Why Do Men Get Married These Days?

orion · January 30, 2015, 2:27am

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’d be way to worried to ever pay for sex. If my brain experienced I could get sex with a new hot chick with effort akin to ordering a pizza, I think I would have trouble quitting lol.
[/quote]

Well, once you have internalized that, imagine how much more interesting and less needy you will be…

“I have a golden vagina, serve me!”

“You do?”[/quote]

How about the risk of getting arrested? Not to mention the fact that if you really want to bang a “hot chick” it is going to cost you a lot of money. Attractive escorts aren’t cheap.[/quote]

Ah, you forget where I am.

Its legal and close to the ex Eastern Block, hence, cheap.

There ye go:

://www.laufhaus-vienna.at

Insert http please…

[/quote]

He said attractive. I would hate to think that is the best. No girl on there is even a 6.[/quote]

://sexmagazin.eu/sexfuehrer/at/hostessen-modelle

Well, maybe you can find one here.

If that will not do , I am afraid that we will have to move up in price range, but, you know, if you can ONLY fuck porn stars…

nephorm · January 30, 2015, 2:30am

[quote]orion wrote:
I am sure that you are not implying that virtue in this case is only a lack of opportunity ?[/quote]

No. But why appeal to virtue when most people are, at best, only deterred by law?

I think there is a virtuous way to have sex, even for pay. But to borrow from Aristotle, anyone can be angry, but “the man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised.” I don’t think the majority of people who are going to prostitutes are doing so in a moderate way, and it certainly isn’t just to harm someone else to satisfy one’s desire. So is it possible to conceive of prostitution that virtuous people could engage in? Probably, yes. But its coming into being is improbable.

Broncoandy · January 30, 2015, 2:33am

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Eat? I’m talking about housing. I assume both parents want to be able to have their kids feel at home at their houses or apartments? I would be very sad if my husband decided not to be married anymore and I had to accept that my kids were people I visited rather than lived with as a result. If he could afford to maintain the house we’d lived in together and I had to find lesser accommodations. . .how is that fair when we agreed I’d be home washing everyone’s socks and cooking dinners?

Child support may go until they graduate high school, but not until they finish college unless it’s negotiated into the divorce settlement.

I don’t want to shoot anyone, personally, whether on welfare or child support.

I actually agree that a SAHM should be preparing herself to contribute once kids go to school. I have friends who have just drifted along after caring for young kids and I do sort of judge it. But I’m not in their marriages, and if they and their spouses agree, then that’s their agreement and I also judge people who don’t hold to agreements. [/quote]

You’re laws may differ but I can tell you for an absolute fact that it runs until they finish their first post secondary degree here. It goes until they are an adult, which is not so much an age in family court here as it is a state of being dependent. So for example if a kid drops out of school at 16, and has a baby of their own, and a job, child support is done, but they could also go to university and support could be required into their 20s.

You agreed you’d be home cooking dinner and washing socks for as long as you were married. Marriage is over. Time to get a job, and fend for yourself. If he’s maintaining the home you shared, than he wrote you a cheque for your piece of the equity already. Use it wisely.

As for visiting, welcome to reality for the majority of divorced men (hand full of overnights per month in your shitty cramped apartment not withstanding). Only difference for our hypothetical stay at home is that her former spouse has no financial incentives to minimize her “visits”, she has tremendous untapped potential, no deadweight ex-spouse dragging her down, and her relationship with former spouse / baby daddy isn’t a festering cesspool of shit that they try to hide from the kids despite the unmistakable stink permeating their every interaction. Oh, and let’s not forget she already had a massive amount of time with those kids as a stay at home parent. Kids spending more time with dad now that the marriage that kept her at home, and him at work has been terminated sounds perfectly fair to me. Especially in an example like yours where the kids are beyond the age of nurture, and now need the type of lessons that our hypothetical dad is better equipped to teach / deal with.

orion · January 30, 2015, 2:39am

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I am sure that you are not implying that virtue in this case is only a lack of opportunity ?[/quote]

No. But why appeal to virtue when most people are, at best, only deterred by law?

I think there is a virtuous way to have sex, even for pay. But to borrow from Aristotle, anyone can be angry, but “the man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised.” I don’t think the majority of people who are going to prostitutes are doing so in a moderate way, and it certainly isn’t just to harm someone else to satisfy one’s desire. So is it possible to conceive of prostitution that virtuous people could engage in? Probably, yes. But its coming into being is improbable.

[/quote]

Reading this, I am reminded of something Thomas Morus says, at least in the movie, to his children:

“Dont be worse than you have to be”

You know, if you are searching for the Platonic ideal of prostitution and then, and ONLY then…

Never going to happen.

nephorm · January 30, 2015, 2:53am

[quote]orion wrote:
You know, if you are searching for the Platonic ideal of prostitution and then, and ONLY then…

Never going to happen. [/quote]

Sex surrogacy might be something like a virtuous prostitution. The surrogates knowingly and freely enter into it, out of a desire to help other people. The men and women who seek those services are looking to correct something about themselves, so that the surrogate is more like a medical doctor than a drug dealer or a slave.

But then, I’m not searching for prostitution.

EmilyQ · January 30, 2015, 2:57am

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

Eat? I’m talking about housing. I assume both parents want to be able to have their kids feel at home at their houses or apartments? I would be very sad if my husband decided not to be married anymore and I had to accept that my kids were people I visited rather than lived with as a result. If he could afford to maintain the house we’d lived in together and I had to find lesser accommodations. . .how is that fair when we agreed I’d be home washing everyone’s socks and cooking dinners?

Child support may go until they graduate high school, but not until they finish college unless it’s negotiated into the divorce settlement.

I don’t want to shoot anyone, personally, whether on welfare or child support.

I actually agree that a SAHM should be preparing herself to contribute once kids go to school. I have friends who have just drifted along after caring for young kids and I do sort of judge it. But I’m not in their marriages, and if they and their spouses agree, then that’s their agreement and I also judge people who don’t hold to agreements. [/quote]

You’re laws may differ but I can tell you for an absolute fact that it runs until they finish their first post secondary degree here. It goes until they are an adult, which is not so much an age in family court here as it is a state of being dependent. So for example if a kid drops out of school at 16, and has a baby of their own, and a job, child support is done, but they could also go to university and support could be required into their 20s.

You agreed you’d be home cooking dinner and washing socks for as long as you were married. Marriage is over. Time to get a job, and fend for yourself. If he’s maintaining the home you shared, than he wrote you a cheque for your piece of the equity already. Use it wisely.

As for visiting, welcome to reality for the majority of divorced men (hand full of overnights per month in your shitty cramped apartment not withstanding). Only difference for our hypothetical stay at home is that her former spouse has no financial incentives to minimize her “visits”, she has tremendous untapped potential, no deadweight ex-spouse dragging her down, and her relationship with former spouse / baby daddy isn’t a festering cesspool of shit that they try to hide from the kids despite the unmistakable stink permeating their every interaction. Oh, and let’s not forget she already had a massive amount of time with those kids as a stay at home parent. Kids spending more time with dad now that the marriage that kept her at home, and him at work has been terminated sounds perfectly fair to me. Especially in an example like yours where the kids are beyond the age of nurture, and now need the type of lessons that our hypothetical dad is better equipped to teach / deal with.[/quote]

Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”

nephorm · January 30, 2015, 3:37am

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.

EmilyQ · January 31, 2015, 11:51am

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.

orion · February 1, 2015, 3:15am

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate.

nephorm · February 1, 2015, 5:13am

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino?

orion · February 1, 2015, 12:55pm

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino? [/quote]

Yes.

Its predatory coupling.

Hence “divorce rape”.

Broncoandy · February 1, 2015, 2:15pm

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

When you start basing your marital decisions on what will happen in divorce, you might as well schedule your hearing the same day.

Broncoandy · February 1, 2015, 2:18pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino? [/quote]

Yes.

Its predatory coupling.

Hence “divorce rape”.[/quote]

Hey man. Dude was asking for it when he walked into that church dressed like that. And he didn’t say no to the alimony until after the fact. He totally consented to this shit.

Broncoandy · February 1, 2015, 2:22pm

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino? [/quote]

At no point has a casino ever told me that I cannot lose. Marriage isn’t going to a random casino. It’s walking into one that promises you the second you walk in that you will be a high roller living in the penthouse “till death do you part”.

EmilyQ · February 1, 2015, 5:54pm