[carve]

I'm glad you're happy, but why call it "manning up"? Just because old people do it?

In this day and age, especially in light of how much preferential treatment women get in divorce, I'm having an increasingly difficult time seeing what's in it to go from serious relationship to legal agreement that prevents the main bread winner from leaving without enormous inconvenience and expense. A marriage is ultimately just a legal agreement giving some rights and privileges, but ultimately just about money and property as far as the state is concerned...and that's what women want whether they admit it to themselves or not. Don't believe me? Then just tell her we'll do the ceremony but not sign the state papers. I've seen many people, men and women, who stop trying once they're locked in. There's simply less incentive since you now have legal power. It typically isn't thought out like that, and not all marriages wind up like that of course. It's just human nature. When you think your partner can leave at any time and you don't want them to, you both give it your all to make things work because the alternative is losing them.

So...what's in it for the guy? I think it's typically appeal to tradition and fear of your girl walking without a ring. Perhaps a girl who'd otherwise walk isn't the right choice in the first place though, as the main difference for her is the guy putting his balls in a vice that she holds the lever of. Also, doing it to keep her around, because you can't live without her or find someone as good, is coming from a place of extreme neediness. This will ultimately kill her attraction and we know where it goes from there

My opinion: the state should get out of the marriage business and offer a series of contract for things like parental rights, medical decisions, wills....and the right to half your stuff for many years into the future. Guess how often that one would get signed if brought up separately!? We could call it the part-time slave contract. Perhaps if the woman stops her career to be a mom and that's a mutual decision, they should sign a contract pre arranging how she'll be compensated for that risk if things don't work out, like insurance. Make sure you're on the same page when things are happy vs ugly


The ceremony should just be whatever you want between friends, family and church

[i dunno]

ya I think I agree with that. if there's an easy option to leave, then it pressures both people to be on their A game to keep each other around.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by carve

I'm glad you're happy, but why call it "manning up"? Just because old people do it?

In this day and age, especially in light of how much preferential treatment women get in divorce, I'm having an increasingly difficult time seeing what's in it to go from serious relationship to legal agreement that prevents the guy from leaving without enormous inconvenience and expense. I've seen many people, men and women, who stop trying once they're locked in. There's simply less incentive since you now have legal power. It typically isn't thought out like that, and not all marriages wind up like that of course. It's just human nature. When you think your partner can leave at any time and you don't want them to, you both give it your all to make things work because the alternative is losing them.

So...what's in it for the guy? I think it's typically appeal to tradition and fear of your girl walking without a ring. Perhaps a girl who'd otherwise walk isn't the right choice in the first place though, as the main difference for her is the guy putting his balls in a vice that she holds the lever of. Also, doing it to keep her around, because you can't live without her or find someone as good, is coming from a place of extreme neediness. This will ultimately kill her attraction and we know where it goes from there

Three words: "married filing jointly"