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

National Marriage Project (Rutgers University) ^ | 2002 | Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe

[right2parent]

Yep. Men can achieve their primary objective without marriage. How stupid can women be?

You might be talking about sex. A real man's primary objective is a stable family life. Smart women use to be able to offer this in exchange for her sexual regulation. I'm affraid this offer is no longer available. Where are the men? In the bars.

[Woahhs]

In all of this, I see a definite lack of trust on both sides. A lack with good reason.

Now if we could only get both sides to believe it.

[stainlessbanner]

Another reason might be that the two words "I do" is the longest sentence known to man.

And the world's smallest handcuff fits around your left ring finger!

[Woahhs]

Encodes an attitude human relationships and an shallowness. There is an emphasis on sexual satisfaction here. A developed relationships between a man and woman is more than that.

True enough, but barring physical infirmity, it shouldn't include less. The experience of many married men is "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch your's when I feel like it."

[Woahhs]

My question is; why is it always the male who has to change?

Because in most cases women possess stronger verbal skills than men, and so get to set the terms of the debate.

As an example; how many men would pick up on the intrinsic duplicity of a woman that holds him responsible for his bad behavior, yet simultaniously predicates her bad behavior as a response to him?

[Woahhs]

When I told her, I was not interested because she had a kid, she said I was being selfish. No I just did not want someone else's mistake even if it meant not pursuing what seemed like an otherwise nice woman. She was polite but obviously upset at my opinion. My long time freind knew my opinion but his girlfreind assumed the nice lady's personality would have won me over.

Isn't it interesting that you were negatively catagorized when you wouldn't follow the girlfriend's program? She could have learned much if she had observed the dynamic instead of attempting to manipulate it.

[Woahhs]

I don't hate or fear men. I'm a cautious-realist! :)

said in the same tone as "I'm not a perfectionist; I just want it done right."

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

I'm a little confused about the fun, exciting bachelor life these researchers refer to. Many of my single male friends find that most evenings they're cozying up to the TV with a can of tuna for dinner and a bottle of Jack Daniels to wash it down.

And they are thanking their lucky stars they don't have a wife bitchin' at them, or alimony payments. :)

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

Marriage is a 50/50 proposition for a man: 50% chance you lose 50% of your stuff, minus lawyer's fees of course.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! The precise moment in time that a man gets married, he is potentially gambling away 50% of his earthly possessions, with 50-50 odds. A flip of a coin, and it all disappears. What guy in his right mind would take a proposition like that?

[hinckley buzzard]

It would be even more interesting if the "researchers" were able to identify one significant reason why the average American man should "commit" to the average American woman in 2002.

Maybe the whole issue boils down to this:
For the man, marriage has multiple, severe downside risks, with few if any reliable benefits, and men are not so stupid they cannot discern this;

Second, men are not so dependent and irrational as they were in past generations, as to go off the deep end in late adolescence, with their whole adult life at stake.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

Everybody should read Post # 96.

You, sir, did an amazing job with your post. I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

And these guys never talk about the men who leave their loyal, loving wives for the young honey. I wonder if it's ok to accept half the man's money if that's the case.

Nope, it's still not OK. It will never be OK.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

Though I wouldn't mind getting married, I've found it to be the easiest way for golddiggers to make a living. If I wanted to pay someone's way through life, I'd start a business or fund some one in need who's deserving. And women today (even a lot of the churchified ones) care more about money and looks than about anything else, so... LOL

DING DING DING!! We have another winner, folks. I just can't imagine getting my ass out of bed every day, working all day, while I have wifey at home, watching TV, gabbin' on the phone, shopping, etc etc ETC ETC, basially living the Life of Riley with no responsibilities, no worries, NOTHING. Call me selfish.

[Nick Danger]

Maybe the whole issue boils down to this: For the man, marriage has multiple, severe downside risks, with few if any reliable benefits, and men are not so stupid they cannot discern this;

But if you couldn't get laid, you'd sign up for it anyway, right?

I mean, that's the premise of the "Why buy the cow?" crowd... that marriage has always been a horrible deal for men, but they'll do it anyway if that's what it takes to get laid on a regular basis.

Personally, I find that whole argument ludicrous, but I guess there are people who believe it because it always shows up in these threads.

But as I look over the responses in this thread, I don't see any from men who claim to have gotten married so they could get laid, and I don't see even a mention of sex in any response where the poster tried to be serious or thoughtful. If anything, the most common sentiment seemed be a lament that truly committed relationships no longer exist for men... the financial incentives held out there by government and the legal system practically scream "divorce him!" to the women, and as young men look around, they see exactly that happening to their friends... with horrible results.

My hunch is that the "top ten list" in the seed article contains a fair amount of glib nonsense offered up by research subjects who wanted to collect their twenty bucks and leave.

Why aren't you considering marriage?
Because I can get laid without it.

That's a glib answer. It's not serious. There are serious answers right here on this thread, and not one of them sounds like that. But put on a white coat and grab a clipboard, and run around asking these same guys why they won't get married, and you'll probably get the same glib answer. They're not answering you, they're just getting rid of you.

Nobody seems to want to believe that the consequences of divorce have become so onerous for men that marriage itself has become, on balance, an unattractive proposition. If it worked as advertised, most men would be for it. But we all know now that it doesn't. Every man has friends who got absolutely screwed by the divorce system, and they know exactly what these men did to "deserve" it... usually nothing. One can only see that happen so many times before concluding that entering a marriage is not a wise move.

Could it work? Sure. Apparently it works about half the time. There's always some guy who pops into these threads to announce that he's been happily married for lo these many years, and it's great. Well, lucky him.

But that's what it's come down to: luck. Nobody has the slightest idea how to predict in advance which women will wake up on their 32nd birthday and turn into Hell on wheels with a divorce lawyer. It really is like Russian Roulette... spin the chamber, put the gun to your head, and pray.

Most people think that playing Russian Roulette is a pretty dumb move. Not many men would do it, even to get laid.

[Timm]

Thanks.

M.Peach: your story is sad, and eye-opening. Thanks for posting it.

[M. Peach]

Nick - I've really enjoyed reading your insightful and humorous posts through the years - I feel like I know you although we've never met -

Although you've concisely summarized this thread, you didn't mention your experience in this arena, and how you've arrived at your conclusions. I'm an eternal optimist, and I love romance and sex too much to ever give it up, but I'm sure going to be a lot wiser in the future.

You're right - the divorce laws in this country (especially California) are absurdly unfair, and sadly make it too easy and profitable for many women to try harder to make it work.

Of course there are many male jerks out there that aren't worthy of good women as I'm sure there are two sides to the coin.

See ya' around....

[dcwusmc]

Bump to read later

[ican'tbelieveit]

AMEN

[Utilizer]

"Also men risk the stigma of being labled a molester, and NEVER SEEING THEIR CHILDREN AGAIN, if the marrage goes south. Which is what happened to a prominant judge here a few years back"

You know, some years back it was recommended that I spend some of My free time in 'FAMILY COURT', since I was dealing with a volatile relationship at the time, where a child was involved. What I observed was fascinating.

The women involved would INVARIABLY cite the reasons that the male involved not be allowed to see the child / children as;

1. He Was (is) Violent.

2. He Was (is) Abusive.

3. He Was (is) An Alchoholic.

4. He Molested Him / Her / Them.

By far the majority of the time, these accusations were delivered in the exact same order by the parade of women marching through that Courtroom. After speaking with an attorney friend of Mine (please do not hold it against Me, he really is a good sort otherwise) who worked in that area, he simply laughed and informed Me that they were instructed by their (the women's) attorneys that if they made those accusations they stood the best chance of winning their case. That, and the last accusation guaranteed -with vanishingly few cases otherwise- that they would be awarded custody, since that particular accusation is almost impossible to disprove and the judge always deems it safer to award custody to the mother than take the chance otherwise.

After one particular session, the Courtroom recessed for lunch and I overheard a woman in the waiting area tell her attorney that she had fabricated all the statements she had just made to the Judge because she 'just wanted him outta there'. I initially assumed that this was one of the better attorneys who had not instructed thia woman in the normal method of presenting her case, and would take pains to correct an outright fabrication to the Judge. More the fool I.

The attorney merely informed her that she was not supposed to make misleading or incorrect statements in Court. Nothing else. She certainly did not make mention that she was obligated to inform the Judge of the truth of the matter, as per any oaths.

I went home in disgust.

[Utilizer]

"I wouldn't ask a question like, "Should a man's first obligation be to his job or to his wife?"

It is not the same thing. The point/question was not 'should a man's first obligation be to his job or to his wife?'. It was that a mother's first priority was to her children, before her husband. A job had nothing to do with it.