minded and pursue their own career interests. As one man explained: "I like the idea of marrying someone with drive. I would expect her to want her career just as bad as I want mine." However, most of the men describe the advantages of having a working wife in affective rather than strictly financial terms. That is, they think that a wife who works is likely to be a more interesting companion than one who isn’t employed. "She doesn’t have to have a big income, but a career, a life of her own" said one man. "She definitely has to work . . . or in the evenings, it’ll be a one-sided conversation," another observed.

When children come along, however, men think it is preferable for one parent to stay at home or for relatives or grandparents to provide childcare. The overwhelming consensus is that you don’t want to put your children in "stranger care." A number of men say that they will stay home with the children if their wife makes more money and prefers to be the primary breadwinner. However, the men who expressed interest in becoming stay-at-home dads tended to be less well educated and less well employed than other men in the group, so it may be that their relatively poorer employment prospects make the idea of staying at home with children attractive in theory. (However, it remains to be seen whether they would continue to hold this view if they actually had the responsibility of full-time house and childcare, or whether they would prove themselves to be competent primary caregiving parents.)

Like other young adults, these young men are highly critical of divorce. They think couples are too willing to call it quits without trying to work through difficulties in a marriage. As one observed: "One fight, and it’s like ‘I’m out of here.’" Some attribute the readiness to divorce as part of a societal trend toward narcissism, consumerism, and "too many choices." "You used to fall in love with the girl in your high school English class. Now you have more choices and you get married and then three years later, a better one comes along," commented one man. Others believe that both men and women are more independent and need each other less: "Now women are making as much as their husbands so they can say ‘see ya,’" one said. Finally, these men cite the legacy of parental divorce as a factor contributing to a persistently high divorce rate: "We figure ‘hey my parents got divorced, so we can get divorced.’" A couple of men expressed the opinion that living together before marriage lowers the level of commitment to marriage and thus contributes to a greater propensity to divorce, though this was a minority view.

However, despite the strong and pervasive criticism of divorce, the men generally feel that children are better off if their parents divorce rather than stick it out in an unhappy marriage. They concur that this is the better choice even if the couple does not fight but simply has "fallen out of love." They say that "children are smarter than you think and can pick up on parents’ unhappiness." Apparently they believe that a child’s intuition that parents may be "out of love" is more harmful than the actual experience of parental divorce. Clearly, these men consider and evaluate marriage as an intimate couple relationship rather than as a child-rearing partnership. Thus, the perceived quality of couple satisfaction is more important in deciding whether to stay in a marriage than any perceived harms to children that might come from parental divorce.

Overall, men are not optimistic about the future of marriage as a lifelong commitment. They are acutely aware of the risks of divorce. Although they hold out the hope that their generation will work harder at marriage than baby boomers, they say that they are already seeing the first wave of divorces among their friends and this shakes their confidence in the future. Also, they believe that adults continue to change and "grow" and this makes it much harder to stay married to one person for a lifetime. One man said that he thought a contemporary marriage partnership of equals is more difficult to achieve than the traditional marriage with strict gender roles.

As with the respondents in our earlier focus groups and surveys, these men do not believe that there is much that can be done to strengthen marriage on a society-wide basis. However, they do favor education on how to have and sustain successful relationships and marriages.

Men see marriage as a final step in a prolonged process of growing up. This trend has a positive side. Men who marry at older ages are likely to be more financially stable than men in their late teens and early twenties. Further, men who marry at an older age may have gone through a "wild oats" period and may be more dependable and mature husbands and fathers.

At the same time, there is a potentially negative side. Financial stability, often equated with owning a home, comes before marriage in their personal priorities. However, pegging the timing of marriage to mortgage rates may substantially delay marriage, especially in more difficult economic times. Further, a prolonged period of single life may habituate men to the single life. Some of these men have spent a good part of their early adult years living with parents, roommates or alone. They have become accustomed to their own space and routines. They enjoy the freedom of not having to be responsible to anyone else. Like Henry Higgins, they fear losing their solitary pleasures by "letting a woman in their life." More than a few men expressed resentment at women who try to change them. "Women look at men like computers; they always want to upgrade," one said. Some of the men describe marital compatibility as a matter of finding a woman who will "fit into their life." "If you are truly compatible, then you don’t have to change," one man commented. Another man, who was a member of a band, said that he was grateful that his live-in girlfriend didn’t give him a hard time about his late nights and the time he spent socializing with his bandmates after their gig.

In the past, of course, men might drag their feet about getting hitched, but there were pressures to wed. Marriage was associated with growing up and taking on male adult roles and responsibilities. Parents expected sons to leave and set up their own household. Now the pressures are mild to nonexistent. Boys can remain boys indefinitely.

In addition, some of the traditional community and family forces that might encourage single men to learn the habits of compromise, give-and-take, and fitting in with others are weakening as well. Young men today live in a peer world. Some have grown up with only one or no siblings. As young adults, they may have little experience or contact with children in a family household, something that was more common for unmarried young men in times past. Even meal times can be solitary.

Perhaps the most significant factor contributing to male delay of marriage is the rise of cohabitation. Men can get many of the benefits of marriage without the commitment to marriage, or, as they often point out, without exposure to the financial risks of divorce. Cohabitation gives men regular access to the domestic and sexual ministrations of a girlfriend while allowing them greater legal, social and psychological freedom to lead a more independent life and to continue to look around for a better partner.

The men realize that women face time pressures to marry and bear children. At the same time, however, they express little sympathy for women’s circumstances. Several men took the view that men had to be careful because women "want to get married just to have kids." Moreover, as noted above, there was strong sentiment that an unmarried woman who already had a child was less desirable as a date, and certainly less desirable as a prospective marriage partner.

The vast majority of young women today hope to marry and have a family. Men also share this aspiration for marriage and family. However, unlike women, they can postpone marriage for a longer time without losing the chance to have a biological child. Consequently, men’s reluctance to marry makes it harder for peer women who are in their prime marrying years to achieve their desired life goal. As one man put it, "That’s their issue."

Yep. I've been in financial services for about 4 years, ever since I got out of the Army. Every once in a while, I'll run across a "man" that says "I'll have to ask my wife, she does all the finances/makes the financial decisions." In every case, every one of these arrangements just seems creepy. Very weird. What kind of man lets his wife wear the pants?

Well I'd say one that's married to an accountant; though I don't agree that handling the family finances is synonymous with "wearing the pants."

In our house, my wife has a quaint way of putting it. "If I don't get to be the drama queen, nobody gets to be the drama queen...and I don't get to be the drama queen."

Guess who prevents her from becoming the drama queen.

As clear a statement of the dynamic as I've ever heard.

Thanks. Check out Nick Danger's posts on this thread (284 and 314) also, s'il vous plait.

I usually get taken to task for my claim that very little distinguishes pro-life women from pro-choice women aside from their position on abortion. I think you would understand what I mean.

Oh, yes, I understand what you mean 100%. They don't, which makes one wonder just how amazingly foggy their mirrors are. Then again, the fogginess of those mirrors explains a heck of a lot about history, and society, and male-female dynamics over time:

"Fog, meet laser beam. Venus, meet Mars. 2002, meet 1802."

Ah, the challenges ahead.

Now a lot of women like to proffer an illusion and say "Sure, in our family, the man is still the head of the household." However, so long as she has the power to throw him out, keep the house, and be awarded full custody of the kids---particularly that last---a man's status within the marriage is illusory.
Those who deny that fact are claiming to live in a vacuum. However, no one does live in a vacuum. For better or for worse, we all live in a society of laws which affect our transactions and interrelationships with one another.
For marriage to prosper, for the nuclear family, those laws have to change unambiguously. There is no other way.
Comments?

I think you stated the problem nuclear families face in today's society pretty well.
Society has reacted to the failed system of patriarchy. A system which failed due to the unfair, imbalance wihin the family due to the lack of giving the *one* status of equality that is necessary.

The equality of honor to both the female's role as well as the male's.

This failure will ALWAYS recur like a bad dream, no matter the system, because power is what it's all eventually seen to be about.

Now society has swung the power balance in the complete opposite direction. It is now the female who, to the greater extent, holds the power. Who "must be obeyed" or the system will come crashing down upon the hapless male.
This is simply a 360 degree turn.

Add to that the "me me me" mindset of today and you can bet that laws won't be changing soon, evolving perhaps, but no unambiguous changes.
We're seeing it already with the increase in pre-nuptial agreements.
If I were a guy you're darn right I'd have one signed! Cold - maybe so, but the girl has to understand it's the only course at present to obtain the legal natural balance a family needs for a stable environment. See it as, in itself, an act of love and commitment.

But it has to START with what you choose to term the "illusionary" statement that "in our family, the man is still the head of the household." Sorry, but it does. The woman has to be willing to be strong and not cave in to the goodies that the law would hand her. (Just as the man in previous system should have done.) At the moment, it IS about the individual's choices. To deny that is just as much living in a vacuum as the other.
Otherwise, you sit around and wait for society to find some new, inventive method of screwing things up.

I agree except the "the current network of laws" is patriarchal (or are unconstitutional). The fact is, they are not correctly applied. A father still has a natural right to guardianship. That cannot be legislated away, less we be deprived of our republican form of government. What has changed is the way custody disputes are brought before the courts. Fathers (by their attorneys) use to argue his fitness must be challenged before he is deprived of his right to parent. Now it is mearly assumed the children are wards of the state and the courts must evaluate the "relative" fitness between the father and mother, under probate laws. This is not so much a change in the law, as it is a change in perception (and a lawyer's intelligence).

The "parent and child" relationship is not the same as the "guardian and ward" relationship. It is the power of the state that allows interference with the parent and child relationship that is abused where there is no compelling reason established before the state "awards" custody (thereby depriving a father of his natural right).

The state's parens patriae power is limited and regulated as are all the powers of the state. Limitations here include abuse, neglect, and abandonment. Regulation includes the juvenile court act, and "best interest criteria" regarding wards of the state.

So sad but true - some of the brief essays on this thread need to be published for dissemination in the courts. Maybe the judges will wisen up a little. The laws are so divisive and destructive to men, women and children, and our entire society in general.

I think you may have missed the point that the industry is trying to make...the system screws people by design. It's part of their goal. In order for the industry to stay profitable, maintain, and create new jobs within it, the system MUST be adversarial. If there were no chance of distorted and biased outcomes favoring one side (Re: mothers), their "clients" would vanish. Divorce is about as fun as a root canal, and no one would go out of their way to initiate it if their wasn't an up-front assumption of who is going to come out ahead and who is going to get the sausage enima. They want us at each others throats...their jobs and financial security depend on it. I hope no one here actually thinks that this evil system and it's inner workings happened by accident, made by people who had good intentions "for the children." Anyone who does is too stupid to be allowed to vote, let alone make public policy. Am I being a little too harsh in my assessment of things? Probably, but it's high time that this industry and the people in it are called what they really are. There has been over 30 years of this nonsense and after that many years of destroying lives, the people who support the system know what the score is and like it this way. In fact I imagine most of them think that it will all be a lot more fair if they can stick it to the dad's a little more.

Ignorance is correctable, but stupid is forever. The useful idiots are running the asylum and taking the rest of us along for the ride.

I am particularly saddend by the cynicism displayed by many males here - and mostly deservedly so - because of the unfair laws. Guys - don't give up on love - it is too precious and wonderful - just be cautious.

Am I cynical? You're damn-skippy I am! In fact, I'll go so far as to proclaim myself as the founder of a new idiology that I'll call The New Cynicism. It's an edgier and more harsh version that the old cynicism that served us so well in the past. Some may call it paranoia, but that is not accurate. Paranoia is an irrational fear that the world is out to get you. But the view of the New Cynic is to accept that the world is out to get us, and as any 12 step program will tell you, "acceptance IS the key!"

All jesting aside, it take more intestinal fortitude than I have to not "give up on love." A greedy, marxist organization has taken the one relationship (the one of being a father to my daughter) in my life that ever meant anything to me are using to both her and my detriment. And to make it even offending, their using my money to do it to us! The divorce and support industry has done to this country in one generation what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and a host of others couldn't accomplish in a century.

A lot of people will dissagree with me on this, but the situation will not get better until it gets worse...a lot worse. There simply are not enough of us to force any poiltical change for the better. There are more women than men. Not all men marry or have children, and some who do are lucky enough to not be forced to go through the system. And of those who are put through the wringer, many of them have been brainwashed by the media to believe that their roll is to pay up and shut up. My guess is that we make up maybe 10% of the US population, not all of us vote, and we're spread across the entire country. We are spread so thin that we have not even been able to unseat a single one of the father-haters in the US house or Senate and the number of local elections, nationwide, that we have been able to effect in the past 20 years can probably be counted on one hand.

The "bad boy" essentially says to women "You're not so special. I don't need to get down on my knees to you, because I can replace you with someone even better in a minute, if I decide to exert the energy". This hits women right in the ego, and forces many to think "Oh yeah?

Well...you do have to admit that a lot of men DID trade in after 25 years. That's really where the tactics started. I know a lot of women who's husbands walked out on them to "put some glitter" in their lives. In fact, I think I know more women in this situation than men who married trashy women who threw them out. It all depends on who your friends are in the situation.

But, really, some of us get enough grief at work, etc., to just want someone who will listen and not judge when we get home. Someone who would never ask us to give up hobbies or passtimes simply because that means we're not paying attention to them. There are things in my life I will NEVER give up. Music, gardening, dogs. The promonence might change, but I've worked too long and hard at it to give it up.

To have judges follow what you say, you would need to bring a court case seeking to affirm that principle, . .

Or make it the only issue to appeal. I don't expect it would be decided be our state supreme court, but it raises an issue of due process for the federal courts. I have been principally engaged in child support issues and litigation involving a little known family protection provision in the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301(d)). A few here have raised the fathers natural right to guardianship argument in various pleadings, but we have not yet made a focussed argument. It would be best to find someone who has just been served a petition for divorce to challenge the courts taking jurisdiction of a custody issue without a parental fitness hearing and decision. That could tie up everything, or give pause for the petitioner's reconsideration, which is the whole point.

I have a great deal of research done on older decisions that affirmed this position, and the history of decisions that gradually made it look like the "best interest" review was required (under probate authority) rather than "grave and weighty" reasons for interfering with a father's natural rights. The cases cited became those that found the father's unfitness, or some danger to the child were it to be left in his care. The rest seems to be due to uneducated lawyers, or an intentional perversion of the process.

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.