Putting Off The Married Life

[TyCooN]

Originally Posted by edmorel

Dood, I've been married probably longer than you have been alive. If it all fell apart tomorrow: 1. I would have no regrets nor view the relationship or experience as a joke. 2. I would have absolutely no issues with making sure that she and our children continued living the life that we have worked for and become accustomed to.
I'm glad that you can feel that way.

Could you really hold onto the bold if she tried to **** you in the AZZ during a divorce? I'm sure you've read about the stories from forum members about fellas who lost all they worked for because they were determined to endure the marital aid AZZfucking from their ex-wives during the divorce.

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Because people love each other and want to make a lifelong committment to each other. That's it. Just because you can get a lifelong commitment elsewhere doesn't change that. What do you think it is?
Alright, I understand. Why do you need to get married to live the good life with a woman though? Didn't you say in earlier post of yours that there are people who are happily committed without being married?

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by TyCooN

I'm glad that you can feel that way.

Could you really hold onto the bold if she tried to **** you in the AZZ during a divorce? I'm sure you've read about the stories from forum members about fellas who lost all they worked for because they were determined to endure the marital aid AZZfucking from their ex-wives.


All joking aside, how old are you?

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by TyCooN

Alright, I understand. Why do you need to get married to live the good life with a woman though? Didn't you say in earlier post of yours that there are people who are happily committed without being married?

Are you reading what I've said? I've said at least twice here that you can get the same committment as a marriage in a non-married relationship. That neither A) changes the meaning, purpose, or importance of marriage, or B) has anything to do with why people get married.
If you are in a committed relationship and see no need to get married, then for ****'s sake don't get married. But to say "why get married" as if it's not the right decision for anyone is ridiculous.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Are you reading what I've said? I've said at least twice here that you can get the same committment as a marriage in a non-married relationship. That neither A) changes the meaning, purpose, or importance of marriage, or B) has anything to do with why people get married.
If you are in a committed relationship and see no need to get married, then for ****'s sake don't get married. But to say "why get married" as if it's not the right decision for anyone is ridiculous.

Please elaborate, bro.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Please elaborate, bro.

People get married because it's important for them to show their commitment in that way. Just because other people have that commitment without getting married doesn't detract from the purpose of marriage or the meaning of it. It just means some people get married and others don't.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by TyCooN

Alright, I understand. Why do you need to get married to live the good life with a woman though? Didn't you say in earlier post of yours that there are people who are happily committed without being married?

I think most people get married in order to take part in a tradition of love and family that has existed for centuries. It is a way of saying to your loved one and to others that you are committed and that you are willing to have a life together in which the other person's hopes, dreams, successes and problems are as personal to you as your own. It doesn't always work out that way, but I believe that most successful marriages are based in that sentiment.

 

[Flambeur]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

People get married because it's important for them to show their commitment in that way. Just because other people have that commitment without getting married doesn't detract from the purpose of marriage or the meaning of it. It just means some people get married and others don't.
Show commitment? What kind of immature and insecure thinking is that. You get married to start a family, to build something together. That's it. Waaay too much snark and blowing things out of proportion here. P.S. EDIT: I guess there is some degree of implied commitment in thinking "You are the person I trust to try to build my future with, I choose you". But not in that "i have to prove something" way.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

People get married because it's important for them to show their commitment in that way. Just because other people have that commitment without getting married doesn't detract from the purpose of marriage or the meaning of it. It just means some people get married and others don't.

I would urge you to look a little deeper behind why people get married. I think people get married because society expects them to. Social pressure to conform is absolutely overbearing. It takes a strange or extremely socially-removed person to not succumb to this pressure. It is not only the pressure of conformity that one's peers, friends, coworkers, family places upon someone, but just the superego/media/everything in society today that does.

This is kind of a logical tautology in that it should be obvious to anybody - obviously our traditions are a result of our social development as a culture. What you say is true on that level - "it is important for people to show their commitment". In our society that commitment is ostentatiously shown through a marriage ceremony and a legal certificate. There are a lot of reasons this situation has arisen which would take too long for me to theorize on right now - but they range from

-the anthropological transition from animalistic social sexual behavior (tribe based living) to a more settled, agrarian model
-the need for a woman, who loses her "value" as she ages, to gain security for her children and herself
-the need for a woman to have the man prove his seriousness about providing these things, primarily through financial deposits (dates, engagement ring, wedding band, sharing of assets - traditionally the man is the breadwinner and it was in this mindset that marriage became an engrained tradition).

etc. etc.

Just some food for thought. I'm always game for a thoughtful argument on social matters like this, barring degeneration to name-calling and snark.

 

[airportlobby]

I can't help by find it incredibly irksome when people, like the original poster's quoted treatise, treat "Feminisim" as a concrete force that undermines natural gender roles and authorizes misogyny. If you feel this to be happening in a relationship, why not open a dialogue in which ideas are discussed. If doctrinaire feminism is insisted upon by your adversary, then it is time to make a decision. But this idea that the way men and women interact has been sabotaged by feminism and feminist legal theory strikes me as stupid.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I would urge you to look a little deeper behind why people get married. I think people get married because society expects them to. Social pressure to conform is absolutely overbearing. It takes a strange or extremely socially-removed person to not succumb to this pressure. It is not only the pressure of conformity that one's peers, friends, coworkers, family places upon someone, but just the superego/media/everything in society today that does.

This is kind of a logical tautology in that it should be obvious to anybody - obviously our traditions are a result of our social development as a culture. What you say is true on that level - "it is important for people to show their commitment". In our society that commitment is ostentatiously shown through a marriage ceremony and a legal certificate. There are a lot of reasons this situation has arisen which would take too long for me to theorize on right now - but they range from

All of what you say could be true, but it presents just one side of a phenomenon which could be just as reasonably explained from a completely different point of view. Yours leaves out the fact that many people are not pressured by society, but desire to take part in something traditional that links them to every one of their ancestors, and allows them to take place in a signaling ritual that adds to their life.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by iammatt

All of what you say could be true, but it presents just one side of a phenomenon which could be just as reasonably explained from a completely different point of view. Yours leaves out the fact that many people are not pressured by society, but desire to take part in something traditional that links them to every one of their ancestors, and allows them to take place in a signaling ritual that adds to their life.

Totally agreed. We would agree that people want to be traditional and follow in the path of their ancestors through a ritual that brings them closer together and gives more meaning to their relationship. I think that is spot on. I also think that the reason why this brings people closer and why people want to follow in the tradition of their ancestors comes from their culture and society - they were taught these things. There is nothing wrong with that - I am certainly affected by this just as much as the next guy. What I am proposing is that two humans in a complete cultural vacuum could still feel strong magnetic emotions for each other and be together, "in love", with none of the tradition mandating it. I'm guessing we would be in agreement there too.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Totally agreed. We would agree that people want to be traditional and follow in the path of their ancestors through a ritual that brings them closer together and gives more meaning to their relationship. I think that is spot on. I also think that the reason why this brings people closer and why people want to follow in the tradition of their ancestors comes from their culture and society - they were taught these things. There is nothing wrong with that - I am certainly affected by this just as much as the next guy. What I am proposing is that two humans in a complete cultural vacuum could still feel strong magnetic emotions for each other and be together, "in love", with none of the tradition mandating it. I'm guessing we would be in agreement there too.

So basically, from page 2 on, you just wasted everyone's time. Thanks Tegeredinatlanta!

 

[Fuuma]

I didn't read the discussion that ensued the initial first post of major suxor that I didn't finish reading either. This thread still sucks and I'm sure some off the cuff sociologists/biologists/anthropologists distributed wonderful pearls of wisdumb.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

This thread still sucks and I'm sure some off the cuff sociologists/biologists/anthropologists distributed wonderful pearls of wisdumb.

Thank you.

 

[dah328]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

What I am proposing is that two humans in a complete cultural vacuum could still feel strong magnetic emotions for each other and be together, "in love", with none of the tradition mandating it.
I don't buy it when all these guys say, "I am just as committed as anyone else. I just question the necessity of the additional social and legal constraints on top of my commitment." No one who is really that committed resents the imposition of a lesser commitment. It would be like complaining about the no-tank-tops dress code at a restaurant where you had already chosen to show up in jacket and tie.