Girlfriend Wants to Get Married, Dilemma

Off Topic
241

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I think you were right, Jackie. Women who agree to do everything that marriage promises leave no psychological incentive for a man to commit to her thereafter, particularly given the spectacularly bad deal men get relative to women. [/quote]

You mean aside from the incentive of being in love and wanting to spend the rest of our lives together? Because I didn’t marry my wife in the hope that she would have sex with me or do my laundry. I can do both of those on my own quite well. I married her because I love her.

It’s really, really simple. If you love the other person and want to spend the rest of your lives together then get married. If you want to have sex or get your laundry done then hire a maid and find people to have sex with. It’s a lot cheaper and a lot less work.

james
[/quote]

Why did you move in with her beforehand?

242

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why did you move in with her beforehand? [/quote]

Because we discussed our future together and both had visions of us getting married. I was over at her place all the time anyway so it didn’t make sense for her to have a mortgage and me to have rent when my place was largely uninhabited. But we fully discussed the probability of marriage prior to me moving in.

james

243

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why did you move in with her beforehand? [/quote]

Because we discussed our future together and both had visions of us getting married. I was over at her place all the time anyway so it didn’t make sense for her to have a mortgage and me to have rent when my place was largely uninhabited. But we fully discussed the probability of marriage prior to me moving in.

james
[/quote]

Why didn’t you just get married?

244

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If more women would hold certain things as sacred, if nothing else not live together before matrimony, it would go a long way toward creating a more sound, lasting bond between her and her man after they finally did marry. [/quote]

There are divorces that could have been prevented had a couple moved in together beforehand. Two people who have no business getting married may not figure that out without living together first.

245

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
Just a random thought after reading this thread – It seems that an abundance of modern women are not familiar with the phrase Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free. They rush into playing house to show their love interest what a great catch they are and, in turn, take away the man’s incentive to make a commitment. [/quote]

Really?

I think people should get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives together and want to formalize the commitment to do so. That’s it. All of this other stuff is game playing. I believe it makes tremendous sense to live together before marriage. Put all the cards on the table and decide whether it’s appealing. Because marriage takes a lot of work and compromise and willingness to wade through periods of shit. And if the courtship never gets beyond the game (which, of course, there is game playing on both sides to some degree), there will be some sore disappointments.

BTW, I’ve been married 24+ years. Lived with my husband before marriage. And the idea to get married was 100% his idea.

[/quote]

Really.

Congratulations on your 24 year together. That’s pretty awesome.

The type of women that I’m talking about are the ones that put out on the first date and they cry to their friends about “Why won’t he call me back?”. Or the ones that take it upon themselves to do their boyfriends laundry, clean his apartment and other “wife” duties and then cry to anyone who will listen about everything they did for him and then he had the nerve to leave her. IMO this type of behavior doesn’t garner many wedding proposals. If another woman is happy with that then fine, I don’t judge. I just don’t like it when I am put in the position to hear all of that drama. I don’t do drama.

[/quote]

I think you were right, Jackie. Women who agree to do everything that marriage promises leave no psychological incentive for a man to commit to her thereafter, particularly given the spectacularly bad deal men get relative to women.

I’m glad that kpsnap had a good, lasting marriage despite having done that, but that does not mean that it is logically sound behavior or even good advice. The most important part of marriage is that it is (supposed to be) permanent. The permanence of that bond is meant to act as a bulwark against caprice and to ensure fidelity, stability and respect. But what incentive is left to live commit yourself to ONE female, for the rest of your life, and if you change your mind she gets half your stuff and if you have kids a paycheck for up to 18 years thereafter? You had it exactly right. If more women would hold certain things as sacred, if nothing else not live together before matrimony, it would go a long way toward creating a more sound, lasting bond between her and her man after they finally did marry.

I mean, that is how it used to be done, for the most part. And we didn’t have nearly so many problems with the institution as we do now. [/quote]

Absolutely my sentiments although you say it with more eloquence. Marriage and its privileges are most sacred and it’s sad that the majority of people now don’t see it that way.

246

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
The type of women that I’m talking about are the ones that put out on the first date [/quote]

My wife and I had sex on our first date. What’s the problem with that? It sounds (even though you probably don’t mean it that way) like you’re using the promise of sex as a lure. My wife and I were attracted to each other, enjoy sex, and are adults. Neither of us saw any reason to wait. And we didn’t go into the relationship thinking that it would ultimately lead to marriage. We simply went on a date with no expectations. I didn’t (and don’t) think any less of her because of what we did and I wouldn’t have thought any more of her if we didn’t. I think that’s what being an adult is all about. But your mileage may vary.

james
[/quote]

That was a part of my post. You left out the part about the woman that put out and can’t figure out why the guy didn’t call her back. I am sure there are some that have sex on the first date and end up married but probably not the majority. I’m speaking of people that are giving too much of themselves and then feel cheated that they didn’t get what they feel they should have in return. There are always the exceptions.

247

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If more women would hold certain things as sacred, if nothing else not live together before matrimony, it would go a long way toward creating a more sound, lasting bond between her and her man after they finally did marry. [/quote]

There are divorces that could have been prevented had a couple moved in together beforehand. Two people who have no business getting married may not figure that out without living together first.[/quote]

But on the whole, the hypothesis that people should “try” marriage on before getting married doesn’t hold up.

Sure, I understand there are a ton of different factors involved, but on the whole, over the past 40 or 50 years, we’ve seen a steady increase in both promiscuous behavior and couples deciding to move in together at the slightest indication their relationship will last beyond its initial one night stand. No, correlation is not causation, but I find it quite the coinky-dink that it just so happens that in that same time, divorce rates have been in a flaming tailspin with no indication in sight that the pilots will be able to pull the nose up and get control.

248

[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
There are always the exceptions.[/quote]

One of the most annoying things about posting on PWI is the near constant need to repeat this phrase. I see things aren’t that much different in the other forums. I always naively think my inclusion of words like “generally,” “usually,” typically," and related phrases will be clear enough without my having to repeatedly defend myself against outlier examples and situations I was not suggesting.

249

And while I’m being sidetracked, let me say that also included in my original statement was the idea that a man who already lives with a woman and receives all the benefits of marriage without all the potential legal repercussions that will come into effect should he choose to marry her, no longer has any tangible incentive to marry outside of “love.” And if it is love, then it will be there whether or not they marry, so, again, someone please explain to me the difference.

This is more relative to the discussion at hand, so please forget my earlier focus upon divorce for the time being, unless someone else is interested in discussing that.

250

Wow way to overcomplicate things. For the record I slept with my guy on day one and here we are almost 20 years later. He’s European though so maybe that makes it different… Or maybe all this gaming nonsense is for fools destined to fail anyhow.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how holding out on sex that I want to gain power is anything more that setting myself and my guy up for a life of deception and bullshit.

Also, if there are enough exceptions, your rules are useless.

251

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If more women would hold certain things as sacred, if nothing else not live together before matrimony, it would go a long way toward creating a more sound, lasting bond between her and her man after they finally did marry. [/quote]

There are divorces that could have been prevented had a couple moved in together beforehand. Two people who have no business getting married may not figure that out without living together first.[/quote]

But on the whole, the hypothesis that people should “try” marriage on before getting married doesn’t hold up.

Sure, I understand there are a ton of different factors involved, but on the whole, over the past 40 or 50 years, we’ve seen a steady increase in both promiscuous behavior and couples deciding to move in together at the slightest indication their relationship will last beyond its initial one night stand. No, correlation is not causation, but I find it quite the coinky-dink that it just so happens that in that same time, divorce rates have been in a flaming tailspin with no indication in sight that the pilots will be able to pull the nose up and get control. [/quote]

I don’t know why an increase in divorce is immediately considered a bad thing. Many people make mistakes and are with the wrong people. Or one person changes but the other doesn’t. They should get divorced and find someone they are going be happy with.

252

[quote]debraD wrote:
Wow way to overcomplicate things. For the record I slept with my guy on day one and here we are almost 20 years later. He’s European though so maybe that makes it different… Or maybe all this gaming nonsense is for fools destined to fail anyhow.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how holding out on sex that I want to gain power is anything more that setting myself and my guy up for a life of deception and bullshit.

Also, if there are enough exceptions, your rules are useless.[/quote]

What if he hit your attraction triggers hard and never slipped.

Then you are not the exception, your experience is perfectly predictable if certain conditions are met.

You have this odd notion of taking someones elses paradigm, filtering it through yours and call it lacking.

Maybe your filters are lacking, because if he hit the sweet spot, I am not surprised at all.

253

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
Wow way to overcomplicate things. For the record I slept with my guy on day one and here we are almost 20 years later. He’s European though so maybe that makes it different… Or maybe all this gaming nonsense is for fools destined to fail anyhow.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how holding out on sex that I want to gain power is anything more that setting myself and my guy up for a life of deception and bullshit.

Also, if there are enough exceptions, your rules are useless.[/quote]

What if he hit your attraction triggers hard and never slipped.

Then you are not the exception, your experience is perfectly predictable if certain conditions are met.

You have this odd notion of taking someones elses paradigm, filtering it through yours and call it lacking.

Maybe your filters are lacking, because if he hit the sweet spot, I am not surprised at all.

[/quote]

Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t…that’s not my point. My point is that withholding sex to make myself more attractive for long term mate is moronic. The only time that would be effective strategy is if I’m with a scheming gaming douchebag with old fashioned misogynistic tendencies whom I should be looking to eliminate from my life, not try to get to propose lol.

Again this is over complicating things. He was attractive to me, I was attractive to him, so we humped and became best friends and stuck together. “hit my attraction triggers…” sorry but LOL you can rename human nature and sexual attraction as many times as you like that doesn’t make it a strategy that you suddenly have control over or a formula for success. Or you wouldn’t be here telling us how much women suck but you have them figured, because you’d be curled up with one instead.

254

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And while I’m being sidetracked, let me say that also included in my original statement was the idea that a man who already lives with a woman and receives all the benefits of marriage without all the potential legal repercussions that will come into effect should he choose to marry her, no longer has any tangible incentive to marry outside of “love.” And if it is love, then it will be there whether or not they marry, so, again, someone please explain to me the difference.

This is more relative to the discussion at hand, so please forget my earlier focus upon divorce for the time being, unless someone else is interested in discussing that. [/quote]

You seem to be neglecting half of the picture here. Yes, a man who already lives with a woman can receive the benefits of the marriage… but also the drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks simply don’t show up until you cohabitate.

When my ex and I moved here, we moved to the same apartment complex, but kept separate apartments. We knew things worked very well on an intermittent basis – it was a distance relationship for a couple years where we saw each other every weekend – but we didn’t know how it would work on an everyday basis. With our apartments in the same complex, it gave us a chance to truly see what it would be like, but with the ability to separate gracefully if it didn’t work.

While for the most part it appeared to work on the surface, certain fundamentals between us came to light over time. And ultimately, we decided it really wasn’t going to work and ended things.

But I’m 99% sure we wouldn’t have known that if we hadn’t spent a good 2 years cohabitating and trying to make it work. In fact, if it were purely due to “love”, we’d still be together. We ended it because the other stuff just wasn’t working.

255

Where’s the OP? What happened when he talked to her?

256

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
Where’s the OP? What happened when he talked to her?[/quote]

The middle of page three. But it ended on a cliffhanger.

257

[quote]Cortes wrote:
The most important part of marriage is that it is (supposed to be) permanent. The permanence of that bond is meant to act as a bulwark against caprice and to ensure fidelity, stability and respect. [/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly. But I believe it makes sense to have as much information about and experience with a potential partner before making that commitment. Knowing whether you are sexually compatible and enjoy each other’s company day in and day out are huge factors. Leaving those to the unknown until after the marriage vows are taken seems like an egregious oversight to me.

259

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If more women would hold certain things as sacred, if nothing else not live together before matrimony, it would go a long way toward creating a more sound, lasting bond between her and her man after they finally did marry. [/quote]

There are divorces that could have been prevented had a couple moved in together beforehand. Two people who have no business getting married may not figure that out without living together first.[/quote]

But on the whole, the hypothesis that people should “try” marriage on before getting married doesn’t hold up.

Sure, I understand there are a ton of different factors involved, but on the whole, over the past 40 or 50 years, we’ve seen a steady increase in both promiscuous behavior and couples deciding to move in together at the slightest indication their relationship will last beyond its initial one night stand. No, correlation is not causation, but I find it quite the coinky-dink that it just so happens that in that same time, divorce rates have been in a flaming tailspin with no indication in sight that the pilots will be able to pull the nose up and get control. [/quote]

I don’t know why an increase in divorce is immediately considered a bad thing. Many people make mistakes and are with the wrong people. Or one person changes but the other doesn’t. They should get divorced and find someone they are going be happy with.[/quote]

I’m old fashioned. I have this weird notion that intact families raising their own children to adulthood contributes to the overall health and stability of society.

I know, the stuffy, old, smells of mothballs.

260

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And while I’m being sidetracked, let me say that also included in my original statement was the idea that a man who already lives with a woman and receives all the benefits of marriage without all the potential legal repercussions that will come into effect should he choose to marry her, no longer has any tangible incentive to marry outside of “love.” And if it is love, then it will be there whether or not they marry, so, again, someone please explain to me the difference.

This is more relative to the discussion at hand, so please forget my earlier focus upon divorce for the time being, unless someone else is interested in discussing that. [/quote]

You seem to be neglecting half of the picture here. Yes, a man who already lives with a woman can receive the benefits of the marriage… but also the drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks simply don’t show up until you cohabitate.
[/quote]

Actually, this is my point.

A guy gets all the benefits, and he also gets the reality, warts and all, of who he is contemplating pledging his loyalty and monogamy to for the rest of his life.

Think about that for a minute.

Think about the oft repeated phrase “No matter how hot she is, somebody, somewhere is sick of her bullshit.”

Think about how the entire PUA psychological structure rests on a bedrock of the eternal human truth of the scarcity principle.

Again, I’m not talking about individual cases here. I’m talking about entire populations putting into practice certain behaviors over the long term. If women wanted men to really want them, they’d do what they used to do: Make them wait. For everything.

This is how things used to be done, and it worked pretty damned well. There were plenty of couples who were “incompatible” by today’s standards that found a way to somehow get along with each other and raise families and live and grow and die and have paired headstones and the one even felt lonely after the other had died. True story. After the binding, socially supported entrance into the contract of marriage, with divorce discouraged by public shame as well as far more legal hurdles, people somehow managed to make certain ego-shattering sacrifices for the good of the family and make things work. The idea of bailing out of the marriage at the first missed orgasm was not even an option in anyone’s mind.

I want someone who advocates living with their partner in full sexual union prior to matrimony to explain to me what the purpose of marriage is. Please.