Should Men Get Married?

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

A point on these three reasons. 1 and 2 are intertwined. If you're not making enough money to meet your wife's material needs (wants usually), she will divorce you.

Read the references. That's not what "unmet needs" is about. It's about emotional needs.

The primary emotional and physical needsthat may be neglected in marriage and cause negativity are the following:

• Recognizing and valuing the work done at home and a day job
• Affection and physical contact
• Companionship and support
• Family commitment
• Assisting with household duties
• Financial support
• Honesty and openness, etc.

Leaving these needs chronically unmet leads to growing marital dissatisfaction and eventual divorce in 64% of cases.

2. If you work too much and aren't able to spend as much time giving your wife attention, she will feel lonely and either cheat, divorce or both. So to remedy this, you work less to spend more time with your wife, but then that makes you fall afoul of reason 1 and so she divorces your ass.

Again, read:

Deficient Life-Work Balance​

Married women often juggle multiple responsibilities, such as caring for children and doing housework, while working nine-to-five jobs.

The percentage of women who earn as much as or substantially more than their husbands has increased nearly threefold in the last half-century. In about 29% of present-day marriages, spouses earn approximately the same income, while in 16% of them, women earn more.

Women who earn $38,000 or more than their husbands have an 8.4% chance of divorce, compared to couples where the husband earns more, who have only a 2.9% chance of divorce.

One study found that the greater the gap by which a wife’s income outpaces her husband’s, the less he does around the house. Despite these facts, women are still expected to do the most domestic chores in many marriages.

This unequal division can make them feel stressed because they must balance their jobs and care for the family.

Additionally, the presence of a husband can add more housework. Research shows that divorced women with children sleep and rest more than those with a male partner. They do three hours less housework and sleep an hour longer per week.

In addition, working women trying to succeed in their careers do not always receive their husbands’ support regarding childcare and domestic chores. With these pressures, it’s unsurprising that women conclude that staying married is no longer in their best interest.

Women don't need sex to feel loved in their relationship.

You know nothing.

usually caused because after a woman has kids in a marriage, she turns the sex off and deprives her husband of his sexual needs.

Ditto.

he must find an alternate means of getting his needs met.

Such garbage. But even allowing it, I assume then that you approve of women who step out in the reverse situation. Noted.

 

[Max Free]

Divorce is down at around 42-43%. Average % includes 2nd, 3rd+ marriages, too, which is higher than first marriages.

Meaningless juggling of numbers without the total number of marriages to compare it with. Fewer marriages mean fewer relative divorces, as the only people who still marry are the one who are more thoughtful and serious about it.

To answer the question: The reason to marry are written down in the law. You may get a say in treatment when your partner falls ill, inheritance is more easily manageable, and probably fewer taxes to pay. You both share all of your possessions, money and income. The decision to marry should be made only in regards on how it may or may not benefit you in terms of privileges and money. If you fear to be divorce raped, make sure she earns the same amount of money than you. If that's not the case and you fear to be divorce raped, then simply don't.

 

[Black Spruce]

Such garbage. But even allowing it, I assume then that you approve of women who step out in the reverse situation. Noted.

Nothing you said actually contradicts what I said. Except for the addition of women complaining that they want even more because their hedonic adaptations keep bringing them back to a state of desire no matter how much is showered upon them.

The Bible demands husbands and wives tend to each other's needs. If a man refused to fuck his wife, I'd have the same view. But that almost never happens.

 

[Otterly]

Do you WANT to get married? That’s the first question. If women were whatever you think they should be, would you want to? So more pertinently do you want a female partner and a home and a family ? If you do, then yes, it’s worth it. It you’ll need to find a good woman. . The best women will probably be more traditional and want marriage. I wouldn’t have had kids outside of marriage.
You do not have to spend a fortune on a wedding. Courthouse or church and a few friends will cost very little.

There is ZERO consequences for a woman to initiate a divorce

No i dont think that’s true. Where I live the growing assumption is a clean splitting fifty fifty assets and shared custody. If I initiated divorce I’d lose our house, I’d lose the kids for half the week and I’d lose my life partner and that would be devastating. If one of you is the primary carer for kids and the other spends little time with them the primary carer gets the main custody with the partner having visitation. Child support in the UK is laughably low - and not enforced like the USA and men can just not pay it with very little consequence. We dont really have alimony - you see it in celeb divorces but it’s not a thing for plebs.

I see this stuff as another psyop to be honest. Dont get married! Don’t have kids, it’s a trap! And the result is men checking out and getting depressed instead of building strong families and communities. There is nothing tptb fear more than strong men from strong communities who have a reason to fight for a better future. Better you’re all doomers

Women are picky, or at least women who can be picky are picky. Again the psyop says they’re picky for looks and money and whatever but I dont think that’s true outside of the gold digger band. The average decent woman is picky for a man who can provide a stable family life.
What do you have to offer such a woman? Are you clean? Stable job (doesn’t have to be crazy money but stable.) do you like children? Will you be a good father? No substance abuse or violence? Will you be a good husband? Etc

Having all their needs and wants paid for by someone else in exchange for opening their legs every now and then, doing some cleaning, and cooking.

At least where I live it’s almost impossible financially to be a stay at home mother. Wages are too low and taxes and costs too high. The era of mum at home at dad at work ended with the previous generations. I know nobody who lives like that. It’s just not doable on an average wage, or even on considerably above. It’s also a horribly transactional way to look at it. If you want a woman to be a bangmaid, I suggest a housekeeper and a budget for hookers, but any decent woman would be revolted to be thought of like that.

How many decades have fertility clinics been making fatherless children at the behests of women? Why is assisted reproduction only a problem now that men have figured out a way to benefit from it?

Neither should happen. Biological reality is that if a woman wants a baby that much she can go out and shag a random and get knocked ups. Is it moral? No. But it is possible. All children should ideally be born to a father and mother who want them. Surrogacy is extra evil because it requires mechanisms for buying and selling children . It’s like modern day slavery. It’s utterly demonic and degenerate and feeds into the whole push to create babies as a commodity - changing birth certificates, reducing parental rights and removing a baby from its birth parents. It’s wrong.

 

[Black Spruce]

Surrogacy is extra evil because it requires mechanisms for buying and selling children . It’s like modern day slavery. It’s utterly demonic and degenerate and feeds into the whole push to create babies as a commodity

Sorry but I don't see a meaningful difference between paying a business to grow a baby and deprive them of their birth father, and paying a business to grow a baby and deprive them of their birth mother. You can say that surrogacy often results in gay men molesting and/or pimping out their surrogate babies. But AI/IVF/IUI also often results in lesbian women trooning out the babies. That's more of a problem with LGBTQIAP+∞&BEYOND than it is with assisted reproduction.

Babies as commodities is something that the entire fertility industry thrives off of, and that would have to come crashing down to stop that. Now since I've moved on from my past antinatalist position into realpolitik as a result of learning more about biopsychology and generally being fucking tired of being one of those people who fruitlessly does the right thing and dies with his principles accomplishing jack shit, it's become a lot harder to shame me out of a position like what you're doing. Yes it's bad. But we as men are effectively cornered if we desire to have families, and our only options are flipping the coin and hoping our wives don't take our children and everything else from us based on her vagina tingles, abandoning our home, friends, and family in order to get with a shitskin or squinter on the other side of the world, or doing something a bit fucked up. Maybe if that problem were solved and marriage was actually not an insanely raw life destroying deal, then the babies as commodities problem will start to go away. But you can't back men into a corner, cut off all avenues of escape, and not expect the results to be less than ideal.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Meaningless juggling of numbers without the total number of marriages to compare it with. Fewer marriages mean fewer relative divorces, as the only people who still marry are the one who are more thoughtful and serious about it.

Uh, right. So people are being more selective and (coincidentally!) are divorcing less.

That is meaningful, not "meaningless."
What is most relevant is that ratio.

Inverse example: ooh, only 2 divorces in our sample! That's great if there are 100 marriages (2%), not so great if there are 4 marriages (50%). See how that percentage changes? As the denominator (marriages) decreases, each divorce is a larger proportion of the total. So if marriage rates dive, divorce rates must dive even further to maintain the same percentage. The percentage matters more than the raw number for purposes of assessing whether marriages are bound to bust or not. In current day, divorce has dived harder than marriage.

(And FYI, 2 data points identified as somewhat causal to a lower divorce rate are a) marrying later and b) higher education. I'll leave it to the fantasists arguing for locking & knocking em up before the age 20 wall to sort that.)

Nothing you said actually contradicts what I said. Except for the addition of women complaining that they want even more because their hedonic adaptations keep bringing them back to a state of desire no matter how much is showered upon them.

I congratulate you on your ability to read everything incorrectly.

The Bible demands husbands and wives tend to each other's needs. If a man refused to fuck his wife, I'd have the same view. But that almost never happens.

But it does.

Thought experiment: if a man is cheating AND wants to fuck his wife, what are her "obligations," biblical or otherwise?

 

[Black Spruce]

Thought experiment: if a man is cheating AND wants to fuck his wife, what are her "obligations," biblical or otherwise?

Adultery is literally the one exception to the barring of divorce in the Bible.

 

[isalaide]

Women don't need sex to feel loved in their relationship.

ohhhhh lord. Bless your heart.

The next nugget is normally something about women not being able to have orgasms, right? Or women not having any libido?

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Adultery is literally the one exception to the barring of divorce in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't "bar" divorce. Adultery is one of a couple grounds that the Bible asserts as (reluctantly) acceptable on the part of a divorcing/divorced person. (And there's more against remarriage, and not providing for the wife you divorced, than divorce itself.)

It's clear that "the Bible"/God "hates divorce," as the saying goes (that's a Malachi reference). But it's not so limited as you assert, even purely looking at the words without the context (Moses as reaction to on-the-ground conditions, for example), travail of translation, or spirit of the admonishment.

To wit: The Bible also speaks not just of adultery, but of "sexual immortality" (porneia), which, as its common scriptural term suggests, spans more than literal adultery. KJV says "fornication," but NIV, NKJV, ESV say "sexual immorality"; NLT says "unfaithful." https://www.bible.com/bible/116/MAT.5.31-32

And Matthew 5:27-28 states that lust = adultery. (Made famous by dear good man and former President Jimmy Carter). https://www.bible.com/bible/114/MAT.5.28

There's more support for the notion but I'll leave it there.

And aside from adultery/sexual immorality, there is also abandonment, which is amorphous but which many strong-believer, anti-divorce folks believe includes neglect and abuse, and/or that abuse is a separate ground.

And consider 1 Timothy 5:8, which effectively says anyone not providing for their family is an infidel, which would mean unbeliever, so is relevant for the purposes of abandonment as a rationale for divorce.

...
This was an interesting article, but it considers context, so maybe not your thing. But I looked for some very anti-divorce readings of the Bible, and they acknowledge that though divorce is essentially an accommodation of human sin, all divorce is not the same, and "adultery" is not the only begrudgingly "acceptable" grounds.

https://www.changingus.org/blog/biblical-grounds-for-divorce?format=amp

https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/divorce-and-remarriage

https://worldeventsandthebible.com/divorce

 

[God of Nothing]

I think most married men would strongly disagree with this characterization of married life.

pack it up
no need for more discussion
fucking savage

 

[Unyielding Stupidity]

I strongly recommend marrying someone who is actually sexually attracted to you. Many problems come from people being unable to perceive that their chosen partner does not, at a basic level, want to fuck them.

You can't negotiate desire. You can't covertly contract for it either.

Considering that the stats we have suggest that women find 80% or more of men to be "unattractive", and that male attractiveness is almost universally determined by genetic factors outside of the man's control (height & facial structure being the two biggest examples), that just seems like a great reason for men to avoid marriage all together.

Divorce is down at around 42-43%. Average % includes 2nd, 3rd+ marriages, too, which is higher than first marriages.

Keep in mind that said 42-43% includes ALL marriages, which naturally includes marriages in extremely religious communities (primarily Amish, Orthodox Jews, pretty much any group of Muslims, etc), and arranged marriages. All of which have much lower divorce rates than the general population, which drags down the average. Also worth mentioning that as the US and other Western countries get more "diverse", the number of marriages that fall into one of these groups is going to make up a larger proportion of all US/Western marriages.
One thing worth mentioning is that the number of non-marital sexual partners that a woman's had before getting married considerably affect the odds of the marriage ending in divorce; the more partners a woman's had, the more likely it is her marriage will end in divorce. I'm unsure if the same holds true for the man's number of partners, though I wouldn't be surprised if it did as well. And we live in an age where casual sexual relationships are much more common than they've ever been, especially among women.
And even if we disregard all of this; is a 42% chance one you want to make a potentially life-ruining gamble on? Would you put all of your worldly possessions on a roulette table with those same 42% odds of losing it all?

Reasons for divorce:

• Lack of commitment (75%)
• Infidelity/relationships outside of the marriage (59.6%)
• Conflict, irreconcilable differences (57.7%)
• Marrying too young (45.1%)
• Money issues/debt (36.1%)
• Substance abuse/alcohol addiction (34.6%)
• Communication problems (31.9%)
• Inability to have children (27%)
• Domestic violence (23.5%)
• A child has a mental illness or is incapacitated (22.7%)
• Health problems, mental illness of a spouse (20%)
• Lack of support from family (17.3%)
• Religious differences (13.3%)

Probably worth mentioning that the reasons that get mentioned here are from self-reported surveys, meaning that it's the individuals who initiated the divorce giving the reason why they did it. And let's face it, they're never going to be honest about the reason why if the actual reason is one that paints them in a bad light or makes them seem selfish.

 

[isalaide]

Considering that the stats we have suggest that women find 80% or more of men to be "unattractive", and that male attractiveness is almost universally determined by genetic factors outside of the man's control (height & facial structure being the two biggest examples), that just seems like a great reason for men to avoid marriage all together.

Only if they are ugly.

Makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that the malformed and unfit should not reproduce.

No need for the cute ones to die alone because of the barely-human specimens amongst them.

Would you put all of your worldly possessions on a roulette table with those same 42% odds of losing it all?

I was given odds in those ballpark when I unexpectedly had a high risk twin pregnancy.

They started school this week.

So, I guess I'm probably not your target audience for that remark.

No need to be disheartened when the balance of probabilities is in your favour. And even better: you have complete personal agency to influence the outcome, when you're talking about marriage.

Remember the words of the legend Gary Player: "The more I practise, the luckier I get". Marriages take work, on both sides. Can't put nothing in and expect to get something out.

 

[Lidl Drip]

And we live in an age where casual sexual relationships are much more common than they've ever been, especially among women.

Completely wrong. You just think that because you're a porn addict and think it represents reality.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Keep in mind that said 42-43% includes ALL marriages, which naturally includes marriages in extremely religious communities (primarily Amish, Orthodox Jews, pretty much any group of Muslims, etc), and arranged marriages. All of which have much lower divorce rates than the general population, which drags down the average.

Those groups make up a minuscule percentage of marriages/the population in general.

Also worth mentioning that as the US and other Western countries get more "diverse", the number of marriages that fall into one of these groups is going to make up a larger proportion of all US/Western marriages.

There's no huge influx of Amish or Orthodox Jews. Muslim population is growing, but as of 2020, Muslims were under 2% of the population. Even if that doubles, that's minor. You're right though that if they marry at high rates, even being a small % of pop they'd have a disproportionate impact on marriage rates (up), and then if they stay married, another disproportionate impact of divorce rates (down). That said, you can only have so much impact at those population levels.

However, this was interesting (didn't fact check this one) :

• Equally likely to marry, less likely to divorce
• Less anti divorce than evangelicals
• Muslim youth more accepting of divorce than peers

Also seem not atypical (these ate status percentages not divorce rates, which were harder to find than I had time for):

Divorce in the United States According to Religious Beliefs​

1. Protestant Christians 51%

2. Catholics 19%

3. Jewish 9%

4. Mormon 7%

5. Muslims 8%

6. Hindus 5%

7. Buddhists 10%

8. Sikhs 6%

9. Jehovah’s Witness 12%

10. Atheists 11%

https://sacksandsackslaw.com/religious-demographics-divorce-united-states/

I've seen reference to rates of 30% but didn't find a solid source for this.

One thing worth mentioning is that the number of non-marital sexual partners that a woman's had before getting married considerably affect the odds of the marriage ending in divorce; the more partners a woman's had, the more likely it is her marriage will end in divorce.

Cites, please.

 

[Justa Grata Honoria]

Completely wrong. You just think that because you're a porn addict and think it represents reality.

its obvious it is not low enough, but i am sure the men in here will give another performance worthy of Olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics explaining this.

 

[KittyGremlin]

There we go, another gender wars thread and God knows I don't have the restraint not to get involved, so fuck it.

Considering that the stats we have suggest that women find 80% or more of men to be "unattractive", and that male attractiveness is almost universally determined by genetic factors outside of the man's control (height & facial structure being the two biggest examples), that just seems like a great reason for men to avoid marriage all together.

Only if they are ugly.

Makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that the malformed and unfit should not reproduce.

No need for the cute ones to die alone because of the barely-human specimens amongst them.

Physical attractiveness is pointless to obsess over, especially if it's genetic and you can do nothing about it. To me it just seems like an excuse to fall into a fatalistic mindset and does nothing to improve your life overall.

Honestly I'm just sick of faggots who sit on their ass looking for who or what to blame for their faggotry and this website has become so infested with self pity it's unreal. I am MATI about it and I want to punch a puppy right now.