The Institution of Marriage

[bohemiandonut]

GS sometimes your posts remind me of that kid on Malcolm in the Middle who needs to breath.. after every... other word.. he says.

[GrkScorp]

GS, this kind of post makes me think you've never actually seen a healthy, successful long-term marriage.

Absolute words like "never & always" have no place in a marriage, lol. If you get married you WILL do all those things. But not all the time.

Here's a thought for you to ponder since you're so into self-awareness: you may be happy with YOU right now, but YOU right now is nothing like the YOU that you'll become in a marriage. That's a completely different 'you' that you'll create w/your partner. If you're thinking they must simply 'take you as you are', now in all your wonderful glory (or else!), you are in for a rude awakening.

Think about it.

Thought about it.., which is why you've heard me say.., time and time again.., "people change.., paper doesn't".., sign right there now;

X/_________________________

Now.., do you know what you look for in a marriage.., why it's important to you.., and what it means for you.., or you don't really have a good idea yet?

[GrkScorp]

GS sometimes your posts remind me of that kid on Malcolm in the Middle who needs to breath.. after every... other word.. he says.

Not for Tax attorneys.., we charge by the hour.., we take our sweet time when we talk.., and we can talk.., by the hour..

[IndiReloaded]

During that time.., she makes some new songs.., some new deals.., purchases some more property.., and collects some more money.., all the result of her success (prior) to the marriage.., having nothing to do with this retarded loser back-up dancer who is living the life now that he's with her..

I don't know anything about BS, but I could imagine a scenario where her husband took care of her kids so that she *could* go on tour & she *could* make those new songs.

So there would be some entitlement, potentially. My point is, its a lot harder to judge during this period than before/after. And you ignored all my other examples as to why this can be complicated. What about a doctor's wife who supported him & while he went to school? You saying she doesn't have entitlement to his earnings? Or he supported *her* while she went to school--I know a cop who supported his scientist wife while she was a grad student, they got divorced but she had to pay him alimony b/c she makes the big pharma bucks... you see something wrong with that? I don't. He busted his ass for her, she decided she didn't want to be married anymore to the non-academic ('he's just a cop'). Hell, yes it goes both ways.

[GrkScorp]

I gotta run, GS. More later, interesting subject.

Looking ahead to hearing your answers and female opinion on marriage when you come back..

Best,

GrkScorp

[vashti]

"Poor" Britney? You must be kidding. She definitely married her equal.

[IndiReloaded]

Now.., do you know what you look for in a marriage.., why it's important to you.., and what it means for you.., or you don't really have a good idea yet?

Of course I do. But why should I share with such a rude young man as yourself? I'm already married, GS, so you can't offer me that & besides, I'd have to get you to sign a prenup.

[GrkScorp]

I don't know anything about BS, but I could imagine a scenario where her husband took care of her kids so that she *could* go on tour & she *could* make those new songs.

So there would be some entitlement, potentially. My point is, its a lot harder to judge during this period than before/after. And you ignored all my other examples as to why this can be complicated. What about a doctor's wife who supported him & while he went to school? You saying she doesn't have entitlement to his earnings? Or he supported *her* while she went to school--I know a cop who supported his scientist wife while she was a grad student, they got divorced but she had to pay him alimony b/c she makes the big pharma bucks... you see something wrong with that? I don't. He busted his ass for her, she decided she didn't want to be married anymore to the non-academic ('he's just a cop'). Hell, yes it goes both ways.

We can sit here.., and debate.., and imagine hypotheticals to your heart's content.., but they've already been done.., and there's a reason marriage is in place.., and beyond that.., a reason pre-nupts are in place.., because we are not the first to think about and debate these things..

If a woman threw that argument to me.., I would then agree.., and proceed to question.., "so.., did you support me through law school? or perhaps when I was working at the firm? did you stack up all those billable hours which made me partner? and then did you organize and develop a private practice? to get me to where I am today? did you do all that? because if you did.., then yes.., it's very fair.., more than fair that we resort to a state default.., or even agree to a 50/50 split.., anything less would just be wrong.., but that's not what we're dealing with is it? You didn't do all that.., so then.., why don't we look at what you're bringing in? Unless you don't feel comfortable looking at that.., because you don't really feel it's much.., because you'd rather get defensive about it than be confident in what you have to offer.. because you know that i'd rather hire a baby-sitter for $X than to buy into your argument that because you took care of the kids.., you're now entitled to 50%.., if you're ready to have a serious conversation about what i'm bringing in.., and what you're bringing in.., we'll start putting some numbers down.., if you're not ready yet.., then we'll keep talking about the world.., and other things.., until you're ready.."

I suggest knowing.., before speaking.., and you can't afford to not know about cases like Britney.., McCartney.., Trump.., etc.., which gave rise to useful legal devices.., and then expect to make a solid case with a personal opinion..

Nobody wants to be anyone's sugar-daddy/mommy and give someone a free-ride through life.., beyond that.., nobody wants to feel tied into a marriage.., there's an interesting dynamic in place when both people know that.. "hey! anytime anyone wants.., they can walk out and leave without any significant costs!"

That means.., "if I want this person to stay.., I better make them happy.., it is going to be because they want to stay.., or else i'm going to lose them".., and only someone with questionable motives and intentions would find anything wrong with that.. someone who has a problem putting in the effort to make a marriage work.., and make their partner happy.., constantly.., to the best of their ability..

I personally enjoy and get an insane amount of pleasure from making my significant other happy.., and seeing them happy and satisfied all the time.., if I see them unhappy.., I feel it's because "I" failed in some way.., that it's nobody else's fault other than my own.. and I am always looking for ways to keep them happy and satisfied.. and so.., I am looking for someone who feels the same way.., yes.., we both want children.., we both want a life together.., and financial stability and security is not an issue we'll have to worry about.., it's great if she can contribute.., but it doesn't make a whole world of a difference to me if she comes in with nothing.., all I ask for.., is the same attitude towards making eachother happy and satisfied.., and if she can't at least have that much to offer.., then i'd rather not think about marriage with this person to begin with..

Best,

GrkScorp

[GrkScorp]

Of course I do. But why should I share with such a rude young man as yourself? I'm already married, GS, so you can't offer me that & besides, I'd have to get you to sign a prenup.

Is this seriously how you expect to dodge such a harmless question? I guess there are some views about marriage that women don't feel too comfortable comming clean to.., that's fine.., if you don't feel comfortable talking about it Indi.., i'm not going to push..

Edit: Just please.., try and control your usage of ad hominem [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url] either directly or indirectly.., it's both pointless and not the least bit productive.., not to mention.., the mere fact that you call someone "rude".., doesn't make them rude.., you're both a married lady.., an academic.., and an intellectual Indi.., start acting like it.., don't let a simple thread about marriage be the reason for your departure.. there are many ways to be witty.., but insults to character are not one of them.. even you know that..

Best,

GrkScorp

[misombra]

MiSombra, it might be easy for you to think marriage is useless, but it might be because you are young. When you turn 70 (if you ever do, of course), you will be glad to know there would be someone there to help you get up from the bed or who will change your diapers if your arthritis doesn't let you do it yourself.

being married doesn't at all guarantee that. go ask people who live in nursing homes.

besides, if someone wants to do all that for me, i need not be married to them.

[bohemiandonut]

Is this seriously how you expect to dodge such a harmless question? I guess there are some views about marriage that women don't feel too comfortable comming clean to.., that's fine.., if you don't feel comfortable talking about it Indi.., i'm not going to push..

Edit: Just please.., try and control your usage of ad hominem [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url] either directly or indirectly.., it's both pointless and not the least bit productive.., not to mention.., the mere fact that you call someone "rude".., doesn't make them rude.., you're both a married lady.., an academic.., and an intellectual Indi.., start acting like it.., don't let a simple thread about marriage be the reason for your departure.. there are many ways to be witty.., but insults to character are not one of them.. even you know that..

Best,

GrkScorp

Grk.., you can't expect everyone to support your.., fragile ego at all times when.., your whole virtual reputation is based on.., the notion of self-reliance and.., invulnerable personal identity... , . .

Besides, Indi was just countering your whole "come on what's so wrong with a pre-nup unless you're irrational" argument with the fact that a woman might not always be in the financially weaker position - or the weaker position in general. Relax bro!

P.S. - Posting wikipedia links to terms you learned in a high school rhetoric class is generally not the way to go when arguing with people as educated as IR.

P.S.S. - You're still the smoothest talker I know.

[Charlie Boy II]

Scorp, you insufferable c-nt.

[Off2College]

I love sociology papers. Try writing a 2000 word history of philosophy paper... I run the school's philosophical society and I have trouble with it.

[Mish]

My two cents for the OP

I can see marriage giving a benefit to the relationship by making the seperation process a formal procedure, i.e. making it more difficult to seperate. A lot more effort is required to divorce than to break up. The two parties thinking to end their relationship will have to be pretty determined to end it. Think it over, once, twice, three times, as many times as neccessary until they are entirely sure that seperation is the only option for them. Break up is a lot easier, you don't require as much effort, it's easier to make mistakes, leave without working things out.

I think it would also be good to address modern cultural aspects to marriage. A secular marriage will probably be a different kind of marriage to a Religious one (where external forces allegedly bring two people together for eternity). You could even dig up some statistics on which one has better longevity, I think it would be interesting I for one would like to see that.

[GrkScorp]

Grk.., you can't expect everyone to support your.., fragile ego at all times when.., your whole virtual reputation is based on.., the notion of self-reliance and.., invulnerable personal identity... , . .

P.S. - Posting wikipedia links to terms you learned in a high school rhetoric class is generally not the way to go when arguing with people as educated as IR.

It took me a while.., but I finally got it.., smart.., very cleaver & witty.., you read the link didn't you..,

Besides, Indi was just countering your whole "come on what's so wrong with a pre-nup unless you're irrational" argument with the fact that a woman might not always be in the financially weaker position - or the weaker position in general. Relax bro!

The argument was.., if you view marriage between two people as motivated by love.., then someone would be a hypocrite to turn around and say they would have a problem with pre-nupts that only eliminate wrongful incentives put in place by marriage alone without a pre-nupt to make it such that only two people's love for eachother is holding them together..

When the argument of the woman being in the weaker financial position or not came up.., it's purpose was not a counter-arguement.., but an attept to misdirect the debate into the world of male vs. female.., this is what women do in the marriage.., therefore she's entitled to it! (a seperate issue to look at)