What does Marriage offer to a man today???

[Francisco d'Anconia]

My point is, if Gene and/or Vulpine's aunt/uncle are common law married, then the men in these relationships are just as legally vulnerable as I am being "officially" married. Common-law marriage is 100% legal marriage if your state has that.

Even for those just "living together", you expose yourself to all kinds of monetary risks should you break up. If money's are mixed, you have a mess. If one owns the house, the other owns furniture/paid for improvements.... can you say, legal nightmare (in the event of a separation). Heck, everything you paid for together, gifts, etc. all can be legally contested.

Well, there you have it:

1. You can get laid
2. You can have a relationship
3. You can share a home
4. You can have children (seemingly healthy ones)
5. You can get monetarily screwed if it doesn't work out

All without getting married. So, can anyone come up with something that makes marriage beneficial to a guy which he can not achieve without going through the formality of the event?

 

[blueguy]

marriage is not bad, a good marriage is better than being single IMO.

That depends on your perspective. A lot of married guys I'm sure now wish they were single again. As I'm sure a lot of single guys wish they were married. It's a "grass is greener" goal, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy once additional work or thought is put into that goal (thus giving it more perceived value).

I haven't been married myself, but I'd have to say that 99% of happiness accounts for your own actions and not whether you're married or not. But that's another question you have to ask yourself: would you maintain enough freedom in marriage to be able to keep that happiness? For me, it'd be hard. I have so much freedom now. I can just see the wife taking it all away.

 

[RedPill]

So, can anyone come up with something that makes marriage beneficial to a guy which he can not achieve without going through the formality of the event?

Ellerby: How is your wedding coming along?
Colin Sullivan: Great, great; she's a doctor.
Ellerby: That's outstanding.
Colin Sullivan: Yeah.
Ellerby: Marriage is an important part of getting ahead: lets people know you're not a homo; married guy seems more stable; people see the ring, they think at least somebody can stand the son of a *****; ladies see the ring, they know immediately you must have some cash or your **** must work. [Laughs]
Colin Sullivan: [Laughing] Yeah, it's working... Overtime!
Ellerby: I'm glad to hear that.
Colin Sullivan: Yeah... Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------

Haven't we gone over this already?

Credibility through conformity. That ring says "he's a good sheep" even if that's not the case. And regardless of whether the marriage is good, whether he's an AFC or not, the implied message says "I have a wife. I'm important. I have responsibilities. I respect tradition. I step up to the plate and make commitments in life. One of those commitments is to being a good family man. You should give me some default trust on this basis alone."

Outside of this, I do not see a specific benefit.

I think lifelong commitments should be made in the proper circumstances and are more beneficial in proper circumstances than temporary commitments.

The only reason to agree to marriage is altruism. A man pledges to do his best to stick it out and raise his children (not just finacially support them.)

I've asked Francisco's question of myself many times and the answer is simply "nothing", there is no advantage for a man in being married and if anything you assume more responsibilities, liability and accountability than even if you were in just an LTR. No one can answer this sufficiently and this is the question that all women dread, so they're forced to create social contrivances that rely on a guy's sense of lonliness, isolation and powerlessness with regards to intimacy that are fostered throughout a man's formative years.

And last but not least...

Marriage is an insurance policy for the immediate family which is created from the marriage. Sounds cold and dry, but that is what it is. Even some of the examples you gave as the benefits of marriage showed your wife or your children as the benefactors of this insurance policy. Anything that you deemed beneficial to you could be gained without marriage. It’s sad but true.

So there you have it folks. Just like when you vote, do it fo' the children.

DJ your WIFE and you can STILL have a good married LIFE.

The amoral of the story? Stay true to yourself, pick the women you shack up with carefully, and if you want to get married, make sure you have a compelling reason to do so.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...The amoral of the story? Stay true to yourself, pick the women you shack up with carefully, and if you want to get married, make sure you have a compelling reason to do so.

(...soft golf clap from the gallery...)

 

[dietzcoi]

...........and don't get married if you are an AFC (like I was!) or you will pay the price. Yes, I fully admit I was AFC, Azanon - but most men are, so my warnings about marriage are valid!!

Despite my feud with Azanon, I am glad he is able to have a good marriage and is not in danger of what 50% of men will experience.

And don't assume it is the man's fault in 50% of the cases, didn't you ever hear of "no fault" divorces?

But, I give up... most will not hear the truth and will suffer accordingly. Most are in the matrix and love being there!!

Dietzcoi

 

[azanon]

...........and don't get married if you are an AFC (like I was!) or you will pay the price. Yes, I fully admit I was AFC, Azanon - but most men are, so my warnings about marriage are valid!!

Man don't sweat it because by DJ Bible/Sosuave standards, I was AFC most of my life too. The p**** I was getting was probably largely due to just being a relatively good-looking guy, I usually had a nice car, and came from money. Hell, the most AFC thing i did several times (prior to age 17) was turning down women wanting sex out of fear. One, in particular, still haunts me because she was oh so skanky but freakin' hot. I got the equilivant of "lets f***" and i said no!!!!! Ok, maybe i just wasn't ready that young, as they say, but I regret it now and want to go back! Once I finally had my first (I believe right when i turned 17), then that fear was completely gone and I had a decent run.

My wife? Yeah, I married a good one. But, again, it wasn't because of killer DJ skills. As i said earlier, I got lucky because I made friends with a very impulsive guy who literally held my hand, in a manner of speaking, in introducing me to her. Make no mistake, she isn't "a good one" just based on looks. Lookswise she's an 8 to me (I tell her 9 when she asks, and get hit on the arm). But there's so much more than looks. She's just a wonderful human being and anyone that knows her I know agrees.

 

[azanon]

Well, there you have it:

1. You can get laid
2. You can have a relationship
3. You can share a home
4. You can have children (seemingly healthy ones)
5. You can get monetarily screwed if it doesn't work out

All without getting married. So, can anyone come up with something that makes marriage beneficial to a guy which he can not achieve without going through the formality of the event?

Go check out some of those gay websites where they've put together huge, itemized lists of all the marital benefits. I know they've done the legwork because they're trying to show how the government is discriminating against them and denying them of tons of benefits that legal marriage offers. Trust me, its a lot of stuff. I'm just too lazy to look it up and/or reinvent the wheel. You're a smart guy so you should know this!

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Go check out some of those gay websites where they've put together huge, itemized lists of all the marital benefits.

No thanks. Besides, what does a gay site have to do with the ideal of this site (men gaining the skills to interract with women).

I know they've done the legwork because they're trying to show how the government is discriminating against them and denying them of tons of benefits that legal marriage offers.

This is because they are discriminated against, it's from a completely different frame than where we are approaching it. Which brings up another point, you are pointing out all of the "legal benefits" of marriage; is that how you approached yours? Did you approach your fiancee with a strong argument that you would benefit greatly legally if she would marry you? Is that what you feel marriage is about? That a guy would get married primarily for the legal benefits? That marriage is the only way to obtain those things? What does love have to do with it, anything?

 

[Bonhomme]

One other thing to keep in mind is that the isolated, "nuclear" family that is prevalent these days is a bit of an anomaly. For thousands (or, depending on how you define humanity in anthropological terms, millions) of years, children were (and still are, in certain cultures) raised by the community (or "tribe," if you will).

When I think about it, this approach to child care just might make more sense.

 

[azanon]

This is because they are discriminated against, it's from a completely different frame than where we are approaching it. Which brings up another point, you are pointing out all of the "legal benefits" of marriage; is that how you approached yours? Did you approach your fiancee with a strong argument that you would benefit greatly legally if she would marry you? Is that what you feel marriage is about? That a guy would get married primarily for the legal benefits? That marriage is the only way to obtain those things? What does love have to do with it, anything?

You're mixing two issues. I already said I married her because I love her. That's besides the fact that (not opinion that) marriage provides a whole host of other fringe benefits of a legal, social, and phychological nature for both people.

OK, i feel browbeaten into having to google search a list for you (of marital benefits). Didn't I do that once in that other, virtually identical thread about marriage that got bumped, or am I remembering wrong? No matter... I'll google search, cause I know i'm too lazy to write an exhaustive list myself.

 

[azanon]

Francisco/Others:

I timed myself; took 25 seconds. "Benefits of marriage" in google, enter, bam! Here's exerpts from the top entry: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm)


Title: Legal and Economic benefits of marriage

The following material was provided by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. It is used by permission. ............Their response, which runs 75 pages, is available online.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

One other thing to keep in mind is that the isolated, "nuclear" family that is prevalent these days is a bit of an anomaly. For thousands (or, depending on how you define humanity in anthropological terms, millions) of years, children were (and still are, in certain cultures) raised by the community (or "tribe," if you will).

When I think about it, this approach to child care just might make more sense.

It's absolutely an anomaly. The family unit (or the destruction of) in terms of "nuclear" has evolved along with the stages of business (industrial, technological, information) and will probably evolve into a 'social' dynamic akin to recent online presidential debate.

The scary thing really that the ideal of children being raised by the community as opposed to being raised directly by their parents has seemed to erode the perception of reality that young adults have grown into. You have to understand is that the community has morphed into society. Take a look at society and its influence on children. :nervous:

 

[Latinoman]

I work with an attractive 30 y/o Filipina who is an immigrant to the U.S.
My initial impression of her is that she was a "good girl" and would probably be a good wife/gf.

She was recently engaged to her b/f of nearly 2 years. Ironically enough, she had complained to me that they were fighting, the things he does to annoy her, etc. As recently as a few weeks ago, she even said she wasn't all that excited about getting married, and wouldn't mind being single.

Looking back, I think she might have wanted me to make a move, giving her an excuse to break up with the bf. But that is another story. Suffice it to say, I didn't make a move, and I'm pretty sure any shot I had is gone. She is just a "friend" from work.

Now that she is engaged, the two of them are looking for houses. She says to me: "When I get married, I'm going to work part-time."

I ask jokingly: "Does the b/f know about it? Is he ok with putting in longer hours at the office? What are you going to do with that extra time?"

Sometimes I'll throw in some jokes about spas and maids, mansions and yachts, and how she will have to get the b/f the work that much harder to keep up her luxurious lifestyle.

The strange thing is, on one level she KNOWS she is being unfair and unrealistic by expecting the future husband to work longer hours, but I doubt she will let go of those wishes, and will probably be able to manipulate him into doing what she wants.

I've seen this scenario happen time and time again. Can someone truly explain to me what man in his RIGHT mind, would consent to getting married in the modern world? What does marriage offer the man?

Me say...she should go back to the Phillipines instead of sucking her way into a green card.

 

[Latinoman]

If you want to talk $$$$, its no contest; its cheaper to live married vs. 2 people single in separate housing. You only need one frig, washer, dryer, dishwasher, stove, bed, bathroom, garage, etc.... for 2 people instead of one. This is easy math fellows!.

That said...in Western society...men brings (or have the ability to bring) the most wealth in a marriage.

I read an article in either GQ or Details Magazine that a study made about married people that cheat it concluded that 60% of married men cheat and 55% of married women cheat. Of all the women that admitted to cheating - 90% justified their cheating. They felt entitled to cheat.

Now...let's do the math.

If you bring more wealth to the marriage...and in a divorced you lose half of that wealth...who then WINS and who TRULY loses?

In essense...a divorced-single man is worst than any single man. And because of the potential of getting screwed (55%) in the future...any married man has the potential of losing 50% of his pention...even years after a divorce.

Make no mistake...we lose in divorces. Unless, you are LUCKY like myself.

And the ONLY way you know if you married the right woman is when you divorce that woman. I was married to the right one. She did NOT screwed me in the divorced. In fact, I did very well.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

joint parenting: Biggest benefit is for the children (not the marriage partners) in psychological terms, with the caveat that the marriage itself is sound and a positive environment.

joint adoption: Incorrect. Single people can and do adopt.

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents): Again, not limited to married people.

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent: This presupposes that a single person's immediate family would make a less sound judgment in medical decisions. Also, presumes a spouse would make more sound judgements. In either case a person, single or married, still has next-of-kin options regardless, so it's not a benefit or a deficit.

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health: The ability to attain insurance isn't limited by marital status, so not an exclusive benefit. If there is a cost savings associated with being married and applying jointly, in most cases this is offset for the insurance carrier by the convenience of having one policy cover two people in terms of coverage and the protocol that accompanies it. In the best case scenario the benefit is 10-15% savings over a person filing single, and it should be noted that most people carrying health insurance comes as a benefit from their employer (rather than a private carrier) and they pay a single flat fee for their entire family. Also there is no appreciable savings in health insurance where one (or both) partner smokes.


dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support: Child support is only dictated by paternity, marital status has no bearing and support is based on custody and a partner's ability to pay. Community property is only benefical to the partner who has more to gain from the divorce which statistically is the female. I should also add that no fault divorce states have a higher instance of divorce for this very reason.

immigration and residency for partners from other countries: This is a relative benefit depending on the country of origin that the foreign partner resides in. This also assumes marriage in the United States. Not all countries have such immigration laws.

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will: Not so. There are countless legal battles fought over inheritance between children, siblings, and first and successive wives where a will is absent. Although easier, marriage is not a gurantee and this assumes an inheritance sizable enough to be significant. It should also be noted that community debt transfers to the surviving spouse (not the children) in the event of death.

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment: I'm not entirely sure what this is in reference to, but renewing a lease on a rented living space after a spouse dies and the community earning potential is halved is a dubious benefit at best. It's also irrelevant in terms of a single vs. married benefit since the only one dying in the single instance would be the one leasing the living space.


inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate): See the 'inheritance in absence of will' above - the same complications apply.


benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare: I'm unaware of any person, single or married, who wouldn't be entitled to any of these benefits regardless of their marital status. In fact Social Security and Medicare is based on individual contributions. Stock annuities and pension plans (which precious few employers still offer today) rarely take marital status into consideration as they are generally based on the performance of the employee and/or the financial success of the company. The fact that a spouse may be entitled to these in the event of death may be seen as a benefit, however these become a liability for the partner earning them in case of divorce. Case in point; my boss divorced from his wife of 30 years last year and the ownership for the tradmark of our company's product was contested in the divorce settlement. In the end her implied share was settled for $1.5 million for a trademark that has only existed for 8 years. While this is a fantastic benefit for her, it was likewise a fantastic liability for him for no other reason than that her name was on the marriage contract.

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home: This is only a benefit in states that recognize it and usually only for an existing property at the time of death - meaning, if the survivor buys a new property (or moves to another state not recognizing this) they start over from scratch. Additionally, the benefit is not a result of marriage, but the result of being married to a dead spouse - meaning you don't enjoy it while being married. Besides the $1-$4K property tax savings you'll get won't even buy you the casket & funeral costs.

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans:This presumes marriage to a serving or having served member of the United States military. VA home loans are transferrable (I know, I've assumed one before), so this is hardly a benefit exclusive to married couples. The spouse of a married service person cannot use the serving member's G.I. bill benefits for education. VA medical care is often substandard to private or employee health care (hell, even Medicare in most cases), so in the case of VA care or none at all this could be a benefit for the person married (as well as the children) to the military person. In light of this, however, it does not exclude a single military person from the same benefits.

joint filing of tax returns:This is entirely dependent upon the earning of both parties in the marriage. Rarely will you find wealthy couples filling jointly as this incurrs the infamous 'marriage penalty' in higher tax brackets. Any IRS professional will tell you this, and in fact this is exactly why federal tax laws were rewritten to make the "married, but filing seperately" option available. Now, couple this with the fact that statistically, the more wealthy a man is, the more likely he will have a non-working stay-at-home spouse thus negating this benefit. This also assumes couples married in the U.S.

joint filing of customs claims when traveling: So the next time you're considering marriage, remember, you can bring twice as much foreign fruits and vegetables back into the U.S. when your honeymoon is over.

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children: This is a legal issue, not one specific to marriage. If an unmarried person killed as part of a wrongful death incidence had a legally dependent family member (such as a parent or grandparent), that member would also be entitled to a wrongful death benefit.

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child: This is employer specific, not automatic and not marriage specific when it is available. Bereavment also extends to single persons caring for ailing family members and single parent children.

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her: Posthumous benefit - you're still a widow(er) at the end of it.

crime victims' recovery benefits: Again, not marriage specific. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldsmith's family's are still collecting large sums of money from O.J. Simpson's estate today after their successful civil suit against him.

loss of consortium tort benefits: Archaic and hardly worth a mention in a list of benefits, but hey, when you're grasping for straws,..speak Latin!Consortium Tort

domestic violence protection orders: Also apply to common law relationships (i.e. living together) and are not marriage specific.

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity All these do is make a spouse non-liable for the illegal behaviors (held as accomplice) and criminal evidence in criminal cases where he/she could not be realistically implicated in the knowledge of that crime. Meaning that just because a person is married to a criminal doesn't implicitly make them an accomplice to the criminal actions of their spouse. In other words it must be seperately proven in court that he/she is an accomplice.

OK, you got me here. Who'd have thought judicial protections would be such a great reason to get married. So what are you waiting for? Rush out and get married today.

AZANON, the next time you go looking for tangible benefits of marriage may I suggest you pull instances from site that aren't comparing the benefits of heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage? All of these quotes are common, popular reasonings why heterosexual marriage should remain apart from homosexual unions, not evidences of a Man's benefit from marriage. The intent of your original list is a petition to illustrate what homosexual unions lack that heterosexual ones do not, and a plea for same treatment.

 

[azanon]

AZANON, the next time you go looking for tangible benefits of marriage may I suggest you pull instances from site that aren't comparing the benefits of heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage? All of these quotes are common, popular reasonings why heterosexual marriage should remain apart from homosexual unions, not evidences of a Man's benefit from marriage. The intent of your original list is a petition to illustrate what homosexual unions lack that heterosexual ones do not, and a plea for same treatment.

RT, the next time you run your mouth about me, maybe you should figure which posts are mine vs. which posts are someone else's. You're referring to Redpill's post. I didn't post any quotes of anyone. The title of the items i listed is: "Legal and Economic benefits of marriage". In my opinion, that's a pretty straightforward title and has nothing to do with what you just said.

OK, you got me here. Who'd have thought judicial protections would be such a great reason to get married. So what are you waiting for? Rush out and get married today.

Looks like you answered the first 20. Only 1380 to go.

Lets continue to keep in mind, that while RT is trying to oppose support for marriage, he is married. The OP is completely against marriage. He apparently is unaware he's on my side by default.

Gosh i'm so under his skin. :rockon:

 

[Sinistar]

azanon,

You've invested a [seemingly large] amount of effort again and again trying to prove/justify the advantages to a man being married. Why is that?

 

[azanon]

azanon,

You've invested a [seemingly large] amount of effort again and again trying to prove/justify the advantages to a man being married. Why is that?

I type just shy of 100wpm, and think about that fast too. Not really. I'm posting all over this forum.

Am I not allowed to be passionate about certain things? Did you have some psychoanalysis in mind? If so, lets here it. I assure you, if I thought marriage....., or my marriage sucked, i'd say so. I mean, why not?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Lets continue to keep in mind, that while RT is trying to oppose support for marriage, he is married. ...

What did Rollo say in opposition of marriage?

 

[azanon]

What did Rollo say in opposition of marriage?

That's the wrong question.


Lets summarize this thread into the two basic camps:

1. The original poster's camp; which basically says marriage has little to nothing to offer a man. Several identified themselves as being in this camp and;

2. The camp that says marriage can be good and rewarding for some men and worth the risk, if the woman and the time is right. I belong to that camp. So does RT.

RT, for the 100th time, searched for something I said so that he could oppose it in some way, and is so hell-bent on doing this, that it doesn't matter to him if he doesn't realize when he's on my side. At the core, all I'm really saying is point #2, which clearly Rollo agrees with since he's also married.

Get off my back RT. Surely, its not too much to ask a moderator to not harass me.