Why Marriage in its current form is largely broken

[BackInTheGame78]

Many people would argue that marriage, as it is currently instituted, has largely outlived its usefulness. I agree, although not necessarily for the reasons many would expect.

Essentially, we are trying to force two incompatible "systems" to work together.

On one hand, the institution of marriage, as it was created and largely still exists today, was designed for durability. It was a relationship "business deal" designed for a world of survival, land ownership, and clear-cut gender roles.

Its primary function was to provide status and economic safety for women and families, while men secured heirs and a legacy. It wasn't built for "happiness"; it was built to keep the family unit from snapping.

On the other hand, our modern expectations have shifted to fulfillment. We’ve upgraded our "human software": we want soulmates, emotional intelligence, and personal autonomy.

The problem is that we are trying to stream a high-definition, 4K movie through an old-school reel-to-reel projector. The system is not able to handle it, which leads to predictable outcomes in many cases:

1. The "Roommate" Default: Because the "projector" was built for logistics, not passion, most couples eventually settle into a life of mere existence. They become co-managers of a mortgage and a schedule, living as roommates rather than partners. The "content" on the screen is gone, but they keep the machine running because it’s too expensive to break.
2. The Risk Disparity: Men are increasingly opting out because they see the "hardware" as a liability-heavy contract. Why sign a document that risks 50% of your assets and future earnings in a "no-fault" world when you can get companionship and intimacy without the state’s involvement?
3. The Illusion of Security: Women are often still intent on the "safety" of marriage, but recent data shows that divorce is often more financially devastating for them, with household incomes dropping significantly post-split. Both sides are chasing a "security" that the old system can no longer actually guarantee.

We’ve outgrown the "legal hardware" over the centuries, yet we’re still tethered to it by and in large. Is it time to admit that the traditional marriage contract is a glitchy mess that no longer fits the modern human experience?

At what point do we finally admit that things need to change and that refusing to update centuries old "hardware" that's compatible with our current "software" is not only necessary but in our best interests?

Now let's look at potential fixes for marriage and how it could work in the modern world.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

To fix the "hardware" issue, we have to move away from a one-size-fits-all state contract and toward a modular, intent-based partnership. If we want to keep the valuable parts, namely stability, shared building, and family protection, without the "projector" overheating, the system needs to be updated for 2026 and beyond.

Here is how a modernized version of marriage could look:

1. The "Renewable Term" Marriage

Instead of a "till death do us part" contract that encourages the "roommate" slump, marriages could operate on 5 or 10-year renewable terms.​

• The Logic: At the end of the term, the couple must actively choose to "re-up."
• The Benefit: This eliminates the "auto-pilot" that leads to roommates. It keeps both partners "on their toes", so to speak, to maintain the relationship's quality, knowing the contract isn't an infinite safety net for laziness

2. Mandatory Binding "Pre-nuptial" Transparency

In the current system, you sign a contract without seeing the fine print of the exit clause. A modern version would make Prenuptial Agreements the default, not the exception.​

• The Logic: You decide how assets are split while you love each other, not while you hate each other.
• The Benefit: This removes the "financial ruin" fear for men and the "poverty trap" fear for women. It turns marriage back into a transparent business partnership with clear exit strategies.

3. The "Parental Partnership" vs. "Romantic Union"

We currently bundle "raising kids" and "romantic passion" into one document. A modern update could separate them.​

• The Logic: A legal Co-Parenting Contract focuses on the stability and financing of the children, while the Romantic Union remains a private matter of the heart.
• The Benefit: If the romance dies (the "roommate" phase), the parental contract stays intact, providing the "good of the family" stability without the legal mess of a romantic divorce.

4. Financial "Opt-in" Modules

Instead of the state automatically merging all assets, modern marriage could function like a Joint Venture.​

• The Logic: Couples choose which "buckets" to merge (e.g., a house or a college fund) while keeping their individual "hardware" (retirement accounts, pre-marital assets) separate by law.
• The Benefit: It rewards the "power couple" model of building wealth together without the "all-or-nothing" risk that makes men hesitant to sign the paper.

5. Emotional "Maintenance" Credits

Just like a car needs an inspection to stay on the road, a modern marriage could require annual relationship check-ins or counseling as part of the legal standing.​

• The Logic: You can't let the "projector" gather dust for 20 years and then wonder why the film snapped.
• The Benefit: It shifts the focus from legal endurance to emotional health, ensuring that "roommates" are identified and helped before they become "litigants."

Ultimately, if we want to save the institution, we have to stop trying to force modern relationships into medieval structures. We need a "Marriage 2.0" that replaces the blind "till death do us part" gamble with a transparent, modular, and renewable partnership; one that protects the financial autonomy of the individual while securing the stability of the family.

By detaching the legal "business deal" from the high-pressure demand for eternal romance, we can finally stop living as roommates in a broken system and start building partnerships that actually fit the way we live today.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The tax code is a b1tch. A buddy of mine had a great 6-figure job for a few years, and a gf who was reluctant to marry him. He told me that her saying no was costing him $10k a year in taxes alone.

As far as demographics go, in all developed countries, the battle has been lost. The government trying to make people have babies by punishing unmarried people is pointless now.

 

[The Duke]

That's a great assessment of the past and how it could work going forward.

My concern is I think you will see a bunch of agreements/contracts expire at the 5-7year mark.

The stats say that most marriages that end in divorce happen within 8yrs and 20% of them happen within 5yrs.

So what's the point of a new version of marriage if it can't stand the test of time?....To make the split less messy?

Under the new marriage design, Are people with multiple divorces frowned upon?

I still believe the best way to raise kids is with Mom and Dad happy and in the same house.

I come from several generations of large families that stuck together and built an empiire. The focus and mindset is totally different than what you find today.
For a new version of marriage to work, the mindset will need to change. Divorce can't be an option. Make it easier and less messy and people could be more willing to go for that option.

 

[The Duke]

The tax code is a b1tch. A buddy of mine had a great 6-figure job for a few years, and a gf who was reluctant to marry him. He told me that her saying no was costing him $10k a year in taxes alone.

As far as demographics go, in all developed countries, the battle has been lost. The government trying to make people have babies by punishing unmarried people is pointless now.

I don't disagree but that $10k tax payment was good insurance to avoid a potentially large penalty for divorce.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

The tax code is a b1tch. A buddy of mine had a great 6-figure job for a few years, and a gf who was reluctant to marry him. He told me that her saying no was costing him $10k a year in taxes alone.

As far as demographics go, in all developed countries, the battle has been lost. The government trying to make people have babies by punishing unmarried people is pointless now.

That's true, but when you consider the cost of a marriage, the cost of a divorce, and child support/spousal support, he might have gotten off easy...

 

[Plinco]

State involvement should be minimal.

A marriage relationship must start from both partners loving each other, and then the relationship must also apply reasoning to consider the long term consequences.

I don't think some of these suggestions are necessary. Each couple has different priorities, based on too many factors to list.

It gets a lot more complicated with children however. I don't think I have enough experience with this to give a good answer. The framework should still be that people should approach the relationship rationally and the government should be involved as little as possible.

 

[jhonny9546]

Everyone should read this
https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/o48g6n

 

[Bokanovsky]

Many people would argue that marriage, as it is currently instituted, has largely outlived its usefulness. I agree, although not necessarily for the reasons many would expect.

Essentially, we are trying to force two incompatible "systems" to work together.

On one hand, the institution of marriage, as it was created and largely still exists today, was designed for durability. It was a relationship "business deal" designed for a world of survival, land ownership, and clear-cut gender roles.

Its primary function was to provide status and economic safety for women and families, while men secured heirs and a legacy. It wasn't built for "happiness"; it was built to keep the family unit from snapping.

On the other hand, our modern expectations have shifted to fulfillment. We’ve upgraded our "human software": we want soulmates, emotional intelligence, and personal autonomy.

The problem is that we are trying to stream a high-definition, 4K movie through an old-school reel-to-reel projector. The system is not able to handle it, which leads to predictable outcomes in many cases:

1. The "Roommate" Default: Because the "projector" was built for logistics, not passion, most couples eventually settle into a life of mere existence. They become co-managers of a mortgage and a schedule, living as roommates rather than partners. The "content" on the screen is gone, but they keep the machine running because it’s too expensive to break.
2. The Risk Disparity: Men are increasingly opting out because they see the "hardware" as a liability-heavy contract. Why sign a document that risks 50% of your assets and future earnings in a "no-fault" world when you can get companionship and intimacy without the state’s involvement?
3. The Illusion of Security: Women are often still intent on the "safety" of marriage, but recent data shows that divorce is often more financially devastating for them, with household incomes dropping significantly post-split. Both sides are chasing a "security" that the old system can no longer actually guarantee.

We’ve outgrown the "legal hardware" over the centuries, yet we’re still tethered to it by and in large. Is it time to admit that the traditional marriage contract is a glitchy mess that no longer fits the modern human experience?

At what point do we finally admit that things need to change and that refusing to update centuries old "hardware" that's compatible with our current "software" is not only necessary but in our best interests?

Now let's look at potential fixes for marriage and how it could work in the modern world.

Marriage, as we know it today, is a product of Medieval Europe. It was indeed a business deal, not so much between husband and wife as it was between their families. Back then, boys could legally marry at age 14 and girls at 12. Originally, the purpose of marriage was to create alliances and generational continuity for elite aristocratic families (most commoners lived in common law relationships in those days). The concept of dowry went hand in hand with marriage. The groom would receive a dowry from the bride's family and in return would accept financial responsibility for the wife, who legally became his property. Divorce did not exist. In theory, one could seek annulment of marriage but that was granted only in exceptional circumstances and required a petition to the Pope. The movie The Last Duel does a good job of portraying the medieval marriage institution.

Most medieval customs and institutions no longer exist. Slavery, serfdom, corporal punishment and burning people at the stake for heresy and witchcraft are all things of the past. And yet marriage persists, albeit in a mutated from. Modern marriage is essentially a Frankenstein of ancient and modern traditions, which is why it does not make any sense. Imagine if we reinstated slavery but made it subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would be a ridiculous farce. Combining marriage with "no fault divorce" is equally farcical. No fault divorce is quite literally the antithesis of the original concept of marriage.

 

[Bokanovsky]

That's a great assessment of the past and how it could work going forward.

My concern is I think you will see a bunch of agreements/contracts expire at the 5-7year mark.

The stats say that most marriages that end in divorce happen within 8yrs and 20% of them happen within 5yrs.

So what's the point of a new version of marriage if it can't stand the test of time?....To make the split less messy?

Under the new marriage design, Are people with multiple divorces frowned upon?

I still believe the best way to raise kids is with Mom and Dad happy and in the same house.

I come from several generations of large families that stuck together and built an empiire. The focus and mindset is totally different than what you find today.
For a new version of marriage to work, the mindset will need to change. Divorce can't be an option. Make it easier and less messy and people could be more willing to go for that option.

I think the solution is to get rid of civil marriages altogether. If one wants to get married for religious or "romantic" reasons, he or she can participate in a religious ceremony but it will have no legal meaning.

For people who choose to live together and have children, their legal rights should be strictly contractual. They should be able to enter into an agreement at any time (before or after the start of cohabitation) setting out their legal rights and responsibilities. There should be no default rules for division of property and spousal support.

 

[MatureDJ]

Many people would argue that marriage, as it is currently instituted, has largely outlived its usefulness. I agree, although not necessarily for the reasons many would expect.

Essentially, we are trying to force two incompatible "systems" to work together.

On one hand, the institution of marriage, as it was created and largely still exists today, was designed for durability. It was a relationship "business deal" designed for a world of survival, land ownership, and clear-cut gender roles.

Its primary function was to provide status and economic safety for women and families, while men secured heirs and a legacy. It wasn't built for "happiness"; it was built to keep the family unit from snapping.

On the other hand, our modern expectations have shifted to fulfillment. We’ve upgraded our "human software": we want soulmates, emotional intelligence, and personal autonomy.

The problem is that we are trying to stream a high-definition, 4K movie through an old-school reel-to-reel projector. The system is not able to handle it, which leads to predictable outcomes in many cases:

1. The "Roommate" Default: Because the "projector" was built for logistics, not passion, most couples eventually settle into a life of mere existence. They become co-managers of a mortgage and a schedule, living as roommates rather than partners. The "content" on the screen is gone, but they keep the machine running because it’s too expensive to break.
2. The Risk Disparity: Men are increasingly opting out because they see the "hardware" as a liability-heavy contract. Why sign a document that risks 50% of your assets and future earnings in a "no-fault" world when you can get companionship and intimacy without the state’s involvement?
3. The Illusion of Security: Women are often still intent on the "safety" of marriage, but recent data shows that divorce is often more financially devastating for them, with household incomes dropping significantly post-split. Both sides are chasing a "security" that the old system can no longer actually guarantee.

We’ve outgrown the "legal hardware" over the centuries, yet we’re still tethered to it by and in large. Is it time to admit that the traditional marriage contract is a glitchy mess that no longer fits the modern human experience?

At what point do we finally admit that things need to change and that refusing to update centuries old "hardware" that's compatible with our current "software" is not only necessary but in our best interests?

Now let's look at potential fixes for marriage and how it could work in the modern world.

But there is still not really any other way to properly handle the Achilles Heel of sexual reproduction: Mother's baby, Father's maybe.

 

[MatureDJ]

Marriage, as we know it today, is a product of Medieval Europe. It was indeed a business deal, not so much between husband and wife as it was between their families. Back then, boys could legally marry at age 14 and girls at 12. Originally, the purpose of marriage was to create alliances and generational continuity for elite aristocratic families (most commoners lived in common law relationships in those days).

Indeed, I have an ancestral line that in the later Middle Ages, the male knights in each generation would marry heiresses (i.e., a noble family without an alive son) to build up the estate.

 

[plumber]

how should it be? what is the goal?

"The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, sets up the backdrop for this topic.

Marriage is not good for the species. Its not good for evolution of the species.

It was injected as a way to translate financial power into sexual selection. It still is used for that today just as it was in history.

If we must have it, then like any contract or agreement it is only as good as the enforcement. If the contract is until death then so be it. Only death is exit. Harsh punishment for breaking the terms of the contract. The vows tell of how to treat each other. That is the contract.

Perhaps a more detailed license to marry. One that includes detailed understanding of the contract. Get rid of things like divorce/bankruptcy/ and other renegotiations after already getting value.

Let our yes be yes and our no be no... so say us all

 

[BaronOfHair]

Now let's look at potential fixes for marriage and how it could work in the modern world.

-Get the government out of it altogether

-Re-introduce fun to the nuptials themselves, like so

@The Duke "So what's the point of a new version of marriage if it can't stand the test of time?....To make the split less messy?"

Analogous to The Gulf Cartel dissolving adversaries and inept, pain-in-the-balls employees in barrels filled with sulphuric acid, rather than applying a chainsaw to said folks, once a couple of 9mm rounds have been put through their cerebellums...

Ending a marriage and mopping up pests is messy business, no matter the angle we view it from. Making the process less complicated is often all that's humanly achievable

 

[BadBoy89]

OP has some good points.

I would say marriage lost its usefulness on 2 things:

1. Women became Intune with men's desires and wants, and made marriage about "romantic love"
2. Women received the power to do everything men could do and more.

Men always had to rely on themselves, take care of themselves. They only thing they needed was sex and babies and companionship. Women figured this out. So what do you do to take away this power from men? You make those things they want from women very hard to get, very expensive to get, and very valuable to get. They start actin' a fool.

I should say sex and babies with younger better looking women. No man is actin' a fool with a 37 year old single mother. At least I hope not.....

 

[RangerMIke]

The tax code is a b1tch. A buddy of mine had a great 6-figure job for a few years, and a gf who was reluctant to marry him. He told me that her saying no was costing him $10k a year in taxes alone.

$10k a year is cheap compared to what will be paid if the marriage goes sideways. Call it a freedom tax and it's pretty much worth it.

For every man I know in truly happy marriage, I know two that were ruined by marriages, and three more that are in miserable marriages.

 

[RangerMIke]

For people who choose to live together and have children, their legal rights should be strictly contractual. They should be able to enter into an agreement at any time (before or after the start of cohabitation) setting out their legal rights and responsibilities. There should be no default rules for division of property and spousal support.

I agree with this. The idea that all marriages can be arranged in a general sense is silly. If your company did a merger with another company, you would get lawyers and negotiate the deal, you use lawyers because you need to take out the emotional aspect of the decision making. Each merger contract is different because no two companies are the same, and no merger resulting will be like any other.

People are the same. There are no couples that are alike... they both bring in different asset levels, future earning capacity.... pluses and minuses. Having a general off-the-shelf 50-50 contract makes no sense.

 

[BeExcellent]

But there is still not really any other way to properly handle the Achilles Heel of sexual reproduction: Mother's baby, Father's maybe.

Well there's no way, ultimately to overcome that trust issue short of keeping your woman in a cage, and that is not a reality based scenario in the modern world.....

But while I concur the modern landscape is different now than in previous centuries, and I agree with the parameters outlined by OP, it is clear that children thrive in healthy 2 parent households, period. And this requires the TIME of a parent to actually do proper parenting. That time is often mutually exclusive to being an income producer. That really has changed much less than y'all acknowledge.

And divorce remains a, if not the, big destroyer of family wealth accumulation.---

For childless couples? Agree a pre-nump really should be the norm rather than the person with less assets getting pissy that the person with more assets wishes for some asset protection (for example).

With children and one potential wage earner forgoing an income to attend properly to child rearing?

It gets much more murky....and that is the scenario that has developed through case law in the US over the last several decades.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Well there's no way, ultimately to overcome that trust issue short of keeping your woman in a cage, and that is not a reality based scenario in the modern world.....

But while I concur the modern landscape is different now than in previous centuries, and I agree with the parameters outlined by OP, it is clear that children thrive in healthy 2 parent households, period. And this requires the TIME of a parent to actually do proper parenting. That time is often mutually exclusive to being an income producer. That really has changed much less than y'all acknowledge.

And divorce remains a, if not the, big destroyer of family wealth accumulation.---

For childless couples? Agree a pre-nump really should be the norm rather than the person with less assets getting pissy that the person with more assets wishes for some asset protection (for example).

With children and one potential wage earner forgoing an income to attend properly to child rearing?

It gets much more murky....and that is the scenario that has developed through case law in the US over the last several decades.

While this is an excellent post regarding those who have kids, there's not much point to having them until we get this global cannibalistic satanic pedophile leadership thing sorted out. A crisis which may or may lead to the outbreak of WWIII in the coming days as a mandatory distraction. Although there's a chance the documentation pertaining to this case law you speak of may survive the oncoming infernal holocaust. Lol.

 

[jhonny9546]

Marriage, as we know it today, is a product of Medieval Europe. It was indeed a business deal, not so much between husband and wife as it was between their families. Back then, boys could legally marry at age 14 and girls at 12. Originally, the purpose of marriage was to create alliances and generational continuity for elite aristocratic families (most commoners lived in common law relationships in those days). The concept of dowry went hand in hand with marriage. The groom would receive a dowry from the bride's family and in return would accept financial responsibility for the wife, who legally became his property. Divorce did not exist. In theory, one could seek annulment of marriage but that was granted only in exceptional circumstances and required a petition to the Pope. The movie The Last Duel does a good job of portraying the medieval marriage institution.

Most medieval customs and institutions no longer exist. Slavery, serfdom, corporal punishment and burning people at the stake for heresy and witchcraft are all things of the past. And yet marriage persists, albeit in a mutated from. Modern marriage is essentially a Frankenstein of ancient and modern traditions, which is why it does not make any sense. Imagine if we reinstated slavery but made it subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would be a ridiculous farce. Combining marriage with "no fault divorce" is equally farcical. No fault divorce is quite literally the antithesis of the original concept of marriage.

The historu part is really interesting.
What books article, video or resource do you reccomend to learn more on that?

People born today don't have this understanding.
It really makes sense why LTR dont work, except for some cases (genuine friendships)