Pajamas Media

224 Comments

colorless.blue.ideas:

You ask for advice to young men regarding marriage. I’ve only been married 25 years, so may not have enough experience to have worthwhile comments, but here are some quick thoughts.

Ensure that you and your intended are committed to the marriage and not just to ‘love’. There will be times when you will be extremely exasperated by, angry at, or hurt by her. You will do the same to her at times. Both of you should be committed to getting through any problems which arrive: forgive and work things out.
No matter how you are feeling (see above), each of you should endeavor to treat your spouse in a loving manner.
Have the same or adequately similar religious views. Mixed marriages can work, but they are harder.
No sex outside of marriage. Ever. Marriages can sometimes recover from betrayal, but why risk it. (See the first item, above.)
Always try to be kind to your intended, now and when you are married. Kindness smooths a lot of frictions. When you show love, you start to feel love.
You and your spouse should agree that, absence physical abuse or adultery, divorce is never an option.
Have children: biological or adopted. Plural. It will help both of you to mature.

I’m sure more reflection would bring more thoughts, but these are the first, and subject to modification upon reflection.

Oct 31, 2007 - 6:27 am David:

Dr. Helen,

I am a mid-thirties unmarried male, who has spent an inordinate amount of my life in long-term relationships with women. I have found that marriage is somewhat of an anachronism if you discount adding children to the relationship; until fairly recently, the ‘marriage tax’ was an economic hindrance, as well as the ramifications of divorce (I live in a no-fault state). My personal advice to men contemplating marriage is this: ask yourself if she would stay with you if she had to support you. Based on the notion that we’re all supposed to marry our best friend, whomever makes the money shouldn’t be the basis for the marriage. Yes, money isn’t the reason for a marriage, but most divorces sure have money at their roots.

Oct 31, 2007 - 6:55 am cottus:

Nice work ladies. It appears that, not satisfied with forcing the average family to have two breadwinners instead of one and debasing the child nurturing aspects of the family unit, you are well on your way to junking the family unit altogether, now that this particular partnership agreement has few takers. Rumors of Amazons and Scythians notwithstanding, history has not treated female dominated societies well.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:15 am Reality Check:

When I got married just over two years ago we had made the decision to keep our finances separate. This was easy to do because we both have in-demand careers with great earnings and earning potential. We agreed on how the living expenses would be split. For us, a gift is a GIFT… if I buy her something, I do it with MY MONEY. My financial priorities are my priorities, and hers are hers. I’d recommend this approach at this point.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:24 am Sweating Through Fog:

Great advice. I’m a happily married man, because I was lucky enough to find the right woman. So marriage has been a great blessing in my life.

But I realize I’m extremely lucky, because I know my happiness is unusual. I know many men who are unhappy with their marriages, and i know many men who’ve been victimized by the legal system in the process of their divorce.

I have a son, and my advice to him is this: When you consider marriage, know what you are risking, because if your wife is unhappy with you and gets a good lawyer, you may wind up losing all contact with your children and you may become a wage slave to the child support system. Consider that carefully, and know that you are placing your hope for happiness in the hands of another. You are rolling the dice. If you are still sure, still confident you found the right woman, and willing to approach it a lifetime, irrevocable commitment - no matter what - then by all means do so. Thinking of it this way may give you the certainty you need to make the right choice.

And I would certainly give very similar advice to my daughters too. They are risking a great deal too.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:24 am Mike:

Not all marriages end in unhappiness, and not all women are out to castrate men. The only “trick” to having a good marriage is finding the right woman to marry. Good sex is not a reason to get married. How do you know when you’ve found the right one? Ask two questions: 1) Do I care more about her needs than my own? 2) Does she care more about my needs than my own?

If both answers are “yes”, you’re on the right path. How do you know the answer to number 2? Trust me, you’ll know. If you have to spend money for her to have a good time with you, she does not care about you, she cares about your money. Is she interested in being with you, or doing things/going places you taker her? And by the way, looks fade for both of you. Make sure you like spending time together, because you’ll have lots of time together over the next 40-50 years. And by the way, if either of you feel you have to move in together first to “try it out”, that’s probably a sign you’re not sure about each other. When you meet the right one, there won’t be any hesitation from either of you.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:33 am Ernie:

I guess I’m one of the boycotters. I’m 44, single, never married. In the past I had a few long term relationships that seemed headed toward marriage, one even involved cohabitation. In the end none worked out. The most serious one it seemed that all the effort to maintain the relationship was coming from me, and it wasn’t enough. I was expected to put more and more effort into making things work out for her. In the end, when I felt I’d gone as far as I could without damaging my career (actually I did damage my career to a degree, just not irreparably) it wasn’t enough for her and she dumped me. I was actually a bit relieved mixed in with all the other emotions because I knew that the question would come down to marriage or not soon enough, and while I felt like it was expected that we’d be married I wasn’t sure I wanted to go forward with this particular woman. Afterward I heard from our mutual friends that she basically dumped me because she thought she could do better.

All that happened in my late 20’s and early 30’s. I dated for a number of years after that, only seriously once or twice. About 6 or 7 years ago I gradually just quit dating. Without really thinking about it I came to the decision that I would not get married, so I wasn’t interested in going through the hassle of dating. The interesting part is that I share a house with two other guys in similar situations. We all seem to have voluntarily removed ourselves not just from the population of marriagable men, but from the dating pool. One is a few years older than me, the other in his early 30’s. Both of them were previously married and don’t seem eager to repeat the experience.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:33 am Dan Collins:

St. Paul said it is better than burning. I’m not sure whether he was married, though.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:44 am Darksbane:

The more I read the more I feel like I got out lucky with my divorce. My ex-wife cheated and I have to give credit to her family who are wonderful people in shaming her enough to not try to take more of my stuff.

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:49 am Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

Gene Simmons of KISS has been enjoying the sexual company of superbabe Shannon Tweed for years. She has even birthed his children. He bought her a huge house. But he never married her. He is still very rich, and he still gets to screw pretty much any other female that interests him.

Is there a lesson there?

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:56 am Dan Collins:

You know the one about Divorcee Barbie, right, Darksbane?

Oct 31, 2007 - 7:58 am Jason:

Don’t do it fellas.

I’m married, and happily so, but the more I see, the more I feel like a guy who played a slot machine while walking through the airport in Vegas, and just happened to hit the jackpot on the first try. Marriage is exactly like gambling. Yes, you’re going to see a few winners, and the fact that they exist encourages a lot of other people to gamble, but that doesn’t mean gambling is a good investment strategy.

Also, bear in mind that marriage isn’t just one gamble. You’re not going to be the same person in ten years, and she isn’t either. Particularly if you have kids, an event that can significantly change your outlook on life. What are the odds that the people you’ll be in a decade will get along with each other?

Find a girlfriend, treat her well, but don’t ever let her take you for granted.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:07 am leishman:

Interesting comments so far. My first marriage of eight years, no kids, dissolved uneventfully and fairly painlessly. My second marriage of twenty years, four adopted kids, become a nightmare of (her) alcoholism, perpetual victimhood, jealousy and rage. I wanted to stick it out until my youngest was out of high school, but she wanted out. Somehow I was able to exit without alimony, and with two years of child support which actually went to the child, so I consider myself lucky. I’m in a great relationship of 5+ years; we live five miles apart, and the closest we’ll come to living together is a duplex! My point is that one can’t predict what either party will be like ten years from now, and that a young man should heed much of the advice given by the commenters above.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:12 am Donald:

We tend to forget that marriage used to perform functions for society that have since been displaced by governmental social programs. A mere hundred years ago, women on the average lived shorter lives than men due to the complications of child birth. The need to address issues like property were less pressing. Women didn’t vote and had restricted contract rights let alone right to property, as they themselves were often treated as property. To protect one’s daughters, one married them off to someone to manage what ever the family gave them. If a women were to survive her husband, the possibility existed that the eldest son or another male member of the blood family would make play for the assets. Government was rather unconcerned about one’s existence other than as part of the 10 year census for apportionment because there was no income tax. So, if the birth was of a girl, the birth was just as much recorded locally in the parish records or family bible, cause dad wasn’t about to hitch up the buggy for a long trip to the county seat to file an official record when property was not going to be in issue, because a hundred years ago most Americans live in the country, on small farms, villages and towns. To protect females and their human rights within the context of the period, women were given the exclusivity of sex. While not perfect and saddled with a lot of hypocrisy, people a hundred years ago were prosecuted, harassed, and ostracized for sex outside of marriage. The imperfect institution meant that women were provided for in a world that did not integrate them as equals in the market place.

Give us the vote and subsequent property contract reform. Give us Social Security and lessen , if not remove, the need for the next generation of family to care for the elders. Systematically disassemble the monopoly on sex. Give us no fault divorce and cultural acceptable serial polygamy and polyandry. Give us open sex between consenting adults. It appears only commercial sex still carries the stigma society operated under a hundred years ago. Now throw in the negatives as so amply demonstrated, the real question is why does marriage survive?

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:22 am JorgXMcKie:

I’ve been lucky and unlucky. My first marriage ended after 13 years (relativelly amicably and still hurt like hell) and basically so did my career/business. This was before widespread no-fault divorce, but my wife got a shark (paid for by her boyfriend) who I finally just said, “fine. Let her take whatever she wants. I quit.” She was pretty good about letting me see the kids. There were other, later attempts by the lawyer (like attaching my income tax refund by claiming unpaid child support even though I had receipts and the County records showed I had paid up.) I couldn’t take it and closed by business, put enough money (borrowed, mostly) into a drawing account that paid out child support once a month and dropped out.

Later, after I decided I’d probably be single the rest of my life, I met my current wife. We dated for five years, lived together (two different times) for 3 of those and finally got married. Our 15th anniversary is rapidly approaching. We have no children and both work. We have joint everything. We both try to put the other first.

My advice to young men is:
1) Never, ever marry anyone you haven’t spent serious time togehter with for at least 2 years. It takes time to really know anyone.
2) Have a written understanding of how finances will be handled. A pre-nup isn’t all bad, either, even if you currently have few/no assets.
3) Lower your expectations, and hers. Life is not always going to be a dream. What will you do when you hit the inevitable rough spot?
4) Talk about the serious stuff frequently. One or the other of you may change your mind about something important. It is essential that both of you *know* how the other feels about the important stuff.
5) Understand that even a good marriage may end. What will you do? Plan ahead.
6) Try never to be mean. Women remember such acts pretty much forever. It’s not worth it even if you stay together.
7) Practice give-and-take, but try not to keep score.
There’s lots more, but this is a start.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:23 am David C.:

I got married at 23, we moved away from our support networks for a job that I had been offered. Within a year she had started cheating on me with a guy that was ‘me, before I became a boring working stiff’. A separation and divorce followed despite trying to work through the issues with a marriage councilor. Instead of alimony I paid off her credit cards and gave her some cash. Fast forward a while and I remarried, someone I had met on the internet on a video game that took 2 years just for INS permission to marry (she is danish), and we have been married for 5 years now and its still awesome (With the obvious caveat every relationship takes work and compromise.) Marriage works with the right person and commitment. Is marriage a necessity? Not really, but it offers proof of commitment that buying stuff and hanging out doesn’t.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:31 am pete the elder:

This post is very strange to me. I have been married for almost six years (with one kid so far) and these experiences are very different than the ones I and almost all of my married friends have had.

I suspect that it is partly because they are Christians and see marriage as a sacred vow more than a legal arrangement. Divorce is not an option when things get rough and there is a community of support for the marriages that are having trouble.

I agree with Mike from above: “The only “trick” to having a good marriage is finding the right woman to marry.” The same thing applies to women looking for men. With right defined as someone you enjoy spending time with, who you respect, who shares your values, and who you want your future kids to be like.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:31 am DemocracyRules:

KEY POINT: THE ‘MARRIAGE CONTRACT’ IS NOT A CONTRACT

Historically, the most remarkable change in marriage is that it is no longer governed by contract law, where it had resided for thousands of years. Marriage vows, promises, and ceremonial statements, such as, “To have and to hold, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, until death do us part”, bear little legal weight, are no longer a legal contract, and are unenforceable in law.

Marriage and divorce law is generally too unwieldy to remediate most unethical, immoral, or even illegal spousal conduct. Divorce proceedings in North America are rife with deception, fraud, embezzlement, perjury, defamation, and catastrophic financial and emotional outcomes. Children are especially victimized. The philosophy of “Marriage for Love”, relatively recent in human history, has not provided adequate guidelines about what to do when love breaks down.

Pre-nuptial contracts have begun to replace marriage vows, because they can be written in myriad ways, are enforceable, and are supported by all the power and precedence of thousands of years of contract law, with enforcement processes and procedures clearly understood by most litigation experts.

The simplest method to bypass the problems of typical marriages and divorces made on impulse is for couples to write and sign their own “cohabitation” contract, to replace marriage licenses and pre-nuptial agreements. This method is feasible right now by couples of any gender combination or sexual orientation.

The contract can specify certain benefits exchanges and obligations, with certain penalties for abrogating parts and/or all of the contract. Specific legal marriage documents would not be used, but a ceremony marking the signing of this cohabitation contract is feasible.

If the couple later have conflict over the contract provisions, it could be settled by standard litigation procedures. As in all important contracts, great care is needed for each signatory to commit fully to the process, with a clear understanding of the consequences of abrogating the contract and its provisions.

This may seem cold, but it’s actually quite hot. Couples who love and trust each other deeply would sign the contract willingly, because they wrote it, and “to have and to hold” would be legally defined and enforceable.

If they cannot negotiate such a contract, they may well not be ready for any type of cohabitation arrangement. It would also force irresponsible signatories to reconsider their negative behaviors in light of tangible legal consequences.

This contract method would not replace marriage for everyone, but it would create another legal route to recognize romantic commitment. It would motivate both signatories to stick together through “thick and thin”, since they would know that easy, no-fault, consequence-free divorce or abandonment was not possible. There would be serious and clear legal consequences for signatories who let themselves fall out of love.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:31 am Darksbane:

Yeah I’ve heard that one Dan, and I count myself lucky every day that we had no kids and she was looking to get out and be with her new rich boyfriend more than thinking about taking me through the ringer, at least at first. Turns out that new rich boyfriend wasn’t so rich after all, but he did do all the things for her that I wouldn’t do. Like hit her, cuss her out, throw her down a flight of stairs, threaten to kill her and her family, you know… the important things.

After about 3 months of this she started complaining that she got a raw deal in the divorce (she got half of everything and somehow that wasn’t fair). I had a few choice words for her after that conversation.

She begged me back for about 1.5 years but the longer I was single the more I realized that I got very lucky. Been about 3 years now and I’m starting to get the desire to date again, but I’ll never legally marry again. It is a no win situation. I’ll make the committment to be with 1 girl for the rest of my life if I can find a good one, but I’ll never give anyone that kind of power over me again.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:32 am KoryO:

First off, I’m not gonna claim to be an expert on this, since I’ve only been married three years. I’m a girl, too, so some of you might discount what I’m going to say based on that fact alone.

But the advice I would give my son (and any other kids me and my sweetie may be lucky enough to have someday…) is this:

When I married his dad, I sponsored him for his green card. One of the many pieces of paper I had to sign for this honor was one stating that I would reimburse the government for the next ten years for any welfare payments or benefits that he may be granted over the next ten years, or until he racked up 40 quarters of Social Security credit, even if we got divorced. If his bad behavior was the reason we got divorced, too bad…so sad…..pay up, dahlink.

I worked for a social service agency, so I knew exactly how much that could come to….and how damn long it would take for me to pay that off if the guvmint ever wanted to collect on that promise.

If you don’t think that you would be willing to sign such a pledge for your sweetie, don’t get married to him or her. You probably have a good reason why you wouldn’t, whether you are consciously aware of it or not. Forget the good looks, the great sex or the current earning situation. All of that can change in a heartbeat, but the person’s basic character remains.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:35 am Mike:

All people better have their own money–even if you blend most of it. If you have your own money in a safe place then marriage is not a threat. When you blend money and don’t have your own you are in danger.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:44 am craig:

I have said before that men should get married only if they wholly commit to the Catholic sacrament of marriage, and are absolutely sure their intended does too. By that I mean the whole enchilada: no sex outside of (or prior to) marriage, no divorce (and in case of abuse/adultery, no remarriage after separation), and no contraception either. Otherwise, there is no compelling reason for a man to marry.

Non-Catholics (and some Catholics too) will undoubtedly have reservations about the above, but our culture is long overdue for a hard conversation about how our having progressively shed each of the assumptions above has brought about the decline of the family and created a culture disposed toward narcissism and familial abandonment. If family bonds are a thing that can be broken as well as created, then marriage becomes “legalized fornication” and a transactional, not a covenantal arrangement.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:45 am Glenmore:

I suspect the enhanced ’safety net’ society provides now, combined with effective birth control, have weakened the links many women used to place between sex, marriage, family, and support. Men are unnecessary and sex is for ‘fun’ (especially amoung the younger/lower income segment of the population. If individuals are no longer personally responsible for anything else, why should we expect them to be responsible about marriage (this statement applies to both men and women.)

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:47 am Oh the humanity:

These whiner guys have problems that are centered on themselves, not society. You’ll hear from later about how American society messed up their retirement, career, etc.

I got married 2 days after graduation from college and have now been married 18 years and have a wonderful wife and 2 kids. This threat of my rights being taken away by divorce is easily resolved by not getting divorced. When getting married, it helps not to enter into the institution with the assumption that if it’s some sort of bummer you can always wriggle free. Once you’re in it, you should be in to stay, and choose accordingly. These guys simply made the wrong choice–she was an expensive bitch before the divorce, too. People I know who got divorced were generally screw-ups for various reasons, and botched this key junction in their lives.

Now, what these oh-so-desirable single men say about being better off single says a lot. Yeah, my wife is a “feminist” in the classic sense of being an equal, with an education, a brain, and productive capacity. And the thing is, a young household run by two equals with ambition will kick the hell out of a single-person household run by some infantile self-absorbed commitment-avoider looking for the next fun thing, male or female.

So while my single friends are aging and becoming desperate, tired, high-mileage, heavy-baggage tragic figures, my wife and I get to enjoy our kids under a firm umbrella of financial security and stability. So let me sum this up: by getting married, we were both able to get rich, have more sex, and have a more enriching home life than our single friends. Oh the pain and tragedy.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:49 am D:

rule #1 say it with me now: Pre-nuptual Agreement
I tell all of my younger male friends this, and to learn from a real person what the downside of not having one is… as I have slid down to that long financial nightmare of chapter-something-or-other, I am really preaching this to keep guys from ruination…

rule#2 Don’t let her stay home. Seems in a lot of states and surely mine… if she is a stay-at-home with or without kids, she will get alimony. And, yeah, there is no such thing as maintainence. It’s alimony, and you are paying it as if you owe her something. Maybe in ye olden days when a woman migh have no way of getting a job, it was important. Now? No. The hard part, and what drive my female friends crazy [several of whom are divorced] Is because of my earning ability to allow her to stay home with the children, which was her demand, I now have to pay alimony for the same amount of time as the marriage lasted. MEANWHILE if she had worked, there would likely be no alimony.

How does that work? The chica who stays home and reads romance novels while the kids are at school, gets a free pass, while her sisters busting their tails get nothing?

In the end the laws apply only to those who step up to the plate, and act responsibly. Those who don’t, and who the laws are supposed to target, get passed. Male and female. I know guys who hit the door and never looked back, to the ruin of their children, and I know women [one is my ex] who use their college education and career experience… to work minimum wage jobs, since their ex has to pay it all anyway. I have a sort of grim smile that when the alimony is gone, and the last kid is 18, I won’t pay anything anymore… and she will be 50 trying to re-start the career she had 20 years before. Some hard lessons will be learned then…

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:52 am JJ:

Move to Japan and Marry a Japanese woman. Be a good husband and live happily ever after. If things don’t work out and you share some of the blame, the Japanese court will make you write a check for an amount sufficient to keep her on her feet before she gets a job. The court expects divorced women to actually re-enter the work force to support themselves.

Oct 31, 2007 - 8:53 am Trey:

Mike wrote: “The only “trick” to having a good marriage is finding the right woman to marry.”

I think that is the fundamental aspect of a happy, blessed marriage, the sina quo non of a good relationship. As in cooking, it is impossible to make a great meal out of rancid ingredients.

And I am not sure that men and women are taught what to look for in a relationship. But stringent and sober selection is a must, or we depend on luck. I prefer depending upon hard work and self control to luck any day.

Once the selection is made, there is certainly a lot to be done, but having selected a wonderful woman to be my wife, we are committed to doing the work. Having been married before, less succesfully, I learned that the choice of parnter is crucial.

And I cannot imagine being single, my wife and family bring too much joy, support, challenge and growth to my life.

Trey

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:09 am Voluble:

Maybe we should do as Heinlein suggested in one of his books and have marriage contracts of different terms and different lengths that spell out the rights and responsibilities of each party and the conditions of termination etc… Lawyers want their share of the pie. They will continue to get elected to office and jigger with the laws and you can rest assured that whatever changes are made the lawyers will get theirs.

So, why not just cut them in from the start? Structure the incentives so that they make a little up front and there is little likelihood of making anything on the back end when things go awry. It is kind of like paying protection money to the mob to keep them from beating you up or like paying taxes to the government to keep them from arresting you. It is all just a cost of doing business.

France instituted a type of civil union for gays that has actually turned out to be very popular with straight couples since the terms are more appealing to them than the traditional type of union. There is no reason everyone should be forced into a one size fits all type of contract for something as important as a marriage when they wouldn’t dream of conducting even trifling business deals in the same manner.

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:11 am Barry:

personally I hate the idea that a woman can stop anything and everything I care about doing just by making my life a living hell until I concede to her demands.

I must hold my tongue, hold my temper and “be the man there” while the spouse screams invectives and shouts how I would stop riding my bike,horse etc. if I loved her! and lets not even go to the “I want you to stop riding the bike, horses etc because YOU WANT TOO not because I am bitchin’ you off of the bike, horse etc you name the hobby.” and the only recourse is divorce where the state takes all my toys and gives them to her.

Yes, marriage ain’t what it used to be.

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:32 am Dan Collins:

Yes, and couples ought to be in marriage counselling from the time they get back from their honeymoons.

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:32 am mark:

“The only “trick” to having a good marriage is finding the right woman to marry. Good sex is not a reason to get married. How do you know when you’ve found the right one?”

It’s cutesy-cutesy, Dear Abby-ish statements like these that make me wonder if A) Do you have ANY idea what is going on at all? B) Have you actually ever met a real live American Woman? C) What year are you living in.. 1974?

This isn’t a simple ‘character’ issue- this is a legal issue. The ‘legal’ system is now and has been completely insane. Guys, to explain how it feels to be a man nowadays to a woman, tell them to imagine if they woke up suddenly tomorrow to find out that rape is now legal. All the women would be completely freaking out, saying, “this is insane,” but then the men’s only response is, “hey, not all men are like that.” Then, just to make you feel like you’ve just entered the Twilight Zone, they ask accusingly, “hey lady, (talking to her like she’s an idiot that was born yesterday) what do you have against men anyway? You’re scary and creepy and obviously have issues that you need to get counseling on because of some past relationship problems- you know, you fit the profile of an abuser. I would never date a woman like you.”

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:35 am Dan Collins:

I think it’s clear from this thread that ONLY WOMEN should get married.

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:56 am kurt9:

I would add one other issue into the marrage debate for young men. If you are in your early 20’s, you are highly likely to live long enough to benefit from biotechnological immortality (www.sens.org). Within the next 20-30 years will be a world of unlimited openess and opportunity for those who keep their options open.

This, combined with the extreme financial and personal risk of marrage (risk comparable to venture start-ups or oil wild-catting) make marrage an increasingly unnecessary venture for today’s young men.

The future is open for those who seek to keep it open.

Oct 31, 2007 - 9:57 am Richard Cook:

Oh the humanity

What planet are you from? I know plenty of senior single guys and narry a one is tragic or desparate. They are loving life and living it.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:00 am cthulhu:

I’m 45, male, 18 years into a relationship, never been married.

One year, when we were on a 3-week vacation in Fiji, I noted that the entire cost of the trip would have been taxed away had we been married. The “marriage penalty” certainly factored into our early thinking.

Now that we are older and have more of a nest egg, remaining single can protect both parties by compartmentalizing risk. If one of us were to lose everything through illness or legal action, “we” would only have lost half. Even if we parted then, there would only be one life to rebuild — the other party wouldn’t have been dragged down too.

Since leading causes of bankruptcy include individual risks such as loss of job or medical bills, staying single becomes a way to protect your partner.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:00 am RiverCocytus:

mark: It’s still a character issue. No amount of ‘good law’ can make up for bad people. It just controls the damage.

What I mean is, having a good marriage is just as difficult as it used to be - you need to have good character, your partner does as well. It is in some ways more free - easier to find them - but also harder to commit meaningfully. What is worse is what happens to the bad marriages.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:06 am wahsatchmo:

I was married for nine years before my divorce, and I was with her for 4 years before that.

There was no cheating, no animosity. To be honest, she just wasn’t the right girl for me - although she was the one that asked me for a divorce. I got tired of her spending money and time on trying to find herself, so I stopped being interested in her. But I felt it necessary to stick to the marriage “contract”, at least until she was willing to break it.

I don’t think you have to view marriage as a sacred contract to stay married. I agree with those that said if you put her needs ahead of yours, and if she puts your needs ahead of hers, you will stay married.

I’m not going to shy away from marriage in the future, if I meet the right woman. I lost half of my assets in the divorce, and probably lost a good chunk more during the marriage itself. But it’s worth the risk for the right woman.

My advice would be don’t enter the marriage lightly. If you have doubts, there’s a good chance they won’t be resolved by the mere act of marriage. Used to be that married couples would work through their issues, because society was structured to support that practice. Now, society supports the “end it if it doesn’t feel right” practice.

The risk of loss in divorce really hasn’t changed; it’s just been readily quantified and monetarized by the courts. This just means that men must resist the urge to jump into marriage just to make their partner happy.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:08 am RiverCocytus:

kurt9: Welcome to the world of magical thinking. Does one ever get anything for free?

The answer: no.

And thus our problems.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:08 am Sally:

well, I’m a woman, married 5 years, and here’s a novel thought… why don’t YOU be the type of person you want to marry? Instead of opting out, protecting yourself legally, or “choosing” carefully. If YOU are honest, loyal, steadfast, industrious and resilient, the likelihood is you will attract the same sort of person. If you are easily bored, whiny, lazy, demanding and sulky - requiring lots of entertainment and maintenance - thats probably what you’re going to get in return.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:14 am Helen Smith:

Great comments so far; I especially like the suggestion from a couple of you to ask yourself if the person you are considering marrying would support you if you were out of a job. It’s a good predictor for a man or woman contemplating whether or not a partner is the right choice. Loyalty and feeling that someone is on your side is very important in a marriage. I think it carries you through some pretty bad times.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:15 am Flash Gordon:

I got lucky on the 3rd try. This one has lasted 30 years and is absolutely great. The first two were quite painful to end and I almost didn’t go for the 3rd one for that reason. And back then I don’t think the court system and the culture were as bad for men as they are today.

I credit the success of my current marriage to my wife’s father. He did not raise his daughter to expect Daddy to do everything for her. He was a true feminist before his time. He was a physicist who believed that women could be equal to men in the sciences if they wanted to be. He encouraged his daughters to pursue whatever goals they decided upon and to believe they would be attainable through, and only through, hard work.

As a result, I have been blessed with a wife who loves men, especially me, appreciates everything I do for her, but does not believe that men, especially I, were put on earth to serve her and make her happy. Partly for that reason, I do everything I can to make her happy. But we both also know that ultimately she is responsible for her happiness, not I.

So to you young guys, pay close attention to the relationship your intended has with her father. It’s important.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:20 am Aric:

I’m 32 and unmarried. As I see it, it’s a game of probabilities.

If I meet and marry miss right, there’s a 50% chance our marriage will end in divorce.

75% of divorces are initiated by the woman.

Women get primary custody of the children in child support cases.

So, .5 * .75 * .9 is about 1/3. So, if I marry and have children, I have about a 1 in three chance that she’ll divorce me and wind up with the kids. That is an unacceptably high risk to me.

As ‘mark’ said above, nobody would tell women that hey, spousal abuse is no big deal, as long as you make sure you marry a guy who doesn’t abuse you.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:22 am One more man:

Dear Dr. Helen:

I finished reading your post on “Should Men Marry” an hour ago and have only just recovered from the state of disorientation in which it left me. I am a 47-year old man who has never married even though I have for my entire adult life harbored fond notions of a life spent alongside a woman to whom I could devote myself body and soul. I have no doubt my own view resonates to the core with the bulk of responses other men have put to you.

Your reader who stated “…7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that [marriage] is one of the worst mistakes that they every made” could have been me. You can well imagine how many married couples a 47-year old man or woman could know in their life. Yet in my case, I would put the “regret factor” at about 90% or higher. Of all considerations that have induced me to sidestep the full commitment of marriage-and two women in my life have made me dwell on the thought to the point of distraction-none carried more power than the number of married men who confided to me that their lives went into a progressive tailspin once the ring went on the finger. And no, they are not the golf addicts, football junkies or other little boys who never grew up.

I fully acknowledge that there are women out there that are spectacular in every way, whose character, intellect and capacity for virtue and compassion are the stuff of legend. If you can get her name, please forward it to me. The preponderance of women I meet daily make a point of trying to be men, and ill-bred men at that. If you are familiar with Sir Compton MacKenzie’s statement that “Women do not find it difficult nowadays to behave like men; but they often find it extremely difficult to behave like gentlemen,” you will know what I mean. If I blame the rise of feminism on the historic mistreatment and mis-regard of women, I blame the revolting, self-centered, egotistical and utterly man-hating disposition of most American women on the soulless creatures who have taken feminism to perverted extremes and become intoxicated on it. Women constantly whine about “the male ego.” When is the last time these women took a good look at the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine or spent five minutes watching The View? These women do not lack a massive ego, they only lack testicles and a beard.

Don’t think I desire some kind of doormat submissive, either; if I need my slippers fetched, I’ll get a cocker spaniel, thank you, not a wife. I think, deep down, all decent men wish to be knights in shining armor, but you need a Lady in your life to be a knight. Women today are taught that being a lady is to throw your birthright away.

On the matter of the anti-male legal system I will offer only this: contemporary society does not raise men to be fighters. It raises women to be fighters, and it raises men to endure. “Real men do not complain, nor do they whine about attacks made upon them; it’s not manly,” society seems to say. If the proportion of ill-bred, vile men in this world have made it necessary for certain laws to be enacted, the public discourse of manhood has consumed all men collectively and spat them into the same pool of the bully, the wife-beater and the chauvinist pig. To be a man today is to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. I may as well change my name to Alan Alda to spare myself the trouble. Michael Crichton noted in his novel Disclosure that a man cannot even smile at a child in an elevator without being instantly thought a pedophile freak. Okay, that was a novel. But I have experienced the very same thing in my life many times. I’m a man, and therefore I am suspect. Men are not allowed to be human beings. Today, men have to take sensitivity courses when they get a job just to make sure they don’t offend their female coworkers. You should have met some of my female co-workers! Prison guards have more class.

And women wonder why men tremble at the altar.

Finally, the very same women I know who nag their husbands and boast to their girlfriends how they have their boyfriends wrapped around their fingers are the very same women who pant and blush while hearing Sean Connery’s voice, or watching Russell Crowe play Master and Commander. Maybe my mistake has been that when I listen to women, I have taken them seriously. Maybe 90% of what comes out of a woman’s mouth truly is irresponsible tripe. Maybe I really should just devote my efforts to being a gentleman as best I can, but when she starts testing my nerve, throw her across my lap and smack her backside until it glows like Rudolph’s nose.

On second thought, I’d rather not spend the next eight months in prison. Maybe I’ll just forget the whole romance thing and enjoy a good afternoon fly fishing. It sure seems a lot safer.

Sincerely,

One more man

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:22 am serfer62:

I was very fortunate. My wife became a femanazi and I became a Practis Husband. I quickly found out that 2 could live as cheaply as 5 or 6.

OK. It took me 2 decades to recover, but it was worth it. As a rancher I now surf, hunt, shoot and smile…a lot.

Actually I pray for her. Well actually I thank God for the divorce…

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:22 am fineday:

I am happily married (12 years), but I would be happier if I was not married. If it wasn’t for the kids…

I never congratulate a man who announces he is engaged. And, I counsel against marriage to my friends. (Sadly, they never listen - I remind them of my advice when they are in their divorce proceedings.)

The only reason that makes any sense to get married is if you want children. If so, you need to find woman who has a similar interests, and family history. If she puts off having children get rid of her before it is too late. You don’t want a mother who puts her career before having children.

The marriages that seem to last are ones where the wife is Asian and Catholic. That combination is your safest bet.

And for those keeping seperate finances - the divorce court often does not care about that. It will add all the assets up and distribute them “equitably.”

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:31 am mark:

“Oh the humanity

What planet are you from? I know plenty of senior single guys and narry a one is tragic or desparate. They are loving life and living it.”

… for NOW. Like so many men, you just don’t ‘get it.’ I was ‘happily’ married for a while too.. so what? It’s what happens to you as a man when the divorce comes.

Would you sign a contract with a business partner that stated he could, “at any time for any reason suddenly expel you from the business, and have you jailed for nothing if he ‘feels’ like it, take all of the money you made from the business, take your children, then you must pay him hundreds to thousands of dollars a month for at least the next 18 years?”

..and you’re just supposed to ‘trust’ that the partner will never do it? The whole reason there are laws is because we cannot just ‘trust’ everyone will be good. If you’re stupid enough to sign a contract like that, knock yourself out. The point is you have no rights as a man in a marriage/family.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:32 am OldSage:

It is not a crap shoot. A common sense of the nature and purpose of marriage can go far to ensure it will last. Men should not consider as candidates for marriage any woman who thinks that marriage is just a contractual agreement between two individuals; who thinks that the romance of feeling love is more essential to marriage than the hard work of sacrificially loving someone; who is not committed to (and who does not expect from her husband) absolute fidelity; for whom a professional career will be more important than being a mother (or than being a mother of “too many” children). Obviously religious faith can do a lot to instill (and signal) the appropriate marriage-oriented dispositions. (But of course even religious women today are still prone to some corruption by modern anti-family ideas).

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:36 am ljm:

I can sympathize with 32 and unmarried. I have 3 very marriage reluctant sons in their late twenties and early thirties.

This is what I tell them. First be a man and then marry someone with self confidence that you respect. If you are looking for someone to reafirm your manhood 24/7 you are probably going to be disapointed in marriage.

Women today are busy. They can only dedicate a certain amount of time to bolstering your image of yourself so you had better come into it with a secure knowledge of who you are and who she is.

If you love her for who she is not for how she makes you feel about yourself then it will likely work beautifully.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:41 am Mama73:

If all the women (or men if you’re female) are mean and shallow maybe you need to blame yourself, not the opposite gender.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:43 am mark:

“mark: It’s still a character issue. No amount of ‘good law’ can make up for bad people. It just controls the damage.”

The reason we have laws is because people cannot be trusted. Our laws actually encourage and enable women to commit what amounts to fraud and embezzlement.

What I mean is, having a good marriage is just as difficult as it used to be - you need to have good character, your partner does as well. It is in some ways more free -easier to find them - but also harder to commit meaningfully. What is worse is what happens to the bad marriages.”

Making a marriage work is impossible in the current climate. How can a marriage work when one of the spouses comes into the marriage who is not accountable for any of their actions legally or culturally because of their gender? Any man who would get married today is an idiot and a fool. The laws HAVE to change before intelligent men like myself ever consider marriage.

Oct 31, 2007 - 10:58 am brian levine:

I’m 59, male, divorced, 2 kids.

I think it comes down to power. During the course of a relationship, dating, courting, marriage, men have most of the power.

The one time period they lose power is when they have young children. Women then have the ability to deprive them of the company of their children. If you are a man who loves his children you realize that your wife has the upper hand.

Good advice for men and women: When you are courting, pat attention to how your potential mate treats people with less power than them. Do they treat waitresses, cleaning ladies, and handymen with dignity and respect or are they dismissive and callous? Because that’s how you’ll be treating as the power relationship changes during your life.

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:07 am John:

I’m a not-yet-married single man, but a few observations on this for what (little) they’re worth.

I’d agree with several commenters that it’s absolutely critical to find the right woman, and that this is extremely difficult now; but I’d also add it’s if anything even more important to be the right man, which is also much more difficult now, for interrelated reasons.

The rise of feminism and the sexual revolution has had many good consequences for career-centric, sexually non-committal men and (a much smaller number of) women, but it’s taken a heavy toll on those who desire families or a stable marriage relationship, which people are necessarily the biological (And hence, actual) future.

Men have been encouraged/coerced (depending on the context) to be or at least appear to be more feminine and submissive, women likewise to be more masculine and dominant.

Unfortunately, this is what neither gender wants either to be nor to find in a spouse, respectively. (Show me a Feminist women who claims to want a submissive, matriarchal, or even merely androgynous male, and 8 out of 10 times you’ll show me a woman who’s lying to her own self so as to be true to her in-/con-fused ideology; 1 out of 10, you’ll be showing me an alpha lesbian or bisexual. Narcissistic, anti- or pseudo-marriage alpha males are grateful to feminists that a committed marriage is considered a form of oppression–so now they’re no longer exploiting women, but instead liberating them from dependence upon men! “I’m not here to exploit your body–I’m here to free your mind!” Say it with a straight face and how-can-you-think-I-don’t-care?! pain in your eyes, and a PC coed may go for it.)

This conflict between nature and the “progressively” coercive social and intellectual constructs benefits those who reject marriage and family (e.g., militantly feminist or careerist women and playboy-wannabe men), and similar penalizes marriage-oriented women and those who in the past would be called honorable gentlemen. (Witness the media/feminist response to Promise Keepers, as just one example–scholars agree: faithful, selfless, masculine men who lead and provide are the REAL threat to women!)

“Unfortunately” for America and the Progressive world, the future is built upon strong, faithful, loving, stable families with children–very much the contrary of what the intellectually regnant ideologies (are designed to) promote (unless one simply redefines “family”, of course–as they are more than happy to. On the “correct” progressive definition of family, who could possibly be more pro-family than Hefner and Flynt, except perhaps Greer and Mackinnon? Enemies, yet with some common goals re marriage).

I’m not sure how to combat this except at the individual level–the Progressive Left in its somewhat rival forms is more dominant and coercive in university and media culture than ever before; fortunately, there are also more alternative outlets for thought and culture than ever before, too, though their influence is _comparatively_ minor and available only to those who are proactive. (One has to search for conservative thought and culture; Progressive Leftism, OTOH, is pretty much mandatory for anyone with a college education or [in watered-down form] who consumes standard news or entertainment media.)

More concretely and personally, maybe this is coincidence, but UNINTENTIONALLY every one of the last several wonderful women I’ve dated has been foreign born–highly intelligent, highly accomplished (PhD, MD, etc.), WHILE ALSO not only unafraid of my traditional, morally conservative masculinity, but highly desirous of it. It’s not easy to find highly educated and intelligent American women who share these traits in their minds (which are, hence, often in conflict with their hearts).

American women nowadays, especially more highly educated ones, do _statistically_ seem to have more of an adversarial nature to them, yet this is not by nature but by education (putting a bit of the “grrrr” back in grrrrl) and so habit, mandated by the academy and reinforced by political training at every step along the corporate ladder. (This is also via experience with the male sexually-revolutionary players, of course–the kind of men who were once disgraceful cads are now heroes of the cultural left, especially if they’re glibly PC.)

This new adversarial nature isn’t, despite Feminist claims, scary or intimidating to men (a clever rhetorical trick on their part: ideologically condemn masculinity and male strength, and then condemn men who reject said ideology as unmasculine and weak) unless it’s in a corporate or university context (the thought policeperson is NOT your friend, and DOES carry a gun re your futur). But this adversarial nature is ABSOLUTELY NOT what men want in a wife (though it can be very fun, exciting, and disposable in any number of mere flings–not exactly good things for the future of families, but then, that may be the point–or, if you’re clever just redefine “family” so that it’s _great_ for families!).

I think and fear that until the academic and (derivatively) media culture change in a substantially more morally conservative direction, this problem will persist and even worsen (though maybe we’ve already bottomed out, for now–hard to say). But just the opposite is happening: as America has become more conservative, the academy has responded with more Progressive intellectual doctrine, coercion, and hence thought-inbreeding–the cognitive rear guard of American intellectual life–suggesting that this problem will not diminish in the near- to medium-term. (Nearly every conservative high schooler I know has returned from college a lefty–and not because of indoctrination, not by any means, no! But simply because, as all their professors, books, and assignments made clear, Progressivism (moral, social, political) is the only rational option! I mean, what’s the alternative–theocracy? Blood for oil? Women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, unable to vote, raped at will, even/especially in marriage, by conservative, patriarchal Christian men following the unstated orders of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson? [Silliness, of course, but you get the too-often true point.] )

Which means that successful=marriage-seeking men and women are going to have to be even more careful and determined–much more careful and determined–than their predecessors in the 40s and 50s when seeking a spouse, AND in BEING a spouse. (The culture today doesn’t just screw-up others–it screws up us, too.)

Or we can do what many leading feminists and playboys would prefer–just give up on marriage and leave the culture to them. Polyandry, polygyny, free love, and condoms (those are what make it _responsible_ hedonism!)–a better future for all, from a certain narcissistic sexually revolutionary point of view.

It may seem the glide path to oblivion, but I’m sure that with increased social responsibility to make up for the no-longer-required personal responsibility, government will make sure it all works fine in the end, so long as the government is sufficiently comprehensively Progressive. Look at Europe for a shining example of the future! Yes.

…. or, we can fight back, one relationship at a time. Alas, this is much easier said than done. But is that any different from any other critically important quest?

(Apologies for the length here, and for the lack of concise editing. :[ )

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:23 am Meade:

“I lost half of my assets in the divorce…”

Therein lies the mindset, in either sex, that leads to 90% of divorces: Once married, under the law, your assets are no longer just yours; they become marital property. Don’t want to share? Don’t marry.

Try this: “I received half of the marital property in the divorce, along with owing half of the obligations.”

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:27 am John Blake:

Fight vicious, discriminatory legalisms thus: From age 21, draft a legally binding Marriage Contract, to be initialed paragraph-by-paragraph by any prospective spouse. Should she balk at endorsing various disclaimers, specifying your entitlements (not hers), committing to equitable child-rearing and property division (50:50, absent stated character deficiencies including but not limited to abandonment, abuse or alienation, adultery, addiction, and so on)– no deal.

Previous to any marriage, establish the equivalent of an Asset Protection Trust immune to spousal litigation: Incorporate a charitable/educational Family Foundation, non-profit but NOT tax-exempt; membership by invitation only; undivided interests vs. shares, i.e. no individual equity. As Founder, you become Foundation Chairman, with minimum two Officers/Trustees as Secretary, Treasurer– typically close relatives, classmates; possibly your Agent’s in-house staffers (as non-lawyers, unqualified for barratry or champetry). Your corporate Charter, plus Constitution and by-laws, will carefully circumscribe their roles.

In Delaware, such incorporations cost about $100 to register. Your local Corporate Agent’s fee is some $75 per year. Since Foundation assets are all after-tax, you incur no, repeat NO, onerous tax reporting or operational requirements: Your Foundation can distribute grants to anyone for any purpose, in any amount at any time.

Donate all income to this Foundation, after tax; contract sale/leasebacks of autos and real property; administer your retirement accounts, transfer any intellectual property (copyrights, patents et al.) for taxation at non-profit rates. The Foundation Board will compensate you in whatever form is most appropriate (grants, services-rendered, contractual agreements), immune to creditors’ or other liens.

As a corporation, your entity never terminates, meaning assets may compound forever. Should your spouse –or for that matter any litigant– lay claim on any basis to your personal assets, your minimal checking account will have to do… you have no equity in the Foundation, which as a Corporation is immune to –not liable for– personal judgments against individual members, which your binding Marriage Contract expressly prohibits anyway.

Married twenty-five years now, with three outstanding kids, given today’s radically skewed, egregiously anti-male environment, I would attempt a family only with strenuous precautions. Life may not be “all about money”, but given today’s arrogant, mean-spirited and selfish gold-diggers, you’d best not take the chance.

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:35 am Roark:

At biggest issue here is the changing position of women in society. For years men were in charge in the workplace and women were in charge at home. Our society has worked to ensure that women have an equal chance at work but nothing has been done to equalize the man’s power at home.

With the incentives to reward female promotion at work many men find themselves at a disadvantage in the workplace because of their sex. This may actually be the right way to deal with correcting decades of female unfriendly work conditions.

What this means, however, is that men find themselves facing the choice to enter into another social arena at a disadvantage. Marriage and long term relationships have always trended toward female control and modern men are being asked to submit to females both at work and at home in many cases.

Add to that the fact that many of the women looking to marry have no intention of raising the children from that marriage. Men’s concession to women at home was in many ways a trade off to have a caretaker and stay at home parent. Women have removed that option - sacrificing it at the altar of their professional lives.

Society for women is a win (work), win (home control). For men it is the exact opposite. By the time many of these women figure this out men have settled into a quiet happiness of having no control over their professional lives but being in total control of the off-work hours without the stereotypical unhappy, constantly nagging, “you have to do better and constantly change to make me happy while I get to stay the same” dynamic that marriage has always included. Add to that it is in fashion to bash men almost constantly for being stupid, unsophisticated and boorish.

Who in their right mind would want anything to do with that?

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:40 am Larry J:

My wife and I have been happily married for 24 years. Are things perfect? No, but then “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” Demanding perfection of imperfect people is bound for failure and is a sign of immaturity. We have a good solid marriage and love one another very much. Life is good.

While they say that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, it doesn’t necessarily mean that any given marriage has a 50-50 chance of failure. I’ve known several serial marryers who’ve been married 3 or more times. Likewise, I know dozens of people who’ve been married for decades to a single partner.

Here are a few suggestions to a young man thinking of marriage:

1. Don’t even think about it until you’re at least 25. If you’re still sowing your wild oats and chasing women, you aren’t ready for marriage.

2. If your potential bride seems more interested in your income and assets than in you, run.

3. If your fiance starts exhibiting “bridezilla” tendencies, run even faster. A wedding is a ceremony. Along with the reception, it’s all over in a few hours. A marriage is something you want to last a lifetime. If you find yourself planning your wedding more than your marriage, then you have problems.

Maybe I’m just lucky. I do thank God I didn’t marry some of the women I dated before meeting my wife. Marriage is supposed to be a true partnership between two people. It far more than about sex.

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:51 am One more man:

Brian Levine’s advice is PURE GENIUS:

“Good advice for men and women: When you are courting, pay attention to how your potential mate treats people with less power than them. Do they treat waitresses, cleaning ladies, and handymen with dignity and respect or are they dismissive and callous? Because that’s how you’ll be treated as the power relationship changes during your life.”

This is something I was taught by someone years ago. This is a tried and true method of guaging a person’s character. If someone treats any person of decidedly less social power in a condescending manner because they can get away with it, you’ve just discovered 90% of that person’s true character. Run away…run away very fast!

One more tidbit: Watch out for women who want to make you their pet project. If you guys are frequently asked “Why do you hang out with so-and-so?” or “Don’t you think you’d be better off if you did such-and-such differently?”…you’re being sized up for a major overhaul as soon as the ring goes on.

Oct 31, 2007 - 11:56 am D:

So, just as a point of departure, between finding the right mate, and legal ramifications…

Finding the right mate is someting you strive for, knowing that the is no surefire way of doing it… people change suddenly or over time. Sometimes people hide some things, and sometimes you deny them. This isn’t a “New” thing. So what to do?

This is where the point about legal issues comes as a general fallback. In an advice column, there isn’t a point in making relationship generalization beyond blowing off steam. Some people prefer high maint. because it’s challenging, some prfer low maint. because it’s easy. Either extreme has it’s detractors, and so the million and one other things individuals are.

What does work as a generality is law, since in theory it has to apply broadly. Many people, once myself included, think it’s bad to start a marriage with a pre-nup, because it has a stigma of distrust. This is perhaps true, BUT it protects BOTH parties. You will notice how I have yet to mention which gender in this post. That is because the sword cuts both directions. Many states now have formulas about child support, slightly standardizing that part. What’s left is the splitting of wealth, and alimony. If you address this at the beginning then there is never a question that one person will have to provide for the other for many years, even though they have advanced degrees, and could easily work.

I boils down to this: If everyone chose their mate wisely, If everyone knew everything there is to know about their mate, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? Both genders can change, and some do, because they don’t have to try anymore.

So? Protecting yourselves legally is a reasonable fallback. Accepting the risk after knowing what it might be, is only prudent on the part of both parties.

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:14 pm serfer62:

Wow. Reading these inputs just makes me realize how lucky I was. I almost married a french chick in colleges that might have lasted longer or worse, forever.

What woman would ever have allowed me to surf, just surf, for a decade. Or take a deployment to the ME. How about shooting everyday? Never happen…

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:15 pm Messmore Breamworthy:

“The only reason that makes any sense to get married is if you want children.”

Very true. Indeed if you are sure you will not want to have kids, consider a vasectomy while single. Accidents happen…

And ask yourself if you want kids so badly that you are willing to pay a huge price in time and money AND run a substantial risk of losing them to divorce.

Maybe volunteering at Big Brothers or something would be…er, nevermind you will profiled as a pervert.

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:15 pm Oh the humanity:

Hey Mark:

I see those “senior” single guys living it up until they have a stoke or something. If you don’t think they are pathetic, wait. And yeah, rolling around their dirty apartment floors having sex on empty pizza boxes with match.com skanks counts as pathetic.

I’ll concede a key point–in my marriage there is far less of a power struggle because we’ve given that up–everything is jointly held and consolidated. That means EVERY transaction is transparent to the other, every financial decision is the result of joint agreement. It’s cumbersome, but there is less “power,” more consensus.

We had to reach that equilibrium to survive when we were young and poor. Now the combination makes us relentlessly powerful and honest with each other.

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:28 pm DJL:

Man is this post an eye opener. I think I’ll stay single - this country is truly screwed thanks to the left wing.

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:28 pm jtc:

Here is my question for the married:

If the man and woman are equal, and if there are two choices: A and B. A and B are mutually exclusive.

The husband wants A and the wife wants B.

Shouldn’t the ‘tie’ go to the man as the ‘head of the home’?

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:50 pm Mama73:

mark this is ridiculous:

“How can a marriage work when one of the spouses comes into the marriage who is not accountable for any of their actions legally or culturally because of their gender?”

Men had the upper hand for years, and yet there were many who loved and respected their wives…who didn’t feel the need to exercise their culturally condoned right to beat their wives black and blue.

Just the same, there are good women today who are appalled at man-hating, who see marriage as a promise made to God, and whom would view divorce as a monumental failure of their own moral character.

I’m one of them…of course, I’m already off the market!

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:54 pm mark:

Like most of society, those of you who are still insisting that marriage can work are in the same kind of denial an alcholic has, in that you continue to believe that life will get better despite drinking a fifth of whiskey a day.. “If I can just find the right situation to allow for my drinking..” Until the alcholic stops drinking, then they’re life will not improve, but only continue in a downward spiral.
The U.S. is in denial that today’s American women are Monsters and we need to change that as well as the divorce laws as well as beginning to make women accountable for their actions, otherwise getting married today is like starting a cross-country trip in your car with a flat tire and a severe oil leak- you’re going to have to fix it before you leave the driveway.

Oct 31, 2007 - 12:58 pm Lee:

Mark and Aric -

It is much worse in Los Angeles or California.

Here, we have about 68 to 75 divorces for each 100 marriage certificates issued.

Women get custody about 80% - 90% of the time, and women file for divorce 66% to 75% of the time.

High
.75 X .75 X .90 = .506

Low
.68 X .66 X .80 = .359

In California if you are a man and you marry, you have a 40% to 50% chance of losing custody of any kids you may have, no matter what you do.

IOW, you are at the total whim of your wife 50% of the time. You have no Rights 50% of the time.

Is this a risk any reasonable man should, would or could take?

w w w.dont-marry.com
>
>

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:01 pm DJL:

Mama73 - what this means is the laws HAVE to change or men should boycott marriage - and let the whole society go to hell with it! they should not depend on the good will of a woman but on a just legal system. Period. I think things will get worse before they get better - if ever! Is this what we are fighting Islamo-fascism to preserve?

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:06 pm Zammo:

Consider this advice a mother gave to her daughter:

“If your husband is happy, you’re both doing something wrong.”

Marriage is a very bad thing for men indeed.

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:08 pm IB Bill:

I’m 43 and unmarried. I’ve come to accept that as best I can — and I’m all right, for the most part. The way I look at it is “well, this is better than an unhappy marriage, and certainly better than a divorce.”

But let’s face it — a good marriage would be better than any of those options.

And there is the issue of living only for myself — and that’s not how people are designed.

In fact, after my last breakup (four years ago), I had to fight to shut off my protective instinct for my ex-girlfriend. I was deeply worried about her, and wanted to make sure she got herself settled and would be all right.

When she was all right, I had to stop trying to help her (we were split up, after all), even though I found it deeply satisfying — as all men and women do when they focus on helping others.

Being able to do what I want when I want does have its advantages. I don’t pretend, however, that that’s my purpose in life. Fortunately, I have my faith …

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:13 pm Jim C:

Like any high risk choice the rewards can be equally great.

I do risk managment for a living and the key point in the equation is when does the payoff/risk ballance tip.

It is even true for the lottery once it gets high enough it is worth buying every ticket.

15 years married, 6 Kids, great job that I really couldn’t have gotten without a lot of cooperation from her.

The risks are high but so is the payoff.

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:30 pm mark:

Mama73:

Are you sure you even understand what the subject of the discussion here? What does this have to do with men having no legal rights in a marriage? You wrote:

“Men had the upper hand for years, and yet there were many who loved and respected their wives…who didn’t feel the need to exercise their culturally condoned right to beat their wives black and blue.

Just the same, there are good women today who are appalled at man-hating, who see marriage as a promise made to God, and whom would view divorce as a monumental failure of their own moral character.

I’m one of them…of course, I’m already off the market!

Uh.. O…K. Come back sometime when you would like to join the actual discussion.

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:46 pm Helen Smith:

Hi DJL,

You stated that “this country is truly screwed thanks to the left wing.” It’s not just the left and the ideological feminists who are at fault, it is also the male “chivalry” of some on the right who have trampled on men’s legal rights by exaggerating the number of deadbeat dads, demanding large payouts to women in terms of alimony and seeing the state’s role as protectors and providers for women and children by using men to make this possible, sometimes at a cost that is many times more than just simple support. If men stand up to the legal system, many on the right are not supportive and say that men are whiners and should “take it like a man” when in fact, the man may be treated like a common criminal without due process and any “real” man would stand up for his civil rights. Those on the right also act like fathers are deserting their families with abandon but as a commenter pointed out, most divorces are initiated by women.

Oct 31, 2007 - 1:53 pm John:

Mama 73, I don’t think you’ve taken enough time to examine the facts. The fact is, more than 70% of all divorces are filed by the woman. For a person who is supposed to be the commitment creature, this alone is a staggering stat. We are not asking ourselves the most important question: why is the woman; the one who is supposed to crave commitment, the one who seems to more often than not abhor it as well?

It’s nice that you and your husband work out so well, but all anecdotes aside, men suffer in great numbers at the hands of women today, probably much more so than women have by men, because at least women have always had a voice. Vaginal politics, going as clear back in history as Adam and Eve should be a clear testament to that. Men will never have such a manipulative bargaining chip. Furthermore, it seems that the state has done a very effective job in taking away any bargaining chip a man has ever had.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:00 pm Lee:

Jim C :

Like any high risk choice the rewards can be equally great.

I do risk managment for a living and the key point in the equation is when does the payoff/risk ballance tip.

True.

What many on this thread as stating is that for them, and for increasing numbers of men, that tipping point has been reached.

There was always the risk that she would fall out of love. Always the risk she would leave for another man.

Except now, she is rewarded if she does this. She gets half of your stuff, no one holds her accountable, and the children are treated as her property.

And even more laws are passed over time that continue to make the deal a bad business decision for men.

It just doesn’t make much sense anymore.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:02 pm Lee:

Oh the humanity :

Hey Mark:

I see those “senior” single guys living it up until they have a stoke or something. If you don’t think they are pathetic, wait. And yeah, rolling around their dirty apartment floors having sex on empty pizza boxes with match.com skanks counts as pathetic.

We don’t worry about it, and frankly we don’t care what others think.

It’s our life.

Attempting to manipulate and shame men into doing what you think is right or proper or appropriate or not pathetic or whatever - it just doesn’t work any more.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:06 pm Lee:

Meade :

“I lost half of my assets in the divorce…”

Therein lies the mindset, in either sex, that leads to 90% of divorces: Once married, under the law, your assets are no longer just yours; they become marital property. **Don’t want to share?** Don’t marry.

Try this: “I received half of the marital property in the divorce, along with owing half of the obligations.”

Oct 31, 2007 11:27 AM

Many men are questioning this long held cultural and societal value.

-Why should a woman get half of a man’s assets he had when they married?

Men and women are equal, she worked, he worked. So why does he pay Alimony and CPS?

-Why is a woman entitled to half of what a man earns during marriage?

How on earth is Heather Mills deserving of anything more that, say, £5mln?

-Why does a woman deserve to continue to live in the manner in which she has become accustomed to?

Does her ex-husband deserve to continue to have sex with her?

Does her ex-husband deserve to continue to have her cook, clean and garden?

Many Men are questioning these long held values, and find them to be unneccessary, unequal, sexist, unfair or just out of date.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:12 pm Jim Rockford:

Dr. Helen –

Two major issues stand out.

One: Women are now unconstrained by socio-economic pressures, or social mores. So men getting married is likely to be a moot question anyway. Since most women will choose what they are hard-wired for: the high-status Alpha Male. Think Sex and the City.

African-American women have out-of-wedlock births at around 75% or so nationally. They seem to be the canary in the coal-mine demographically speaking, and that is likely where we are headed as women lose societal constraints. A choice by women for what they really want: the most socially dominant men (that’s only a few men) for bed partners and reproductive partners.

It’s a post-marriage society. We are not going to turn the clock back.

Two: men who *DO* marry will find themselves dumped very quickly when they lose power/status/wealth/social-dominance. Remember that women absent constraints will ALWAYS choose the most dominant man, socially. All the war stories here speak to that dynamic.

The net result of this is going to be a lot of men who will never marry or be divorced and have negative experiences with women, and remain unconnected to them. While a few powerful men (think Bill Clinton or Mayor Tony Villaraigosa or Mayor Gavin Newsome) make it a point to have sex with subordinate’s wives and have multiple mistresses.

In short, the society of West Africa, the ME, parts of North Africa, and parts of SE Asia. You’ll see a LOT of violence and outright misogyny by men who will have zilch connection to women. Who in turn will be the mistresses of powerful men. You’ll also see the other markers of those societies: widespread poverty and “big man” wealth/women hoarding.

Men unconnected to women are dangerous for a society. Women overestimate their social control and should prepare themselves for misogyny by men on a widespread scale, including restrictions on women’s freedom and persons as a popular political program. What would be men’s downside? That women will continue not to sleep with them? That powerful men will continue to have most of the women?

The popularity of movies where pretty girls die instead of (being saved by brave men and of course sleep with them) disturbs me. As does the failure of any young man to try and save his female classmates from Cho at Virginia Tech. Quite literally it seems that young men have decided that young women are not worth dying for and THAT is very dangerous for society.

But hey, feminists have had their victory to choose the men they want and now they are stuck with the consequences. Power is an ugly thing.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:14 pm KenB:

The anecdotes are alarming, and I don’t like many societal trends. I think men often are treated unfairly in divorce, though I thankfully have no personal experience with it. But I find it hard to believe these anecdotes are truly representative.

I am male and have been married to the same woman for 37 years. We certainly have our frictions, regularly, but I cannot imagine not being married to her

I certainly have friends and associates who have been divorced, but most of them seem to be in stable and reasonably happy relationships. I find it hard to imagine the women I work with are, in their personal lives, gold-digging harpies, most of them anyway.

I think some of this is overstated.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:20 pm retro:

Been there - done that.

I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, get screwed - errr, I mean MARRIED again. EVER.

–Confirmed bachelor (more than 20 years now).

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:21 pm mark:

Oh the humanity:

You said:

“I see those “senior” single guys living it up until they have a stoke or something.” If you don’t think they are pathetic, wait.”

I guess you’ll have to explain to me how only single guys have strokes???

And this:

“And yeah, rolling around their dirty apartment floors having sex on empty pizza boxes with match.com skanks counts as pathetic.”

Who said I dated or had any sex with women at all? (I’ve been with more women in my life than you have ever even met, Jethro, but when I come home now I have total peace- so it looks I might just outlive you!)

“I’ll concede a key point–in my marriage there is far less of a power struggle because we’ve given that up–everything is jointly held and consolidated. That means EVERY transaction is transparent to the other, every financial decision is the result of joint agreement. It’s cumbersome, but there is less “power,” more consensus.

We had to reach that equilibrium to survive when we were young and poor. Now the combination makes us relentlessly powerful and honest with each other.”

You’re delusional and you’re going to get screwed. You have no rights and your wife knows it and she laughs at you behind your back. She has more respect for a dog than she has for you. You’ll understand all of this as you gain more experience with women- sounds like you have a long, long way to go and a lot to learn. Good luck, you’ll need it!

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:37 pm mvargus:

I’m a 36 year old never married man, but I”ve been close a couple of times and after my last “relationship” I know that for me marriage is unlikely.

To put it bluntly, women now have pretty much all the power due to the way divorce laws work.

No-fault had become a great way for a woman to lie and cheat her way into a marriage and then hold over the man the threat of “if you don’t completely surrender to me, I can steal at least half your money.” if there are kids make it 80%. There doesn’t have to be a real reason. the man could have done nothing wrong other than just being himself, but if the wife decides she’s “bored” or “interested in another man” or “feeling trapped” or any other idea she gets in her head, she can file and immediately demand a huge portion of her soon to be ex-husbands income.

Add in they way that children are now used as a weapon, and marriage becomes even less interesting.

Me, I want to have children someday. I want to meet a woman would can be my best friend, my companion, my lover and my wife. But it has to be a joining of equals, not of me being expected to crawl around and wait on “her highness” as my last girlfriend started planning once I started talking about getting a ring. (Thank god that she revealed her true self before I took the final step.)

My recommendation to anyone who does ask me is to consider the environment the woman grew up in. If she had a close, loving and married set of parents, then it might work. Otherwise, I recommend just staying as a couple and avoiding the ring.

Or as a wise man I once met said:

There are 3 rings in marriage
The engagement ring
The wedding ring
and the suffering.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:45 pm Joe:

The balance of power in a modern relationships, especially marriage, heavily favors the woman. Even happily married men I know concede that, always with some bitterness in their voice. Ironically, our own sense of chivalry and being a real man does not allow us to be as capricious and downright mean as our wives or girlfriends. I knew marriage was a compromise, I didn’t know women had the right, and endorsement, if not downright encouragement, from society, to unilaterally change the terms of that compromise.

I’ve been married 22 years. The first dozen years were good to great. It’s gone downhill since. I now honestly feel betrayed, destroyed and emasculated. I am a money making robot. Were it not for our children, I’d leave. In eight years, I think I will.

Oct 31, 2007 - 2:57 pm sofasleeper:

This is a topic on which I have very mixed feelings.

I believe in marriage. I think it’s the best shot at lasting happiness for almost all men and women. I intend to encourage my children to get married, and I intend to see that they get first-rate advice on how to go about it.

I think the breakdown of marriage and family law is probably the strongest indictment that can be brought against the legacy of the 1960s.

On the other hand, my own marriage has become pretty miserable. It could be worse: We have never cheated on each other. She is reasonable about the finances (her income is a small fraction of mine.) She does a reasonable share of the housework. We are both committed to raising our children to be happy, good people.

However, she has not the least interest in any form of physical affection. We haven’t slept together in over five years (and it was very infrequent before then.) I can’t remember the last time she let me hold her hand or kiss her on the lips. The only time she’s told me she loves me in the last few years was when my longsuffering ran out and I threatened to leave. You will forgive me if I have some doubt that she was speaking sincerely.

I have tried to express affection in various ways. She will sometimes let me put an arm around her for a moment. Other times I get shrugged off or even shoved away. If I tell her I love her, she changes the subject. (I do still love her; I admire her talents and her commitment to the family, if not to me personally. I am her blind spot, admittedly a massive one.) I tried writing her a letter once expressing my concerns and the reply amounted to “With the kids, I don’t have time for that just now.”

I don’t doubt some here will find her despicable and me crazy for staying with her. Do remember that children are involved. Also, there are a couple of mitigating factors. She was sexually abused as a child, which she didn’t think was relevant when she married me, but I was sexually inexperienced when I married her and my clumsiness brought back the bad memories. The other mitigating factor is that I am borderline Aspberger’s. I am unusually well-adjusted to my disability, and it was not obvious to her when we married that I had significant gaps in my emotional and communications skills.

Given the choice to do it over, I think I’d decline. To say that marriage is for the great majority of people, as I did at the start of this post, is not to say that there is not a man here and there for whom it would be a mistake. I have no illusions I would be able to do any better with anyone else, nor do I have any illusions I would be very much happier choosing to be single the rest of my life, so I’m a bit frustrated with my decision set.

I suffer from some very uncomfortable chronic health problems that almost certainly arise from the stress of my situation. I am trying to work up the nerve to tell her in a kind but frank manner that if my sexual and emotional needs continue to be neglected, as they have been for many years now, I probably won’t last long enough to pay for the kid’s college. You can’t extract child support from someone who’s dead (though I wouldn’t put it past our courts to try.) But when I try to talk to her about “us” I become like the geeky biologist in The Gods Must Be Crazy. Only she isn’t amused. Generally as soon as the word “sex” comes up she lays a massive guilt trip on me.

My experience is far enough off the mean that I don’t know how much it will add to the discussion here. My apologies for that.

I plan to have someone whose marriage has been rather more successful be the one to give my children advice, when that time comes. I can only offer these thoughts, not based so much on personal experience:

1. From my observations of others, it appears that a good marriage is a lot of work but can be immensely rewarding.

2. Commitment seems more important than romantic love or almost any other consideration.

3. Picking the “right” person is overrated. It is essential that your partner be fully committed to the success of the marraige. Everything else can be worked out in time. People who believe that their marriage(s) failed because they had the “wrong” partner seem to be people who keep getting it wrong, marriage after marriage — suggesting strongly that that’s not the explanation.

4. Marriage is not all about sex, but sex is an essential ingredient for the vast majority of marriages. A person who uses sex as a weapon — including a woman who, without very good reason, withholds sex for a prolonged time — is desecrating a sacred gift.

5. Don’t get married if you are anywhere close to the autistic spectrum.

Oct 31, 2007 - 3:13 pm Jeff:

I can’t help but add my story to this thread. I am nearly 49 and have been married for 29 years. I would counsel any young man not to get married and not have kids. We got married very young, but didn’t decide to have children for 13 years. Having been through some tough times, our marriage was at it’s very best when we decided to have kids. Well, if I am truthful, SHE decided we would have kids and I decided that it would be OK. Once our daughter was born, our marriage changed forever. She stopped being a wife and was only a mother. Our sex life stopped. As much as I loved my daughter, I was stunned at what had happened. When my daughter was three, I tried to get my wife into counseling to resolve these problems. I thought it would be rather easy. Instead, I ended up moving out. Within a short time, I foolishly moved back in after she made was seemed like a sincere attempt to become a wife again.

Once again, in a fit of optimism, I let her have another child and quit working which she said was what would make her happy. Once again, I was played for a fool. I am just too nice by nature. Men aren’t taught to be fighters, indeed. With two young children, my marriage was over but I didn’t feel I would ever know these children unless I stayed married. I “stayed for the children” and spent many years in deep depression and isolation. All my attempts to renew our marriage, to be clear about what I wanted, to get her into counseling failed. Finally, I decided to end the marriage despite the fact that my lawyer said that I would be completely screwed financially. She was right.

I am now in the middle of trying to settle the divorce. I gave my wife 55% of the assets including the home. (Sorry, community property does NOT mean a 50/50 split.) She has custody of the children - that was not something even worth thinking about trying for on my part. I have been giving her half of my net income in child support and alimony. Yet, a planned settlement whereby I would give her alimony for 5 years fell through because she simply wanted more and reneged on the deal this last weekend. So, all the expense of the lawyers coming up with this plan is money down the toilet because I finally decided that I had given enough. We will have to start over and give it all to mediators, lawyers and the court. I make good money as an IT professional, but I don’t have the money to do this. No one will win.

Young men - don’t get married. Of course, I love my kids, but I thought having kids would be hard before I had them. They turned out to be WAY harder than I thought. There are lots of willing companions in the world and although they will eventually want to be married - resist. Find another one. Take it from someone who is very poor despite a good job, but is now much happier having dumped 140 lbs of redheaded, dead weight. Don’t do it, men. Build up a stock portfolio, buy that airplane, have that motorcycle, get the fast car or boat, and have a girlfriend when you want one. Kick her to the curb every Monday morning, however.

Oct 31, 2007 - 3:17 pm Russ:

Dr. Helen,

Here’s the deal. Most women constantly re-invent reality in order to validate their emotional positions. Check out how often you hear guys say “she said X,” to which the woman will respond “I don’t remember what I said, and I shouldn’t have to, so I must have said Y.”

Men have many flaws, among which is the notion that men should be willing to be used for a meal ticket. The “social dominance” meme is totally misleading. Women despise a man they can dominate… a man who puts his foot down and says “not a chance” isn’t that creature. If the guy’s doing that in self-defense and she leaves, then guess what? Better now than fifteen years of misery later. There’s a reason men die early nowadays, and a lot of it has to do with stress trying to give women their perfect world.

But a loveless life stinks, too. So this isn’t about love. Is the legal institution stacked against men? Sure. It’s *all* stacked against men. But if you have kids with a single woman, you don’t get access to those kids if she leaves.

So my answer, with other guys in the audience, would be… want kids? If so, you’re going to have to roll the dice. Sure, the courts may rape you.. that’s what courts do. But a man who won’t risk for reward is hardly a man. And a GOOD marriage is one hell of a reward.

Oct 31, 2007 - 3:34 pm college kid:

Jim Rockford said, “Quite literally it seems that young men have decided that young women are not worth dying for and THAT is very dangerous for society.”

Read this:

Men in the USA will not fight for this Feminist Matriarchy …

http://tinyurl.com/2qoeqk

Oct 31, 2007 - 4:01 pm Tim Butler:

AN ATTORNEY’S LEGAL & STATISTICAL REMARKS

I’m a California attorney. There are several facts that I think are highly relevant here:

Divorce laws well-intentioned
Divorce laws are not intended to harm men. Instead, they are intended to protect the party who sacrificed earning potential to (presumably) provide services to the family, (i.e., cooking, cleaning) during the life of the marriage. That isn’t to say these laws are fair. But they are well-intentioned.
Occasionally, women are victimized by divorce laws. I know of several instances where the husband was trying to start a rock band or an acting career. In such a situation, the law forces the woman to pay the man alimony.

Married men more likely to commit adultery
Married men are slightly more likely to commit adultery than their wives (according to most statistical sources). This isn’t to say women aren’t to blame for adultery in such cases-the man is typically committing adultery with a single woman, who must share blame.

4 DIVORCE RULES THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN

Child Custody
1) The woman nearly always gets the children. This is plainly discrimination. However, it is nowhere mandated by law-it’s an unwritten rule. It is a product of biased judges who are typically elderly and liberal, and for those reasons tend to see women as inherently more virtuous than men.

Child Support for Children born from adultery
2) If the woman has a child by a man who is not her husband, her husband must pay her child support for the baby, so long as she can keep the child’s paternity hidden from the husband for a year. This is perhaps the most outrageous law of which I am aware. Many states other than California have a version of this law.

No assurance that child support is spent on children
3) The law aggressively pursues men who do not pay child support, but provides no real assurance that the support is actually used for the benefit of the children.

Married Women’s Special Presumption
4) Women married before 1972 (I think I have the date right) may keep gifts given by their husbands following a divorce, but the same is not true for men. This is explicitly discriminatory and most lawyers agree that it would not survive constitutional scrutiny. But the law has yet to be challenged successfully. It is called the “Married Women’s Special Presumption.” This law is only operative in California.

Oct 31, 2007 - 4:03 pm mark:

“Ironically, our own sense of chivalry and being a real man does not allow us to be as capricious and downright mean as our wives or girlfriends. I knew marriage was a compromise, I didn’t know women had the right, and endorsement, if not downright encouragement, from society, to unilaterally change the terms of that compromise.”

Perfectly stated. This very hostile and insane environment created by my wife was the cause of my alcohol addiction, so I left my wife and almost overnight, lost all desire for alcohol. I am so happy now alone. I have peace. I suggest to any of you men out there with alcohol problems who are married carefully consider the source of your pain that is causing your addiction. There’s about a 95% chance it’s sleeping right next to you.

I remember back as recently as the 70’s when I used to respect women so much and long to be with them because they showed some degree of respect and had not been infected with the feminist virus so horribly yet. Feminism has made U.S. women monsters and now they demand respect, and now, ironically, I have lost all respect for them. You see, respect is not something you demand, respect is something you earn.

Because women in t