The scoreboard only works so long as you treat it like it means something.
If you’re playing soccer against someone who is playing score, and you’re not - you don’t really care who “wins”, because you’re just having fun playing the game.
Eventually, the other person will drop it - but you have to stick to the script.
Fogging is a pretty amazing skill.
“I can understand why you feel that way, that must have been tough.”
What if, hypothetically, you somehow get in some kind of accident and lose the use of your body and/or mind, so your wife becomes the one working to provide. And I assume she, like almost all mothers, would be willing to die for your daughter, if not also you. Does she get a veto then?
Does she get one now?
Well, tbh I think I’d rather be dead so it wouldn’t matter. But yeah, sure.
No. Not to say that her opinions don’t matter, but I hold literally all the responsibility in the house, so I also hold the ultimate say-so. I believe it works better this way too.
Oy. Kind of wondering…does she ever tearfully threaten to get a job?
This is a slippery slope. First, I agree that marriage as an institution is a little silly. It’s a) a religious practice, which is fine and one’s prerogative to participate in and b) a taxable event.
However, commitment is the real value of marriage.
Creating a renewable subscription model weakens the impact of commitment. It allows room in the mind to leave essentially for any reason, which negates the point. Life is tough. For most of us born without trust funds and family prestige, it’s something you have to “win”, and like anything that effort can be a struggle, especially initially as you build momentum.
A relatively casual view of commitment negates the teamwork of building and winning together through the hard times as you work to elevate the good ones.
I see it loosely as a sports team. Imagine if people just up and left mid-game because they were down a few points at half time, or on a timeout and the stress didn’t feel nice at the moment. The whole thing would be a sad joke.
Read The Rational Male. I’m not 100% sold on what Rollo is preaching, but his theory is pretty interesting.
La’
You like all things productive. Did you ever look into what the social and economic consequences of scrapping enforced monogamous marriage (which is what we’re doing now)? You can look into it.
I’ve posted this three times already. “Getting rid of it” refers to tenure and the expectation to stick it out despite serious changes…… not marriage as a whole ……
I think this is a good analogy. Players are on contract but contract is not gaurenteed renewal unless they perform. Sports teams don’t hold onto players indefinitely “for better or worse”
Obviously, “performance” would have to be defined in a relationship context and idk how
It’s a loose analogy and can go a few directions for sure, but in contract a certain level of commitment is expected, and this commitment to “team”, practicing, training, playing, improving together through wins and losses is what holds everything together. This view is marriage. Legal contract or not.
Marriage certainly isn’t for everyone, however, and casual or even mutually useful relationships can hold value, as long as both partners are aware of the sentiment. I think you have to be comfortable in a coexisting situation without much buy-in here though.
I would imagine for a man to remain desirable on a renewable basis would likely have to age well, build solid financial stability, create a sense of security in general. Men truly don’t need women, even in our DEI time. And conversely to some of the chats here, we aren’t groveling desperately to be allowed to have some female attention.
As a man ages, assuming he takes care of himself, he becomes more appealing on almost all accounts, assuming he’s living his life well. Women get fat and ugly and traditionally don’t provide over and above what a man can do for himself and would lose appeal over time.
So as an aside, I think your scenario would actually favor men, but would still undercut the whole point of a committed relationship.
I think love is also a factor. Undefinable, but everyone who has legitimately experienced it knows what it is. Love begets commitment, contract or not and transaction will take a backseat naturally in its presence.
Anecdotally, I feel like I’m a handsome guy. In shape, white collar look with a short and manicured salt&pepper beard, over 6ft tall, not in the upper crust of wealth but I could certainly change lives et cetera. I could find another woman pretty easily when we are arguing, on a different level, encountering a frustrating situation and on and on but I love my wife and I don’t want to. Our marriage is simply an outward sign of that, but our relationship would exist without participation in the ritual.
I’ve had situationally convenient relationships, and they are fun. They can be fulfilling in their time, but they are not the same thing and a discussion trying to marry the two is an apples and oranges endeavor.
I agree this should be the case in marriage too. Getting rid of “for better or worse” doesn’t mean no commitment. It means voiding the contract IF the partner isn’t holding up their end. Not being committed is a valid form of “not holding up their end”
Agree
I don’t disagree actually. I’m not some DEI advocate and I will likely never be married bc I am a strictly dominated option for any man that fulfills my requirements
I’m more interested in econ modelling and incentive design. Emotions are hard and messy
Yes, you choose. But how does it make sense that you should have more loyalty to someone you didn’t choose than someone you did? The fact that you chose your wife should be an additional reason that you are morally committed.
It means no love.
Yes, I have a veto at times, too. I think you can appreciate the difference between winning a vote and using a veto.
This is what divorce is. It’s more formal than just leaving, but it also makes you consider commitment level both during your relationship and prior to making a marriage level commitment. While I do believe healthy relationships and lifelong partnerships can exist outside legal definitions of marriage, I believe there is value in tangible loss of broken commitment outside of the end of a relationship itself, too. It certainly keeps emotionally driven impulsivity down, and adds weight to decision.
Can you elaborate on Econ modeling and incentive design within a relationship? Topically, men lose out on Econ modeling and incentives to sacrifice will fade in time, leaving him ready to trade in for the new model.
I’m curious to hear your application and perception on the matter.
Well, well, well. We see something through the same lense.
This is why I don’t think asking about someone’s past is a good thing. You fall in love with the person in front of you.
You mentioned that early in the other thread, and I agree. Body count doesn’t matter.
I’ll have to dig through my collection
The theory papers don’t really specify gender. It’s more about designing a contract or a system that results in stable matches
Regarding the “no love” part, I agree. love is something I will never understand. Marriage is about resource consolidation and offspring production
I’m interested to hear more. It appears I’m building a reading list.
And I’m sure you know yourself. If you’re not capable of feeling or expressing love, a love based commitment will not make sense.
FTR, I think it’s smart to live with yourself instead of forcing a norm, and if transaction based interaction fits, wear the shoe.