Why Do Men Get Married These Days?

Off Topic
441

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is what I was really getting at. And I completely agree.

That being said, if you fall in love with some girl, are you really going to break it off because she’s slept with more people than you? To me, that sounds more like insecurity than thinking you’re too good for someone.

And to be honest, I think the situation in which 2 people with completely opposite sexual histories getting together is pretty rare, anyway. People typically migrate to people that are like them. [/quote]

If you dump her over that you weren’t in love :stuck_out_tongue: You were still just getting to know her. But in either case dumping her is no more a sign of insecurity than keeping her is (i.e. gotta settle for this one cause can’t do any better than the village bicycle anyways).

People may migrate to people that are like them. On the other hand opposites attract. There are also a lot of people today who meet at online dating sites, which basically turns selecting dates into a trip to the meat market (where all the best before dates have been scratched off and taped over). I think people get involved all the time these days who have nothing in common at all except their need of companionship. It’s actually kinda sad.[/quote]

Studies do not support that opposites attract in any meaningful way. Socioeconomic status and looks (sadly) tend to match. As much time as we spend discussing it, rarely do wealthy people partner with poor ones. Obviously another issue entirely are women leaving the workforce to raise chidden while men advance in career and earnings (then apparently begrudge that they’re stuck with an impoverished millstone).

I also think your online meat market, with its scratched off best-before dates, is slightly off. Yes, men and women misrepresent themselves on the sites, but they’re really no more deceptive than meeting anyplace else in terms of info shared, and one quick coffee “date” shows whether photos are dated. (Men do it too, FYI. Very strange behavior in my opinion. You’re looking to attract someone whose first impression upon meeting you is going to be “WHOA, WTF?” But I digress.)

I agree entirely with your last line, but wonder what is wrong with that? Is that any less a goal than needing someone to help with the farm work, as was the case 100 years ago? Companions are nice. Personally, I want something more, but I’m pretty energetic. Some people just want to watch TV with someone else and aren’t after passion. There’s nothing wrong with that. And back to the opposites attracting - the sedentary guy looking for someone to sit with him on his reclining sectional might be attracted to me initially because of my body, but he would soon find me exhausting and irritating. When I did the online thing I had a guy invite me to walk a one-mile fitness trail with him (obviously in response to the outdoorsy and athletic elements of my profile). Uh, no. We’re not a good match. The man I chose likes to set off through the ice and snow on miles-long hikes in the middle of the night after he’s had a couple of drinks.

442

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
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. [/quote]

…

but im not stranded on a desert island. [/quote]

It’s a metaphor.
[/quote]

and one that is completely and utterly non-applicable [/quote]

If marriage is only for the idiotic or crazy, then just substitute Healthy LTR in this scenario. Have you ever had a healthy LTR with a quality woman? Do you want to?

You have developed quite the intellectual dogma about women and relationships. For a 24-year-old man, with relatively little life experience you seem to have it all figured out. I guess you can see if you feel the metaphor applies when you’re 34, or 44, or 54.

I had three very close friends in high school. We’ve known each other for a long time. We all got married in our early 20’s, when we were college-age young women. We’re all still married with kids. None of us is overweight, in fact, all of us are still about the same size we were when we were 18, even after having kids. That’s not really unusual when you look at educated upper-middle class women.

One is a physician who is married to a former professional athlete who invested well and owns a thriving media business. She’s without a doubt the most financially successful of us.

One of us is a pediatric dentist who married her oral surgeon husband. They have a practice together.

One of us dropped out of college to move back to our home town where she owns her own successful hair salon and is married to her construction contractor husband who also owns a successful business.

And one of us is one of those lame school psychologists, total financial liability :wink: who’s married to her IT administrator husband. That’s me. I’m the low achiever in the group! BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. Not getting rich, but I don’t think too many men would think it’s to be avoided like leprosy.

Point being, marriage works out for some people. In fact, it works out for a lot of people. I know similarly happy people who have been divorced but are in healthy LTR’s or happy second marriages. None of them have your attitude. Despite what you seem to think, not all divorced women have some fatal flaw, like those super devious women who are “hiding cellulite under their yoga pants” - to quote you from another thread! That cracked me up. And made me wonder about how many real women you’ve seen up close. Maybe ask some of the men here how many of their wives and GF’s have perfectly smooth thighs and butts, but I digress.

You seem to have dismissed out of hand any advice or life experience from people who don’t fit your theory, and have latched onto all the non-examples of people who have been burned. That’s cool. Nobody is going to make you get married, so you don’t have any worries. Let the self-fulfilling prophecy begin.
[/quote]

Chiming in with the others to say great post. My experience matches yours. Most of my close friends are married to men they met in their teens or early twenties. I had breakfast with my ex-husband over the holidays and I think he considers our marriage more of a success than a failure, as I do. We spent two decades pursuing - and achieving - common goals together. I am hoping to replicate the good parts of that in my current relationship, but with elements that were missing in the last. I imagine my ex is hoping the same for himself.

443

[quote]Stinkfist wrote:

Well said. Thanks.[/quote]
Is it normal that my wife and I do this in our late 20s? (in regards to shopping cart pic)

444

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think you’re mistaken, but I doubt I have the wherewithal to argue you out of your beliefs, which are obviously entrenched.
[/quote]

I wasn’t trying to say what I believe, but that I understand the perspective. I know women who have settled. A male friend of mine also probably settled, though he doesn’t call it that. Some good portion of people, both male and female, settle for a variety of reasons. That isn’t necessarily the worst thing in the world, if certain conditions are met.

I understand how men become bitter at some of these situations, but I disagree with the misogynistic take on it.

[quote]
But I will say that it’s foolish and simplistic to say that men want sex and women want love. [/quote]

There is some truth to the adage. Some women have high libidos and don’t care about love. Some men have low libidos but want romance. I think it is largely culturally driven. In the aggregate, I think you see more women using sex to get love (consciously or unconsciously) than you see men.

Perhaps. That’s not something I heard as much from my male friends as female.

That’s fair enough, though I never mentioned physical superiority. I think a lot of it is attraction to particular personality characteristics.[/quote]

As with most things, I tend to think women and men suffer socially at about the same rate, though the specifics of that suffering may differ. So while you have “nice guys” (though as mentioned I would say defeatist guys) pushed aside by their more successful peers, neither the nice guy nor the successful peer is chasing the quiet, somewhat homely girl. Much less the ugly one. And let’s face it, financial success isn’t going to help her much in the dating market. Men should perhaps count their blessings on this particular score.

As for sex vs. love, my point was that healthy people desire and seek both. Unhealthy (manipulative) people use one to gain the other. My sympathies tend to be stronger for the woman who is led to think someone loves her when he is really only in it for physical gratification, but a man who finds himself bound to a woman who rejects his physical advances is also entirely sympathetic.

My caseload is probably 25% adult male. I hear from men trying to process bad relationships. The GAL boards are also filled with posts written by hurt men, who struggle with the advice they get: “find someone better.”

Sorry to be abrupt/jerky in my response. I’m at work and don’t have the time to mess with formatting.

445

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Studies do not support that opposites attract in any meaningful way. Socioeconomic status and looks (sadly) tend to match. As much time as we spend discussing it, rarely do wealthy people partner with poor ones. Obviously another issue entirely are women leaving the workforce to raise chidden while men advance in career and earnings (then apparently begrudge that they’re stuck with an impoverished millstone).

I also think your online meat market, with its scratched off best-before dates, is slightly off. Yes, men and women misrepresent themselves on the sites, but they’re really no more deceptive than meeting anyplace else in terms of info shared, and one quick coffee “date” shows whether photos are dated. (Men do it too, FYI. Very strange behavior in my opinion. You’re looking to attract someone whose first impression upon meeting you is going to be “WHOA, WTF?” But I digress.)

I agree entirely with your last line, but wonder what is wrong with that? Is that any less a goal than needing someone to help with the farm work, as was the case 100 years ago? Companions are nice. Personally, I want something more, but I’m pretty energetic. Some people just want to watch TV with someone else and aren’t after passion. There’s nothing wrong with that. And back to the opposites attracting - the sedentary guy looking for someone to sit with him on his reclining sectional might be attracted to me initially because of my body, but he would soon find me exhausting and irritating. When I did the online thing I had a guy invite me to walk a one-mile fitness trail with him (obviously in response to the outdoorsy and athletic elements of my profile). Uh, no. We’re not a good match. The man I chose likes to set off through the ice and snow on miles-long hikes in the middle of the night after he’s had a couple of drinks.

[/quote]

I suppose some of the difference between looking for someone to help with the farm 100 years ago and looking for someone to watch Seinfeld reruns with today is that there would be a lot more in common right off the bat, and more to bond over in the long run. Also less outside encouragement, and incentive to divorce when things go wrong, and less motivation to deceive to kick things off as well.

My grandparents have been married for 70 years. They love each other the way people grow to when you’ve been together 70 years and have a dozen kids, but I do not believe they would have lasted if they’d started today. The old man is 90, and still works 500 acres (although these days we all take turns making sure he doesn’t have to do it alone). Grandma is the quintessential house wife. Something is always in the oven, and the house is immaculate. You walk in the door, and she’s straight into the kitchen for the coffee / tea / cookies, and he’s sitting down in to his big old reclining chair - which invariably makes me think of a thrown. Visitors gather around, and he sits at the center, leading the conversation, and very much being the head of the family. This is a patriarchy. And it WORKS for them ! If the world were the same place however, I have no doubt Grandma would have moved to town 65 years ago already, and her lawyers would have had him liquidate the farm in order to divide assets. lol… Than again, my aunts and uncles all have similar marriages… as do most of my cousins so far. (although there is an obvious evolution when you compare the generations side by side by side as well). So maybe I’m wrong.

None of them (or their partners) however got into those relationships with the GOAL of having relationships. Nobody met on an internet dating site. None of them are there out of desperation, just trying to stave off loneliness. That’s a recipe for disaster. I know a guy who “falls in love” with a different woman every month. It’s pathetic. Or my ex wife who moves dudes in after 3 dates, and than has to endure the fall out a few months later. Or my buddy John who has a date with a different woman every night of the week and every single one of them tries to introduce him to their kids. Pathetic.

446

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
As with most things, I tend to think women and men suffer socially at about the same rate, though the specifics of that suffering may differ. So while you have “nice guys” (though as mentioned I would say defeatist guys) pushed aside by their more successful peers, neither the nice guy nor the successful peer is chasing the quiet, somewhat homely girl. Much less the ugly one. And let’s face it, financial success isn’t going to help her much in the dating market. Men should perhaps count their blessings on this particular score.
[/quote]

Everyone wants someone they’re attracted to. I’m starting to see this idea going around a lot - that the shy, nerdy guys are ignoring the homely (or ugly) girls interested in them. Accepting the premise arguendo, I don’t think “nice guys”/“defeatist guys”/nerdy guys are obligated to date whatever woman happens to be interested in them, in the same way I wouldn’t tell a woman I find unattractive that she ought to take what she can get. I understand the sense that beggars can’t be choosers, and a lot of us need to moderate our expectations. This is tangential to what you’re saying, which is about the relative disadvantages of the dating market for men and women, but something I wanted to address.
I think “financial success” is very much overplayed in MRA arguments. Most of those guys are not making enough money to be considered wealthy unless they are seeking out women who are impoverished.

447

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

None of them (or their partners) however got into those relationships with the GOAL of having relationships. Nobody met on an internet dating site. None of them are there out of desperation, just trying to stave off loneliness. That’s a recipe for disaster. I know a guy who “falls in love” with a different woman every month. It’s pathetic. Or my ex wife who moves dudes in after 3 dates, and than has to endure the fall out a few months later. Or my buddy John who has a date with a different woman every night of the week and every single one of them tries to introduce him to their kids. Pathetic.[/quote]

I would bet that yes, they did have relationships as a goal. Unless they were all just looking to get laid and somehow stumbled into their marriages?

I would also say that no, dating sites are not a recipe for disaster. Certainly not more than a bar is, which is often the alternative for adults whose hobbies and workplaces do not present much opportunity to meet prospective partners. Most of the single professionals I know have either tried it or are considering it. Come to think of it, I know young adults in graduate school who have used it because they don’t have the opportunity to meet enough people. (One guy “met” his next door neighbor that way. lol)

To me it seems to be about as likely to produce a good relationship as anything else. Some people use it deceptively (saw it called “the jukebox of pussy” here at TN) but the guys using it that way are at the bars doing the same thing (trading “love” for sex) so the risk is the same for the unwary. Women may be liars or sponges, but that can be true of women you meet at church, no?

Your examples ARE pathetic, but I was at a going away dinner for a colleague last summer and fully half of the women there, who ranged from very early 30s to early 60s and were a mix of doctors, nurse practitioners, and therapists, met their significant others online. The other half were in their original relationships, with the exception of one widow in her 50s. One of the online relationships seemed pretty shaky - the doctor we were seeing off - but it was a several-year thing. Maybe it’s where I live, but that seems the norm to me. It works or it doesn’t, but that depends on the quality and good choices of the people involved, not the medium.

448

[quote]nephorm wrote:

I think “financial success” is very much overplayed in MRA arguments. Most of those guys are not making enough money to be considered wealthy unless they are seeking out women who are impoverished.
[/quote]

Every time I see someone talking about financial success and multi million dollar divorce settlements, it makes me think of this around the 2 minute mark.

If you’ve got 20 million and your wife wants 10, you aren’t starving. If you make 30 thousand, and your wife wants 15 you might have to kill her. It’s all relative.

449

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I would bet that yes, they did have relationships as a goal. Unless they were all just looking to get laid and somehow stumbled into their marriages?

[/quote]

Guess that depends on how you view relationships of “high school sweet hearts” and the like. I suppose when you get right down to it, all those raging hormones do mean they started out just trying to get laid, but there is also a certain amount of innocence that comes from being that young, and generally there is a long term familiarity before hand (you go to school with this person for many years).

450

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
As with most things, I tend to think women and men suffer socially at about the same rate, though the specifics of that suffering may differ. So while you have “nice guys” (though as mentioned I would say defeatist guys) pushed aside by their more successful peers, neither the nice guy nor the successful peer is chasing the quiet, somewhat homely girl. Much less the ugly one. And let’s face it, financial success isn’t going to help her much in the dating market. Men should perhaps count their blessings on this particular score.
[/quote]

Everyone wants someone they’re attracted to. I’m starting to see this idea going around a lot - that the shy, nerdy guys are ignoring the homely (or ugly) girls interested in them. Accepting the premise arguendo, I don’t think “nice guys”/“defeatist guys”/nerdy guys are obligated to date whatever woman happens to be interested in them, in the same way I wouldn’t tell a woman I find unattractive that she ought to take what she can get. I understand the sense that beggars can’t be choosers, and a lot of us need to moderate our expectations. This is tangential to what you’re saying, which is about the relative disadvantages of the dating market for men and women, but something I wanted to address.
I think “financial success” is very much overplayed in MRA arguments. Most of those guys are not making enough money to be considered wealthy unless they are seeking out women who are impoverished.
[/quote]

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women. Mostly I wish that we, as a society, placed more value on internal characteristics. Though I suppose many people do. Perhaps they are the ones to envy?

I also agree that the MRA vastly overestimate their buying power when it comes to women and/or make an almost delusional leap that their circumstances in some way mirror what they see in the news.

451

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I would bet that yes, they did have relationships as a goal. Unless they were all just looking to get laid and somehow stumbled into their marriages?

[/quote]

Guess that depends on how you view relationships of “high school sweet hearts” and the like. I suppose when you get right down to it, all those raging hormones do mean they started out just trying to get laid, but there is also a certain amount of innocence that comes from being that young, and generally there is a long term familiarity before hand (you go to school with this person for many years).[/quote]

Assuming you spend your entire life where you were born. It’s a nice ideal and I know two couples who have been together since high school. Oh, three! I have friends who got together in middle school, had a teen pregnancy (then two more) and he finished a PhD with their families’ support.

But I don’t think it’s the norm in today’s world. I’d lived in three different states by the time I hit high school.

452

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I would also say that no, dating sites are not a recipe for disaster. Certainly not more than a bar is, which is often the alternative for adults whose hobbies and workplaces do not present much opportunity to meet prospective partners.[/quote]

Oh, I don’t think that internet dating is a recipe for disaster - merely an ingredient. The recipe comes from people being desperate and lonely and setting out with the goal of finding someone to (for example) marry or just fuck. You take a 35 year old woman, season with loneliness, add a dash of fast food job, mix in a pinch of insecurity, 1 cup of aging, 1/4 cup of stretch marks, 3 tablespoons peer pressure, 1/3 cup dishonesty, 1/2 cup desperation, 4 heaping cups of relationship goal, and mix that together, than in a seperate bowl, you put a middle aged man, season with sperm build up, sprinkle with factory work, add a pinch of machismo, a splash of bravado, and a teaspoon of lonliness, than you toss that all in the internet dating food processor and hit frappe. And Voila. Nothing good. Bon appetit. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s a different case when your goal is to simply meet people or what have you. But for far too many the goal - and by this i mean the IMMEDIATE goal is a relationship. Not meeting people, or getting to know them, but they want a relationship, and they want it yesterday ! Bad bad bad !

Think about how many girls you see on facebook go all girl power about how they just broke up and now they’re gonna do their own thing, and they don’t need a man, etc… etc… etc… only to turn around 1 week later and be like status: “I’m in LOVE OMG ITS SO WONDERFUL <3” /facepalm

453

By the way, back to the OP. . . on Monday my boyfriend and I added my car to our homeowners and his auto insurance and saved an annual TWO HUNDRED dollars! Now, we’re not married, but I have every reason to believe that the riches will continue to multiply if we ever make that leap.

And I forgot to say this morning with regard to PP’s post that I make a little less than her laughable chick salary, but I imagine that most men who can support both partners on his salary alone will still say an enthusiastic “yes please!” to the question of whether they’d like to have even more thousands of dollars a month coming in.

454

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women.[/quote]

Double edged sword. Financial failures don’t affect women the way they do men either. :slight_smile:

455

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women.[/quote]

Double edged sword. Financial failures don’t affect women the way they do men either. :)[/quote]

I don’t understand how success or failure is any different based on gender.

456

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. [/quote]

Wow. I had no idea what good value I was getting PMing with you a couple of years ago!

457

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I would also say that no, dating sites are not a recipe for disaster. Certainly not more than a bar is, which is often the alternative for adults whose hobbies and workplaces do not present much opportunity to meet prospective partners.[/quote]

Oh, I don’t think that internet dating is a recipe for disaster - merely an ingredient. The recipe comes from people being desperate and lonely and setting out with the goal of finding someone to (for example) marry or just fuck. You take a 35 year old woman, season with loneliness, add a dash of fast food job, mix in a pinch of insecurity, 1 cup of aging, 1/4 cup of stretch marks, 3 tablespoons peer pressure, 1/3 cup dishonesty, 1/2 cup desperation, 4 heaping cups of relationship goal, and mix that together, than in a seperate bowl, you put a middle aged man, season with sperm build up, sprinkle with factory work, add a pinch of machismo, a splash of bravado, and a teaspoon of lonliness, than you toss that all in the internet dating food processor and hit frappe. And Voila. Nothing good. Bon appetit. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s a different case when your goal is to simply meet people or what have you. But for far too many the goal - and by this i mean the IMMEDIATE goal is a relationship. Not meeting people, or getting to know them, but they want a relationship, and they want it yesterday ! Bad bad bad !

Think about how many girls you see on facebook go all girl power about how they just broke up and now they’re gonna do their own thing, and they don’t need a man, etc… etc… etc… only to turn around 1 week later and be like status: “I’m in LOVE OMG ITS SO WONDERFUL <3” /facepalm[/quote]

I don’t know what to say about this - both my boyfriend and I were looking for a long term relationship when we met, and neither of us made any secret about it. Someone to laugh with, play with, and build a future with. I knew when my marriage ended that I am happiest in a long term monogamous relationship. I am also reasonably confident of my ability to make one work (I honestly believe my ex-husband would back me up on this) assuming I choose wisely, which I didn’t the first time around. We were much too dissimilar (my ex would also agree with this).

That’s not to say that I feel certain that my current relationship will be forever, but I’m optimistic, obviously. (Not sure what the ex would say about this, lol.)

458

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women.[/quote]

Double edged sword. Financial failures don’t affect women the way they do men either. :)[/quote]

I don’t how success or failure is any different based on gender. [/quote]

I meant it as a means to attract the opposite sex. Ugly successful women don’t have the edge that ugly successful men have.

459

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women.[/quote]

Double edged sword. Financial failures don’t affect women the way they do men either. :)[/quote]

I don’t how success or failure is any different based on gender. [/quote]

I meant it as a means to attract the opposite sex. Ugly successful women don’t have the edge that ugly successful men have.[/quote]

I would think successful woman could use their success and/or money to attract men as well. Perhaps not as easily though. I hadn’t really given it much thought.

460

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

No, you’re right, it’s insulting to both parties to suggest they settle. I wasn’t at all attempting to do that, just pointing out that women have as much right to bitterness as men, and perhaps just a bit more given that finacial success does not affect men in the same way it can women.[/quote]

Double edged sword. Financial failures don’t affect women the way they do men either. :)[/quote]

I don’t understand how success or failure is any different based on gender. [/quote]

I may have misread, but I got the impression they were discussing the so called sexual market value. I.E. an ugly dude with a lot of money can score a hot chick, while the same might not hold true for an ugly chick scoring a hot guy. Emily commented that women should be more bitter because getting richer doesn’t move them up the scale at the same rate. I just wanted to point out that there is another side to that coin (where being poor doesn’t have the same negative effect on the market value of a woman as it does on a man).