[quote]tsantos wrote:
Surprisingly hard to find but I was more after the tnation view of such things.
[/quote]
well, I for one think it is very telling of a woman’s character if she elects to slaughter her unborn child instead of taking responsibility for her actions (and wanting the taxpayer to cover the cost).
it’s also very telling of the society we live in… not only is this atrocious behavior considered acceptable, but the men have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.
-she wants to keep the child and he doesn’t? she keeps the child, and he is on the hook for child support.
-he wants to keep the child and she doesn’t? child is slaughtered and remains are disposed of.
but that’s just me.
God bless America [/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, however would point out that men are every bit as likely as women to opt for the “slaughter” of their unborn children. I can’t begin to hazard a guess as to how many abortions or not-abortions occur against the wishes of one partner or another (noting that yes, women have final say, but they are routinely pressured to act against wishes) but I can say with some certainty that the vast majority of abortions are mutually decided within the context of an ongoing relationship of some sort.
So figure out wherein lie your outrage - if you are anti-abortion, then fine, be so. But as another imagined indicator of female sociopathy it fails.
[quote]comus3 wrote:
What if you get married and your wife is completely game and lady like and it’s all good. But she gets cancer and you spend all your money on her treatment. Is that a different risk and different judgment than if she divorced you?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
Orion serious question. Do you have a best friend? I mean a guy that you trust with your life and will help you bury the body? Guy that is going to be sitting next to you in jail after a night bar hopping? [/quote]
yes[/quote]
Cool, so imagine that times a 1000 if you find somebody you want to share your life with. Not talking about puppy dog I want to bone the chick type of relationship. [/quote]
Saw this today and thought of your post, Derek. It reminds me of the cruise video of your wife dancing - just joyous and clean. I think this is why men get married these days. So they can have more joy.
“The researchers conclude that friendship between the couple could help explain the apparent causal relationship between marriage and happiness. Using the British Household Panel Survey, they found that for people who say their partner is their best friend, the well-being effects of marriage are doubled, even when controlling for factors like age, gender, income, health, and premarriage life satisfaction. Interestingly, this happiness bump seems to also occur for those who are not married but are living together. As we’ve written about before, maybe the key to a good relationship is not to search for your soul mate, but your best pal.”
I realize the thread has veered somewhat away from the original question, but I’d like to submit that there is a rather simple answer.
If a man wants to raise his children, it makes good sense to get married. The obligations of marriage do not significantly exceed the obligations incurred simply by siring a child, while the benefits of actually being married to the mother of your children are considerable.
From many perspectives, choosing not to have children is simply choosing to lose. I’m not saying that’s the only perspective, but it’s an easily defensible one. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that men get married.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^ Reminds me of this little article I had read the other day (found it on Yahoo) Married People Are Happier People
“The researchers conclude that friendship between the couple could help explain the apparent causal relationship between marriage and happiness. Using the British Household Panel Survey, they found that for people who say their partner is their best friend, the well-being effects of marriage are doubled, even when controlling for factors like age, gender, income, health, and premarriage life satisfaction. Interestingly, this happiness bump seems to also occur for those who are not married but are living together. As we’ve written about before, maybe the key to a good relationship is not to search for your soul mate, but your best pal.”[/quote]
I think this makes good sense. There needs to be chemistry (sex!) but on the other hand, people reporting their partners as best friends are probably enjoying all the elements. So now I’m wondering if chemistry is as separate a piece as I’ve assumed or if it’s communication + matching libidos + no shitty little betrayals (which to me = best-friendship).
[quote]Silyak wrote:
I realize the thread has veered somewhat away from the original question, but I’d like to submit that there is a rather simple answer.
If a man wants to raise his children, it makes good sense to get married. The obligations of marriage do not significantly exceed the obligations incurred simply by siring a child, while the benefits of actually being married to the mother of your children are considerable.
From many perspectives, choosing not to have children is simply choosing to lose. I’m not saying that’s the only perspective, but it’s an easily defensible one. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that men get married. [/quote]
so a man should get married so he can raise his children?
cant he do that without getting married? You basically said “marriage has a lot of benefits”, but didn’t list any… lol
From many perspectives, choosing not to have children is simply choosing to lose. I’m not saying that’s the only perspective, but it’s an easily defensible one. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that men get married. [/quote]
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
In modern society incentives for the opposite are occurring. Nowadays, having no children is a symbol of affluence.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^ Reminds me of this little article I had read the other day (found it on Yahoo) Married People Are Happier People
“The researchers conclude that friendship between the couple could help explain the apparent causal relationship between marriage and happiness. Using the British Household Panel Survey, they found that for people who say their partner is their best friend, the well-being effects of marriage are doubled, even when controlling for factors like age, gender, income, health, and premarriage life satisfaction. Interestingly, this happiness bump seems to also occur for those who are not married but are living together. As we’ve written about before, maybe the key to a good relationship is not to search for your soul mate, but your best pal.”[/quote]
I think this makes good sense. There needs to be chemistry (sex!) but on the other hand, people reporting their partners as best friends are probably enjoying all the elements. So now I’m wondering if chemistry is as separate a piece as I’ve assumed or if it’s communication + matching libidos + no shitty little betrayals (which to me = best-friendship).
[/quote]
Ya, I think it’s a solid combination of all those things you mention to a degree unique to the couple.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
You don’t have to create anything. Marriage isn’t about what’s in it for me as a man. It’s about committing to something greater than yourself. Marriage involves sacrifice that is paramount to the successful maintenance of the marriage, which is the exact opposite of the what’s in it for me mentality. Until you can understand that or until someone comes along who becomes more to you then said mentality, you’re not going to understand marriage from a married guys perspective. That’s not a knock either, just reality.
Marriage isn’t for everyone and less people, imo, should get married then do. If you view marriage as a business deal you shouldn’t get married, imo.
[quote]tsantos wrote:
Surprisingly hard to find but I was more after the tnation view of such things.
[/quote]
well, I for one think it is very telling of a woman’s character if she elects to slaughter her unborn child instead of taking responsibility for her actions (and wanting the taxpayer to cover the cost).
it’s also very telling of the society we live in… not only is this atrocious behavior considered acceptable, but the men have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever.
-she wants to keep the child and he doesn’t? she keeps the child, and he is on the hook for child support.
-he wants to keep the child and she doesn’t? child is slaughtered and remains are disposed of.
but that’s just me.
God bless America [/quote]
So I read some of your posts about… well stuff. Women just marrying to get men’s money, getting caretaking boyfriends to raise their children, slaughtering their unborn child and all that…
And I think you are far to fixed on some game theoretical aspects of life, like how women increase their income through marriage and divorce. Not to say that they don’t exist, but I highly doubt they are the majority in any middle class setting in a civilized society. What you do not consider enough is that women and men both have benefits in marriage:
A relationship like this is more stable, you usually cannot end it on the spot, which increases the likelihood that the couple can work out their differences
Even in case of a divorce a women might get alimony, but usually that is not the same as in marriage and for all the hassle a divorce is in the short term, most sane women would not divorce anyone for the money - although some of these insane one do exist…
A benefit for both partners is of course child raising: the man can make sure his offspring is doing fine, the woman too, they both can split the work etc. Of course it is better for their offspring if they live in a stable relationship. Also it can be traumatic for a child if e.g. his father is cut off from his life completely. Still there are women who do not give too much of a shit about their offspring, but they are by no means the majority (thankfully).
And on another note to the “raising of other people’s offspring” you do not see the whole picture: The human species is not one of individual “egoists” (well, at least only to some extent), that’s why there is something like altruism: If everybody is nice to everybody else, then everybody benefits. Sure there are some who exploit it, but again, that is not the majority. You see humans more like gorillas: The egoistic motive is the most import, so slaughtering foreign children is the best possible move. That is of course short sighted and thankfully the human species has evolved a social community that is often altruistic.
So easy up, relax, most women are not out to exploit you, especially if you go for decent classy women with an education and stable background.
so a man should get married so he can raise his children?
cant he do that without getting married? You basically said “marriage has a lot of benefits”, but didn’t list any… lol[/quote]
Of course you can raise your children without getting married. But unless you don’t want to have a relationship with the mother of your children (which shows rather poor judgment as to how you chose the mother of your children), marriage confers various benefits to fathers. I realize I didn’t list the benefits as I assumed at least some of them are common knowledge. If you don’t think there are any benefits of marriage, then you are ignorant.
Benefits include:
–Tax benefits
–Insurance benefits
–Inheritance benefits
–Medical Access benefits
–Moral high ground (doesn’t hurt in certain circles and is of particular importance in many extended family and/or religious situations)
–less confusion/uncertainty for your children (subjective, but likely)
–Existence of marriage vows (however difficult they are to enforce)
Now, I don’t really want to debate the value of these benefits as I admit that they are of measured value most of the time (although of extreme value in other situations). The point is, I can’t really think of much value that arises from not marrying the mother of your children. Once you have children together and intermingle your living arrangements, not being actually married does little to protect you financially if the relationship deteriorates. It also is probably detrimental to your ability to maintain access to your children. I can’t think of a way that not being actually married definitively benefits you during the relationship.
I’m not saying that marriage is a great situation for men or that it is as good as it used to be. All I’m saying is that if you decide to have children, marriage pretty much only provides benefits without drawbacks. I believe that marriage should be improved and that no fault divorce should be eliminated. But that wasn’t your question.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
No, we really don’t. Civilization depends on men to function. However, men are also expendable. If men were somehow able to form a union like structure and all go on strike, then perhaps they could make demands. By choosing not to participate, you simply increase the value of the men who do participate.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
In modern society incentives for the opposite are occurring. Nowadays, having no children is a symbol of affluence.
[/quote]
This made me laugh.
These articles actually suggest that children are a sign of affluence:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce.
[/quote]
Hardly. Not having children is simply not having children. It doesn’t project affluence nor does it admit one is unfit to reproduce.
Trying to add some kind of value or stock to having or not have children is ridiculous.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
No, we really don’t. Civilization depends on men to function. However, men are also expendable. If men were somehow able to form a union like structure and all go on strike, then perhaps they could make demands. By choosing not to participate, you simply increase the value of the men who do participate.[/quote]
Choosing not participate in reproduction vs choosing not to participate in sex/dating are 2 VERY different things.
Sexually desirable men will always have the highest value whether they choose to reproduce or not.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
In modern society incentives for the opposite are occurring. Nowadays, having no children is a symbol of affluence.
[/quote]
This made me laugh.
These articles actually suggest that children are a sign of affluence:
I skimmed the articles you posted - they focus on the uber rich top 1.3% from what I can tell. Not particularly statistically significant.
Statistically the more money you make, the less kids you have.
"In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, â??There is overwhelming empirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at most times.â?? They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or across people at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have. "
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce. [/quote]
In modern times where contraception is ubiquitous this is simply not true.
Let’s say a guy never has sex but donates a lot of sperm to sperm banks which eventually leads 10+ kids. He has his own mini-tribe but again never has sex.
Now another man never reproduces by choice but has a life filled with dalliances one after the next.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce.
[/quote]
Hardly. Not having children is simply not having children. It doesn’t project affluence nor does it admit one is unfit to reproduce.
Trying to add some kind of value or stock to having or not have children is ridiculous.[/quote]
That depends, of course, on your values system. I’ll concede that it probably can’t be universally established.
However, the decision to not attempt something because you think the current environment makes it more difficult is hardly a sign of your affluence, fitness, or competence.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Hardly. Not having children is simply not having children. It doesn’t project affluence nor does it admit one is unfit to reproduce. [/quote]
However, the decision to not attempt something because you think the current environment makes it more difficult is hardly a sign of your affluence, fitness, or competence.[/quote]
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
No, we really don’t. Civilization depends on men to function. However, men are also expendable. If men were somehow able to form a union like structure and all go on strike, then perhaps they could make demands. By choosing not to participate, you simply increase the value of the men who do participate.[/quote]
Choosing not participate in reproduction vs choosing not to participate in sex/dating are 2 VERY different things.
Sexually desirable men will always have the highest value whether they choose to reproduce or not.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
In modern society incentives for the opposite are occurring. Nowadays, having no children is a symbol of affluence.
[/quote]
This made me laugh.
These articles actually suggest that children are a sign of affluence:
I skimmed the articles you posted - they focus on the uber rich top 1.3% from what I can tell. Not particularly statistically significant.
Statistically the more money you make, the less kids you have.
"In a related paper, Alice Schoonbroodt and Michele Tertilt say that, â??There is overwhelming empirical evidence that fertility is negatively related to income in most countries at most times.â?? They are right. Whether you cut the data across countries, through time, or across people at a point in time, the same fact arises: The richer you get, the fewer kids you have. "
[quote]Silyak wrote:
But beyond that, not having children is simply admitting that you are not fit enough in this civilization to successfully reproduce. [/quote]
In modern times where contraception is ubiquitous this is simply not true.
Let’s say a guy never has sex but donates a lot of sperm to sperm banks which eventually leads 10+ kids. He has his own mini-tribe but again never has sex.
Now another man never reproduces by choice but has a life filled with dalliances one after the next.
Who is more valuable?
[/quote]
Meh, old news about income/fertility. Basically, educated people with access to birth control prefer to have only as many children as they can comfortably caretake and educate. They also, men and women alike, prefer pleasant, easy lives. I would say the trend follows working mothers (so duel-income families). NOT men opting out because they’re able to score hot chicks into old age with their $115K/year.
Which leads to your value question. I would say that most people negatively judge sluts and that most people subscribe to the notion that men who endlessly hook up are basically the same as their female equivalent. What value do they provide the world?
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock.
Meh, old news about income/fertility. Basically, educated people with access to birth control prefer to have only as many children as they can comfortably caretake and educate. They also, men and women alike, prefer pleasant, easy lives. I would say the trend follows working mothers (so duel-income families). NOT men opting out because they’re able to score hot chicks into old age with their $115K/year.[/quote]
But nowadays people aren’t even having enough to replace themselves and this hasn’t always been the case. My personal observation is there has been a cultural shift where being a dual income no kids, or dual income 1 kid is a new symbol of status. If having a large family were “in” people would be doing it. The amount we can afford line is only true to an extent.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Which leads to your value question. I would say that most people negatively judge sluts and that most people subscribe to the notion that men who endlessly hook up are basically the same as their female equivalent. What value do they provide the world?
[/quote]