For the never married straight guys, would you ever want to get married at some point?
See thats the thing. Ask anyone who got married then divorced. They thought "forever" was the case too. Key here is don't rush it. Take YEARS to get married.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the advice and your concern.
I am on a frienship with a nice girl now, we are two broken heart.
I cant live without having girls near me i must admit :(
But i am trying to learn to listen more to them.
Being raised to be strong and having the initiative of things is so a burden, and make us so blind...
Nothing is easy :-D
Comment has been collapsed.
don't tell Kalaq that - he would say they they are not in a relationship :P - as the only final step to a relationship is formalisation through marriage - outsde of that we are all just playing at being children :P (my 20 year relationship (actually 21 now) would beg to differ but hey we all have our odd ideas in this world of ours)
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/bjPCtzr
Comment has been collapsed.
The post you linked indicates his sentiments are far different than what you indicate.
socially binding promise, made to each other and upheld by witnesses, which distinguishes the formal relationship that is marriage.
the final step of [social] committal (not of the [development of the] relationship)
Khalaq appears to only be focusing on the definition of marriage which, yes, is a socially recognized formal relationship. Khalaq has at times expressed viewpoints problematically in the past, but that post seems to just be a well thought out, purely by-the-numbers explanation of the present relevancy and interpretation of marriage. You claim he insists on the relationship merits of marriage, but I read the opposite; in fact, he appears to make clear distinction that marriage- which was once a predominantly social formal statement not inherently tied to romance and love- has now overwhelmingly become associated with the process of courtship.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that "cheating" is a term that is defined within the context of marriage, just as "adultery" is defined by the context of marriage.
From what I see, he has been quite clear of his intentions as being purely based on the proper interpretation of terminology, and in clarifying what they're relevant to. I being what I am, find that quite appreciable. Likewise, going off previous posts, his investment in the topic appears to be based within honest inquiry into differing viewpoints- which should be applauded, not criticized.
To reclarify what he's saying, he [as I understand it] is saying this:
If you "cheat" on someone, it may not be cheating within a relationship- open relationships and other self-confident, honest relationships can accept it, love can ignore it, and it's all-around just a very personal matter that has no relevancy within law.
On the other hand, adultery, cheating, etc- our interpretations of those, and their being socially relevant, negative [and legally negative] concepts, that's based purely within the expectations of the standard marriage contract, which is essentially an economic merger agreement with an exclusivity clause. We have an emphasis on pre-nups now that can at times push away from that, but the common social conception [and legal understanding] of marriage is still tied to a very specific, monogamous social contract.
Hence why homosexual marriage caused such issue- there clearly wasn't any distinction within the relationship format (regardless of what nonsensical, hateful beliefs one may hold toward other people wanting to bump their junk with a different kind of consenting adult than the ones the individual in question personally finds attractive), but homosexuality wasn't at the time accepted within the social expectations of that formal social contract.
Life partners are life partners, and soulmates are soulmates, regardless of what society calls it, but marriage is acknowledging a formal contract with society and the government, which in turn returns certain economic and social benefits.
In short, Khalaq is making a clear distinction between relationships and marriage, so he's completely not insisting that marriage is the natural continuation of a relationship (as you indicate he is)- just that such progression is an intuitive one, if you want social recognition of being in a dedicated relationship and the benefits that come with such recognition.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL in your opinion - not in mine - that is the nature of opinions, we are all entitled to them :)
they stated - "You would be correct. My understanding is that the final step of committal (not of the relationship) would be formalizing it through marriage". - and that is the only point being noted by me in this thread - not the long diatribe about cheating mentioned in the other thread and which I did not bring here and do not care about (this thread is about marriage not cheating) - that is another matter entirely - the marriage thing seems more like someone wants ownership not equality and I don't need marriage for my relationship despite people proselytising to the opposite that it is the be all and end all of a relationship :)
now - where did I put that chocolate, I need suger :P - nice blacklist by the way, I won't reciprocate as SG will do it for me - but I am saddened that you felt the need to do it when I was only quoteing someones own words !!!
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe marriage was more important in the past (speaking about western society from here on) when traditions such as dowry and dower were much more important. It was a social and economic union between families, with the expectation of children - to propel prosperity. Now there is the increased practice of divorce in which property and wealth (and children >>) are often ruthlessly split despite the fact that modern society does not really adhere to the traditional social constructs of old; there is far greater emphasis on individuality and far less on family while divorce still carries a certain power overruling former and is becoming more common.
I think many people just see marriage as a superficial formalisation of a relationship these days, which is really not the strength of the practice in my opinion. And since many couples seemingly can't or don't want to sustain healthy relationships (perhaps due to a sense of romantic and sexual entitlement), we're seeing less marriage and more divorce which increases the viewed obsolescence of marriage. This is probably why these people think it's not needed, perhaps rightly so within this context.
So with a society that puts greater emphasis on individuals, and one that has an apparent distaste for traditional family constructs based upon the biological division of labour for collective responsibility, marriage is just an unnecessary risk to the perceived importance of personal freedom and wealth. May as well forgo it, eh?
I have a somewhat controversial opinion on why this is, though. I think it might be more beneficial to a government if they keep the majority of the population in the middle and working classes, and is why they go as far to tax inheritance for example. There should really be no need to tax inheritance because you're taxed your entire working life already - you expect your family to carry on where you left off, using it to accumulate even more wealth. We all know that wealth creates more wealth, creates stability and opens more opportunities, so just imagine there was a large emphasis on family that pooled the increasing resources of an ever-growing family structure - you know, kind of like a business or a country does. Over multiple generations, your family becomes a powerful entity capable of enabling the very best in subsequent generations without having to rely on any sort of obtuse state. This might be why Jews are often so successful; Jewish culture promotes family and cooperation.
And as to why it might not be good to have families like this? Well, probably because powerful, organised entities are harder to control and exploit. I'm open to other points of view though.
So yeah, if we live in a society where consumerism and personal fulfilment is promoted above all else - where each generation is expected to take the same debt and struggles of those before them, marriage is reduced to fashion. Of course, marriage is probably not for some regardless. I'm really just commenting on the trends.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still believe that marriage can be beneficial if you (and your families) share the same kinds of views. However, in the end, the most important (and healthy) thing to a person is companionship in my opinion, so I'm honestly happy you've got that, and I hope you both enjoy the next 21 years together too! ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
thanks - much appreciated :) Just cause I don't see marriage as the only final step to a relationship doesn't mean others shouldn't :P
It is a whatever fits and whatever works sort of world - we are all just struggling through in our own way :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I assume you're referring to possible abuses, but that's what law and regulation is for - just as with businesses and nations. It's a very valid concern, but not one that should detract from the value of familial prosperity in my opinion. I mean, it's a thing already; wealthy and affluent families exist. Perhaps it would just mean a more even distribution of wealth!
Anything can be abused and misused for bad. A sharp kitchen knife is a great tool for high quality cooking. It's also good for stabbing and slashing, but that's a crime and pretty much universally abhorred.
So yeah, I think it's a good thing. We've always been a race that builds on the success of those who came before us, and I think the family structure has always encouraged that.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you argue that families accumulating wealth and power allows them to avoid being controlled by the government, but then you argue that the government needs to control wealthy powerful families to prevent them abusing their wealth and power?
And what madness could possibly lead you to think that families accumulating wealth over generations could somehow lead to a more even distribution of wealth?! Not only is that in direct violation of the reality we live in, but you argued against it yourself in your last comment!
We all know that wealth creates more wealth, creates stability and opens more opportunities
There's limited wealth and opportunities to go around, so the more they're concentrated in a small number of wealthy and powerful people, the less of them there are to go around for all the not-wealthy. And the easier it is for wealthy families to remain wealthy, the harder it is for the poor to break out of poverty.
So yeah, I think it's a good thing. We've always been a race that builds on the success of those who came before us, and I think the family structure has always encouraged that.
Human advancement tends to build on previous human advancement, but rarely via families. It's extremely rare for more than 2-3 generations to have the same interests/talents/ambitions. It's the rule, not the exception, for wealthy families to lose their wealth just a few generations down the line when a screw-up inherits and squanders it. This isn't difficult to grasp when you consider that people who are good at accumulating wealth tend to be narcissistic or antisocial or both, and thus terrible parents who leave psychological scars in their descendants.
If you ask me, the best policy is a 100% inheritance tax, combined with free education and healthcare, and sufficient benefits for the unemployed and disabled to not live in misery. A basic income even, if possible. That way, if you want your children to be successful, you have to spend time with them and help them become good people with the fortitude to handle the challenges of life. And even if you're poor, your children won't be denied healthcare or education and won't starve or have necessities absent. Thus as many people as possible could reach their full potential. And even if you're the child of someone wealthy who coddles you too much and leaves you unprepared for life, and you're left with nothing when they die and you don't get anything due to the inheritance tax, the government still provides you the same benefits as everyone else so you'll be able to live modestly comfortably for the rest of your life. And if you want more than that, you have plenty of time to learn useful skills and make something more of your life.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you argue that families accumulating wealth and power allows them to avoid being controlled by the government, but then you argue that the government needs to control wealthy powerful families to prevent them abusing their wealth and power?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean it the way you're thinking. A large, prosperous family can provide greater opportunities for new generations as well as increased local investment into community, which is the greater freedom and less control part; the responsibility for greater quality of life is in the hands of the network of families that have a vested interest. I think I enjoy the idea of this more than everyone being automatically plugged into an amorphous sprawling government that you have little intuition of until you make the effort in adulthood.
But we still need a publicly funded law enforcement to regulate those that descend into criminality and corruption. If you want to see law enforcement as control, that's fair enough, but I do see a distinction between freedom from over-reliance on a large government and enforced adherence to the law.
And what madness could possibly lead you to think that families accumulating wealth over generations could somehow lead to a more even distribution of wealth?!
Well if you stop to think for a moment, there are already very rich families that enjoy the benefits of the structure. The richest of families are in the vast minority - the 5 richest families in my country possess more wealth than the poorest 20% of the population - but if more families were encouraged to plan similarly, the finite wealth would have to be more evenly distributed in due time. Where as our current culture favours a minority of families that have the most vast wealth.
There's limited wealth and opportunities to go around, so the more they're concentrated in a small number of wealthy and powerful people, the less of them there are to go around for all the not-wealthy
Well again, this is the current reality you're describing. This is how it is. I'm advocating a larger number of wealthy families over the current few. I think we've identified your mixup here which is why you have had such an issue.
Human advancement tends to build on previous human advancement, but rarely via families. It's extremely rare for more than 2-3 generations to have the same interests/talents/ambitions.
Yes, modern technological advancement is not championed by family structures (you might argue that they're more readily enabled by healthy family lives though), but that wasn't what I was saying. I was just noting that success (not technological advancement) has often been the fruit of family. And in fact, the more diverse the interests/talents/ambitions, the better - though I'll have to concede that an authoritarian household might dictate the careers of its children if it was really going hardcore with the whole plan to success thing. There are households that do this already in modern times, and they're usually ones with greater emphasis on family (some Chinese homes that can contain several generations?); this isn't really something I'd advocate for directly, but it's worth noting. Family businesses, family loans and family homes are all examples of why family can be beneficial. Increased security and increased opportunity!
It's the rule, not the exception, for wealthy families to lose their wealth just a few generations down the line when a screw-up inherits and squanders it
I think this a silly statement and I don't really believe it, so you're going to have to show me the stats. If it is true, you might attribute it to the declining emphasis on family though :D Besides, most wealth would be tied up in assets and hopefully a greater emphasis on family would create healthier children that lack serious addictions or adverse stupidity.
This isn't difficult to grasp when you consider that people who are good at accumulating wealth tend to be narcissistic or antisocial or both, and thus terrible parents who leave psychological scars in their descendants.
Actually, I believe the reverse is true. Poor, single-parent households that have no link to an extended family (from which I was spawned) tend to produce worse adults. And it's simply not true that you have to be narcissistic and antisocial to gain wealth. You just need to have intelligence, focus and a plan to follow - all of which can be instilled.
If you ask me, the best policy is a 100% inheritance tax, combined with free education and healthcare, and sufficient benefits for the unemployed and disabled to not live in misery. A basic income even, if possible.
...challenges of life...
Such a challenge to live in modest comfort at the expense of everyone else :P To me, that is coddling. But I very much agree on provisions for the most vulnerable. I also agree that there should be large amounts of resources put into public schooling. I'd even go as far as free University, personally - perhaps with penalties if not taken seriously. Education is the one great equaliser, and I think it should be far more important than it is. Inheritance tax should be abolished and any kind of free healthcare should be restricted to emergencies (coming from someone that lives in a country with free healthcare, even this is a controversial opinion) - I don't mind paying tax to save the lives of unfortunate people.
And even if you're the child of someone wealthy who coddles you too much and leaves you unprepared for life, etc etc
Yeah, it's up to the parents to raise the child properly. If family wealth is involved, you know you're going to be far more inclined to do it correctly. On the other hand, if you exit childhood with few prospects and no family to help you fix that (even though that's what I'm arguing for), you just have to start from the bottom; get a low-skilled job and accumulate wealth to invest in yourself so that you can accumulate more wealth to invest, and/or go back to school and make sure to study properly this time :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I think marriage is obsolete. You can arrange anything you want without getting married. However...
If I had a girlfriend that desperately wanted to get married and I had the idea our relationship would be able to last I would do it for her. So I don't vote for either option.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just a commitment you take
it is more binding that just living together
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the big issues behind the push for marriage equality in the States was that formal life partners didn't get the same protections and benefits. A non-spouse may not be able to override a parent or other relative for a legal or medical decision on behalf of a partner [quote below as an example of that], taxes aren't reduced as they are for a married couple, etc. In fairness, you could do legal workarounds for the first, but they'd be far more of a hassle and expense than signing a marriage contract would be, and they had a habit of- even after becoming legally protected [see below]- receiving resistance that often prohibited the partner being able to make timely decisions for their incapacitated partner.
Individuals in same-sex couples are far less likely to receive employer-sponsored dependent health care coverage compared with married heterosexual individuals. With lower rates of employer-provided health care coverage, same-sex couples are more than twice as likely to be uninsured as married heterosexual couples. Policies supportive of same-sex marriage may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minorities.
Discriminatory practices have resulted in individuals in same-sex relationships being prohibited from seeing their partners in the hospital, even with legal documents such as a durable power of attorney. However, in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced new guidance that protects hospital patients’ right to choose their own visitors during a hospital stay, including a visitor who is a same-sex domestic partner. The guidance also supports the right of patients to designate the person of their choice, including a same-sex partner, to make medical decisions on their behalf should they become incapacitated. Same-sex couples can be prevented from providing consent for medical care or authorizing emergency treatment and health care decisions for nonbiological children or children who are not jointly adopted.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, unless an individual was defined as a spouse or parent under state law, an individual in a same-sex relationship did not have access to the federal Family Medical Leave Act, which allows those eligible to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to care for immediate family members (spouse, child, or parent). Now non-federal employees and their same-sex spouses who are legally married can receive this benefit if they reside in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples who are not defined as legal spouses do not have protections and compensation for families of crime victims in state and federal programs. A surviving partner in a same-sex relationship who is not legally married may not be able to sign for the release of the partner’s body from the hospital for funeral or disposition arrangements, even when prior legal arrangements have been made
>>]
Comment has been collapsed.
ah - I get that point of view, from an american standpoint - not the same in the UK - we have written determinations for our wishes - and I am entitled to death benefits as a named beneficiary through my partners work contract; irrespective of if we were married etc... - and our wills supercede any familial requirements - but you do have to have a will for that to be the case (legally deposited)
also we have had a few of these recently:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/08/unmarried-woman-wins-automatic-right-late-partners-pension/
so the rights of non-married partners are being further enshrined in case laws - but I get your point if there is no written consents etc... it becomes a minefield of pain and fights (saddened that you felt the need to blacklist me for quoteing someone and agreeing with you on the minefields on not having written consents etc... - that made me a sad panda :( )
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I live in the Netherlands. We've had gay marriage since 2001. But without gay marriage being legal, you can't get married AND you can't arrange it in a different way. So it's kind of pointless to talk about it in that sense, because one being legal usually grants the other as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can arrange anything you want without getting married.
I was only responding to this point, for which my reply was an appropriate one.
Whether you choose to marry, or are allowed to marry, are separate from the fact that marriage does grant certain legal benefits which cannot necessarily be obtained outside of marriage [if nothing else, that'll certainly be the case for the many tax benefits associated with marriage].
Comment has been collapsed.
That may be true in many countries. In mine it isn't at least. My parents got married for the tax benefits too, not because they specifically wanted to get married. An uncle got married only a few years ago because his wife wanted to, but they already had tax benefits. For my generation it is no longer a necessity. I don't know the law of other countries.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Didn't you get the memo...playing computer games is just for kids or teenagers. No grownup would devote time to such a childish pastime /s
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the poll is directed towards "the never married straight guys" so I suppose it makes sense to exclude irrelevant poll votes.
Comment has been collapsed.
In Belgium we have laws that define a registered relationship as being the same as marriage. Much better imo, as it makes people marry out of love instead of legal reasons
Comment has been collapsed.
Almost 3 months married now. I honestly have to say that I have never been so happy in my life :)
I think of marriage as the next logical step in my (our) life and there are more steps to follow :)
EDIT: When it comes to divorce, you have to realize that you will lose children, house, money etc. even though you live a life with somebody who you are not married to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you could always wait until you retire. Move to the Philippines, and marry a smoking hot 18 year old. That seems to be what a lot of western expats do lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am from "West", well the eastern part of "West" :D ... and I lived in the Philippines for 2 years (about 10 years ago now) but what you say was true even then. I was always wondering what those young girls were doing holding hands with those grandpas... oh well, you cant order love, can you? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I certainly plan to... but i'll stick to Thailand ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you know their intentions`?
good, then dont judge about them like this ;)
thinking about some people got a flair for asian womans?`or some are just feel uncomfortable to their "local" womans because of bad experiences? there like hundrets of reasons someone going to the far east to marry an asian woman. so please, next time explaine why "a lot of western expats want to marry an smoking hot 18 year old" lel
Comment has been collapsed.
shit... there is no need to explain why anyone of any age wants to marry a smoking hot 18 year old ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said it was bad ;) I vacation in thailand and phils and know lots of these sexpats er expats ;) Might become one myself!
Comment has been collapsed.
As a muslim who are not even allowed to touch a woman before marriage, its a big yes. Its the only salvation for our sexual needs as well. I await that day patiently.
Comment has been collapsed.
And why you people don't change that? It's stupid to not be able to touch a woman out of marriage. You are losing the possibility to live many vital experiences due that cancerous religion. You only live once and it is a shame not to be able to experience sex for the stupidity of religion. World would be better if muslims could live like western people.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Sexodus, the herbivore man in the East, MGTOW, feminism, guys falling way behind women academically, men not going to college as much, divorce rates at an all time high, marriage rates decreasing, women saying there are no good men anymore, promiscuity and the hook up culture.
Your answer lies in the OP's discussion. We don't want to change because none of the Western problems like that occurs here.
Comment has been collapsed.
As someone who is living in a Muslim nation - I can say first hand that muslims are having sex outside of marriage just like everyone else. Half of the apartments in the country are leased out to people who only live in them during the weekend - because they are fuck shacks.
The difference between the middle east and the west is that the middle east does a better job of lying about what's happening and the west doesn't give a shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well it might be true but I was talking about myself and how my family would like to handle marriages. Just the middle east doesn't make the whole of muslim society.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm twice divorced because I thought marriage was something completely different than what they thought. Also, they were assholes. ^^
I've been with my current girlfriend for 10 years now, perhaps one day we will get married but really, what is the rush? It would not change anything except taxes and her last name.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm 24 and married this summer
I think that many people are afraid to make mistakes and so they don't want to commit for a whole life. They are afraid that there might be a better partner, or that their love wont last.
But that is really sad, as love is not something that is just there, and then suddenly vanishes. Instead it is a decision, and so I can be really optimistic, as I know my wife will never betray me and she will always love me, even if she is angry at me at the same time.
Comment has been collapsed.
and maybe, just maybe, some people count more for a working relationship instead of a to early marriage ;)
you can love & live with someone, feel his/her needs and be happy all your life, without getting married. its all up to you, or more... up to the humans. italy looks for some people like a boot, for me its just a landmark, its on the humans what they see and how they deal with the problems they face every day ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
what is a to early marriage?
Sure, you shouldn't just marry anyone for the sake of being married.
But if you both building on the same foundation it is way easier.
you can love & live with someone, feel his/her needs and be happy all your life, without getting married.
I know couples who live together for 30 years and more, have kids together and live like they are married, but aren't.
what I don't understand is, why don't you marry in such a case?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I were in a relationship that led me to think marriage is the next step, I'd marry but not for the title or anything, but because the legal stuff that is made easier by being married (e.g., medical emergencies, propierty especially if you want to have children and that makes it easier for them to inherit, and all that jazz). Apart from that, I personally think that marriage is not necessary, but most people think it is for different cultural/social/religious reasons.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a social and economic contract between two families that calls for dedication towards prosperity.
Just like going into business with someone - you expect them to pull their weight. You both work for collective prosperity and that of your family of employees. You're bonded by loyalty and mutual interest.
If the company is very successful and one of the two blows half the wealth on hookers and blackjack - or worse, secretly some other partnership, that's usually detrimental to the bond and completely neglects the responsibility of the partnership. If there's no contractual bond, it could just be claimed that there was no wrong-doing and that you were just exercising your right as an individual.
So really, it's just a beneficial social construct extending from human nature, codified in the tradition of marriage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn if you are not lawer, you choose wrong proffesion. =) But what about classic family, where only man make money, and woman make, you know, home stuff? =)
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, I believe that the classical family is the healthiest, but I don't think there has to be a rule that states the man should make money and the woman is the matriarch of the household. It can just as easily be the other way around in today's society, because there are many new careers that don't favour either gender. It should be something that's discussed; not all couples will come to the same decision.
The woman will often want to stay home and there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, that's what I'd personally prefer for the first couple of years at least). The responsibility of raising a child is a big one that really requires a lot of effort and planning to produce something good, along with the general management of the household. Equally, other couples may come to the reverse decision where the man takes over that role.
Some couples might even manage to have it where the mother stays home for some amount of years and then that reverses at some point if possible. Other couples might choose to both work, but I'd suggest that this is only healthy for wealthy couples that can afford to employ people to take on the roles left vacant. Sometimes they might not have much of a choice and can't go the optimal routes, but that's where I'd argue that thoughtful marriage and family can enable that choice for subsequent generations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, there are no rule. But word "househusband" is CREEPY =)
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, well there are those that think "housewife" is something to be ashamed of too, and many use it with pejorative connotations. But that's just a product of our current culture that places the importance of personal success over home and family. I have no problem with househusbands or housewives personally. There is also the option of part-time or flexible remote work if that's desired - especially when all the children have started attending school, which frees up the day significantly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disliked idea of marriage for a very long time - first of all, it's in most cases religious thingy, and both me and my fiancee are atheists, then again if we go tor civil marriage, it will be viewed badly by all religious members of our families, and a lot of ppl in my country (incl in our families) are very religious. In addition weddings in Poland are hella expensive - for the cost of the wedding you could pay your own contribution for mortage loan and buy yourself a house, you could go for a month long or longer trip to the other side of the world, you could buy some cheaper brand new car etc, but again, dare you not organize a bigass wedding inviting family members you haven't even seen in over a decade - and half of your family will never speak to you again.
But as you grow older you start to realize all legal benefits of formalization of your relationship - you get to do taxes together, which leaves much more money in your pocket, if something happens to any of you you get access to medical information of each other, without marriage you could live all your lifes together and yet in hospital you won't be even allowed a visit without "closest family permission", you get your shared health insurances (and all kind of insurance becomes cheaper), it becomes much easier to get a marriage loan than it is to get a personal loan, especially for higher amounts of money, so for example to get a car or buy a house and so on and on.
So long story short, wait till you get older and till you meet your special other, only then say such extreme statements like "I will never marry! It's only for women to steal half of my stuff, my children and put me into jail" (very immature statements btw). When I was teenager I never dreamt I will even be in long-term relationship, longest any girl withstood with me was 6 months ;p. When me and my SO started dating and we were 21 and 20 we thought we would never ever marry, we were together for years, lived together for 2-3 years, before we finally grew up old enough (29/30) to decide that despite all our hate for marriage institution it will simply help us formally with a lot of everyday stuff and we engaged ;p Still actual marriage will not come sooner than in like next 1.5-2 years as we want to save money for a big-ass honeymoon month-long trip to Japan ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
i guess it depends on the country laws but here in Belgium you are able to being registered as a couple. giving same legal benefits without the marriage.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, there was a proposition here years ago about "legalized partnership relationships", kinda similar to what you're talking about, but it lost in voting phase, and nowadays we have ultra-conservative far-right govt so no chance for anything like this happening in any years soon. Me and fiancee were talking bout that when it was in voting phase, that we would get that and would never have to marry, but as it is marriage is solution, if only just because of legal reasons. Sadly it's not possible (and even if we were to get it in another country, polish institutions do not recognize such registrations papers, they only do recognize marriage papers from abroad).
There was a case some time ago - I ended up in hospital, was not concious, so couldn't give permission, my family lives hundreds of kilometers away, no family in city we live in - SO could see me only after 2 days when my mom finally got to the hospital and gave permission in my name. I think this was the turning point when I realized that we need formalization, even if just for such cases only.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, we have "traditional" side of things too that include church weddings and huge feasts but who cares, you do what you like and can afford. Maybe 15% of population does that, most just do whatever they want, and civil marriage is default.
And even in a backward country like this one you are seen as a "union" if you live together for 6+ months, so you get almost all of the benefits of marriage, including hospital visits and so on.
One good thing of "globalisation" that I can remember off hand is that more and more people mind their own business instead of judging others for how much money they spend on weddings.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here way over 90% of marriages are traditional, among my friends and family I know a few that were civil marriages, not in church (yet these are still small minority, even atheists will often have church weddings, because it's "tradition"), but every single one had a big wedding feast for whole family and friends. Smallest I've been to was still for 40+ people, biggest for over 200. Most of polish people are very very traditional about this, and in this case it's not "you do what you like" because if you do what you like you will have problems with your families, because they will never forgive you that you didn't throw a wedding party or if heaven forbid you did not invite some distant aunt to the party :/
And here we are living together for almost 5 years and we get absolutelly no benefits at all - like I stated above, she was not even allowed to visit me in hospital until my mother got there and personally gave a permission. And even then she would have to give permission each and every time.
Comment has been collapsed.
No I understand about the "didn't invite family" part, that's alive here too... It's just that more and more people don't care anymore. Parents get angry that you "shame them in front of the family" but if you live together, pay your own rent/mortgage, never see the family and so on... you don't care... and parents get over it with time.
Last 2 weddings I attended were up to 50 people, and out of those 50, 10+10 were friends and young cousins, the rest were old grandmas and aunts and people the couple doesn't meet maybe once in a few years.
And then one of my friends had only 8 people total and a formal lunch at a restaurant and then everyone went home.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't live with my family, I actually live in totally different part of country and only family I ever see is my mom, sister and uncle we visit during holidays. But that's not just me my actions reflect upon, but my mom as well. As she lives close to the rest of family she meet with them very often. And it wouldn't be me hearing all the shit I would be getting from offended family members - it would most likelly be her.
And I would actually love idea of your last paragraph - just having a dinner in some nice restaurant, with closest family like parents and siblings only, then just throw a separate celebration party for friends (but not a "wedding" party, just normal party, rent some house by the lake and spend weekend drinking, smoking and listening to music), but this is something we are still debating. If we decide to have actual money we will waste shitton of cash we would otherwise spend on our honeymoon trip, if we decide for just dinner and party for friends we will most likelly offend quite a few family members, no win-win scenario here :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Carefully weigh whether appeasing the relatives who would get offended is worth it. By skipping the mega feast, you're not just saving money, you're setting an example that others who want to defy tradition but are afraid to might follow. In fact, you could end up getting closer to people who respect your courage.
If people you almost never meet anyway decide to never speak to you again, is that really a problem? When deciding, consider only the people you actually need/want in your life.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know - real problem doesn't really lies with me, it lies with the rest of family whom my actions can also affect, and that means including this little part of family I give actual fuck about ;p Like I mentioned somewhere else in this topic, I live hundreds of kilometers away from my family, I will call my mom once or twice a month, but as for seeing each others I will see my mom, sister and one uncle twice a year max, for xmas and easter, and that's it, rest of the family I will actually meet only during weddings or funerals, will speak with them once per few years, couldn't care less. But in the end it will not be mostly me interacting with them but for example my mom. And I can imagine it wouldn't feel too good for her to hear at every family meeting she may attend "this horrible son of yours, not giving a damn bout his family, disobeying tradition, how could he not invite auntie Barbara? And after all your daughter threw such a great wedding last year, why couldn't he be more like her? Sorry to say this darling, you know we love you, but you raised a self-centred brat, good he moved so far away" and other shit like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
You really should ask your mother's opinion on this before you decide. Who knows, maybe she'll back you up and just tell off any relatives who complain until they shut up about it. Maybe she doesn't like stupid traditions either and will be proud of you. Maybe she doesn't much like your relatives either and won't mind cutting them off if they start nagging her about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did indirectly, I spoke about having jusat civil marriage for benefits, and she was the one to tell me "but what about the family? they would be mad at you for the rest of your life".
But nonetheless now I will really seriously consider the thing you talked about in comment below, cause at first sight it seems like a really awesome idea xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, just thought of something! Why not get married in Japan? Or somewhere else distant? You said Poland recognizes foreign marriage documents, so you can go somewhere "on holiday", get married, have your honeymoon, then come back and say it was such a romantic place you couldn't resist getting married on the spot. And you had spent too much money on the holiday to be able to afford a feast now. Would this result in less complaints?
Comment has been collapsed.
holy fuck! seriously, holy fucking fuck! we've never thought bout this, but it is genuinely great idea o.O We travel a lot, we go abroad at lest twice a year for vacations (not counting weekend city-breaks in European cities), so it would sound totally legit to our families o.O Gotta discuss it with fiancee tommorow (she's already asleep, I'm not as I do remote work at night), but it would basically solve most of our problems - ofc family would still be a little salty about wedding thingy, but much much less than if we did marriage thingy in Poland without party. Plus we would have a very legit excuse... Like holy cow... you probably know I've had you BLed since forever, but you just went straight to whitelist, really and sincerely thanks a lot - we've gotta discuss it, but you may just have as well solve one of our biggest problems :> THANKS! :>
Comment has been collapsed.
Ofc don't get me wrong - like I said, I hate the idea of having this great mega-feast,especially as introvert I would feel very bad there, and I think at your wedding you should be the one feeling the best, not everyone else. Then there's also a cost - we want to go for honeymoon trip and travel through Japan for a month, for the cost of wedding we could pay the whole trip and would still have plenty of leftover money. But's it's something we are currently weighting on pros and cons, we haven't decided yet whether we will be throwing a wedding party or saying screw you to families and facing consequences, but as you can see both solutions will lead up to different bad outcomes. This is exactly why I didn't want to get married for such a long time ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Do it - you will not regret it - we managed to get to Japan and did three weeks traveling around - we did a few days in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Kyoto and then also purchased a two week Japan Rail Pass - which was expensive, but well worth it as it allows you to use the bullet trains as much as you want in those two weeks :P - so we travelled around in style :)
We loved Japan soo much :) - you have to buy the Japan Rail Pass in your own country, as you cannot buy it when you get there - it is a tourist thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah pretty much exactly what we've been planning, just in opposite order ;) Travel to Osaka by plane, then buy Japan Rail Pass for 3 weeks (which is not really this expensive if you add it up - if you were to buy separate tickets for fast trains in Europe for example for accumulated travels of 2-3 weeks you would probably spend quite more than actual cost of JRP) and spend these 3 weeks travelling around Japan (still considering which places exactly to visit, we have a few must-haves but many more possible options to choose from to fill in the gaps), then after these 3 weeks go to Tokyo, spend a week there (to not only do sight-seeing and shoping, but also to have some time to relax, eat in great restaurants etc), then having a plane back from Tokyo to Europe ;) But anyway we still have time to work details - for now we started to save up a little for the trip, but will probably marry and go there at spring in 2 years time ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah one bullet train for us was going to cost £160 return each - so it was a no brainer to just get the rail pass and take the stress out of it all :P - we had to buy the rail passes in our country of origin though - not available for us when you get there - so beware if that is still the same case - you buy a voucher which has to be stamped by the embassy in your country (at least for us it was that way in the UK) - then you exchange that for the pass in Japan - that allows you to choose the day to activate it when you get there and get settled :P - but that was years ago now and so things may have changed :)
Comment has been collapsed.
from what I learned so far in Poland we cannot buy JRP, but we have to reserve it and we have to validate it in the way you mention, and then using this we can pay for our reserved ones in Japan itself. But will surely look deeper into it, if anything, as we gotta visit embassy anyway - we have closer to Berlin than we have to Warsaw, so maybe it can be done in Germany, which would be even easier and faster for us ;) Thanks for info ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Had a woman I wanted to marry, even though previously I was not really fan of such idea, over time I just started to feel like it would be nice to make another step in our relationship. Obviously it did not work out for me in the end but that's another story, so right now I really don't care anymore since from past experience it's gonna take 5+ years to feel like that again when I meet someone new.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think marriage is a beautiful thing as long as you get married out of love. Problem is people have to get married to get the benefits and that is wrong imo. I'm obviously not blaming the people that get married for those reason but in Belgium for example, you can register as a couple, define owned assets and define rules in case anything happens to the relation. It has to be made official by a legislator but eventually you have the same rights you would get as a married couple, taxes included
Comment has been collapsed.
That's interesting! If that existed in my country (Argentina), I'd go that way. But there are some things that are harder without being married. For example, medical emergencies when you have to decide in behalf of the pacient, or when your partner dies and you were not married, you can actually end up with nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah i totally get why marriage would be something necessary. I mean, i would not want my girlfriend/wife to end up with nothing if something would happen to me. Include kids and you really have no choice anymore. Hopefully over time governments will realize there is a need for legalized partnerships without "forcing" people to marry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well couldn't you also state that registering as a couple is a beautiful thing, as long as it's out of love? Isn't registering as a couple just marriage-lite? It just lacks the lifelong dedication towards the prosperity of your family.
If you'd argue that it doesn't lack that, then what's the difference between it and marriage?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you have to remember that things such as "alimony" doesn't exist in many countries. Child support sure, but then that's not related to marriage (and if you make babies, you better be ready to pay for them.)
I've been married and I'd be happy to marry again. Divorce is simple here as long as there's no kids in the marriage (and even then if everyone agrees), so I don't have any reason not to consider it with the right person.
Comment has been collapsed.
life is a risk and responsibility.
you risk everyday by going the street or eating (so you can't avoid it). anyway, risk for me is more a chance than danger. i can go somewhere and take a risk [chance], or i can stay and do nothing, gain nothing. but i can't stay forever.
you can also try to minimize the danger in risk. it's obvious you don't go 'unprepared': you know your direction, you get dressed, you take some things with you (sounds silly, but just think about it: you wear your coat only to go outside). the same with the food. you don't eat anything just to eat, but you make some choices and even risks (going to shop or restaurant), sometimes you don't eat something old, so you waste your money to minimize the risk of poisoning yourself.
you have no idea how much you learn through your life, what to eat and where to go, to get good chances, no danger.
marriage is a risk [chance]. you can loose it (one of the worst things on earth, i guess), you can avoid it and you can win it (one of the best things on earth). if you will chose wisely, you (both or even more) will be happy. what's this life worth without this?
responsibility is simple. you do something, you're responsible for it. want to avoid responsibility? so think what do you feel when someone isn't responsible for you. i will stole your car and go away with it - fine? your ex-whatever will leave you with your kids and won't pay support - fine?
yes, people live with situations like this. they have to. there's so many irresponsible jam tarts on this world.
Comment has been collapsed.
it can be very expensive for women too, btw :) divorce can be expensive for both (and did you ever hear of a marriage contract?). very one-sided-topic. and what do children have to do with marriage? however, the grandparents were able to be married for +50 years but this time now is different. it's no shame anymore to be divorced and maybe to have like 4 ex husbands. For me, marriage is not necessary. But maybe some guy will teach me otherwise, who knows.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Imho, I do not want to ever get married. As a man, I think it's too risky, in the future I don't want to lose half my income, my house, my children, going to jail if you can't pay child support. All of that hanging over your head at any day, and for what benefit?"
You should just stay single, just to be safe.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's very immature and self-centered way of thinking. Why do you only describe it as you're the one being put at risk and she being reesponsible for it? Like in any relationship it works bi-directional - do you put copntrol of some part of your life into someone's else hands? Yes you are. But at the same time they are putting control of part of their life into your hand. To use your analogy - you are both putting heads into guillotines and handing each other ropes, because you love each other and trust each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
and? if most important atribute in your SO is how much money compared to you she makes then Mallorn is right - you're best staying single. not to mention that firstly, what you make now doesn't say what you will be making in the future (when we started dating my fiancee was unemployed, and I was making nice money, nowadays she is earning twice as much as I do), secondly things happen in life you can do nothing about. What if you become ill and unable to work? Or have accident? Then suddenly she would be left with responsibility of taking care of you. How dare you say she is not risking anything, because I am earning more than her sorry ass? - not only is this absolutelly egoistic, but also totally disrespectful of her.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not white knighting for anyone, just stating what I see - that you are totally self-centred and obsessed about your own precious money way more than about your partner, and as such it is really best if you never marry ;)
Not to mention that if your precious money is so sacred to you, you could always marry with an article, get into marriage with asset separation etc. But again - all you wopuld do would probably still be mostly worrying about your cash, so there's not really a point :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That's why you divide responsibilities between each other. You make the money, she does the home chores, cooking, take care of baby etc. In marriage, both the partners compromise and if one of them is not willing to do it, the marriage won't work. As Mallorn said, best if you avoid it, just to be safe :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I work in a field which is predominately women, and listening to how they talk behind their husband's backs and scheme is quite eye opening. You never know how the person you love today will be 3, 4, 5 years from now, it's just a fact of life, people change. Why make a potentially life destroying decision in the heat of the moment when you are blinded by love? For men yes you could not have any trouble later, but statistically speaking you are inviting trouble
Comment has been collapsed.
There are too many divorces this days, couples spliting with children. I don't like that. I haven't found the right girl yet (AFAIK), so, marriage is an option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Got married last year, dont see why not, but everyone should do as they are pleased.
I for one dont see harm in it, and its a nice addiction to the relationship. We have been togheter for 12 years before we got married. nothing changed besides the legal commitment. Yes she can take half the stuff, but everything is and was before already both ours.
personally i think, if you need to worry about the other taking half at this point, were are you in your relationship?
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't see why not? What about save money you spent to marriage stuff? =)
Comment has been collapsed.
a wedding can be as expensive as you want, a few bucks being the minimum...
we had a small group for the day and and a nice party in the evening for family's and friends, just because we could...
costs werent that high, and gifts made up alot ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Lucky you and your "second half" =) But, damn, many girls want a REALY BIG wedding =)
Comment has been collapsed.
3,584 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by jacoz26
3 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by x2Li
34 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by lordmonty3
9 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by vlbastos
5 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by Bigshrimp
585 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by RobbyRatpoison
1,048 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by Abletoburn
54 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by halnco
102 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by sesito71
56 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by xeos23
106 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by aiday555
2,140 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by 86maylin
75 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by HitScan
31,096 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Bydofied
I've been reading a lot about the The Sexodus recently, and how a lot of men nowadays in Western society are opting out of society and opting out of marriage. It's an interesting topic to me, and I've been watching a lot of videos about it, such as these.
MGTOW Its The Safest Choice
Men are opting out of marriage
And articles like these
Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
5 Reasons No Man Should Marry And 1 Reason He Might
The Sexodus, the herbivore man in the East, MGTOW, feminism, guys falling way behind women academically, men not going to college as much, divorce rates at an all time high, marriage rates decreasing, women saying there are no good men anymore, promiscuity and the hook up culture, all of these have been occupying my mind recently.
Imho, I do not want to ever get married. As a man, I think it's too risky, in the future I don't want to lose half my income, my house, my children, going to jail if you can't pay child support. All of that hanging over your head at any day, and for what benefit?
Comment has been collapsed.