Women, If You were a Man, Would You Marry?

[sally4sara]

It appeals to some of us. I suspect it appeals to some men, too.

 

It does. And while not all do, honest non monogamous couples introduce more risks onto their chances of success- way more rules to get confused over or outright break.

 

I liked this blog post by Athol Kay about Why Monogamy Rocks! for men

 

HA! Thats an over simplistic view of a non monogamous world! Why on Earth would the alternative to monogamy be polygamy? Not all women are monogamous now, be they single, not, dealing in honesty or not. That is going to magically change in a non monogamous society? All that is down to is one guy's anthropological ignorance and personal blind spot when it comes to female sexuality.

[xxoo]

You have good reason but for the women with faithful and loving husbands would they do it again?

 

YES!

 

Lol, thank you for the comedy.

 

I said what would you do if you were a man, not what you would like a man to do. Doesnt seem like you understood the question fully.

 

You sounds like a man who's never been in love.

 

What? Nearly all women marry men wealthier than them. Are you saying they are all not looking for a rewarding relationship?

 

Everyone is looking for a rewarding relationship, but using wealth as a leading criterion for a partner isn't wise, imo.

 

I'm not saying you can't have a GREAT marriage with a wealthy man (or woman). I'm just saying that "wealthy man" or "wealthy woman" doesn't in any way improve chances of a GREAT marriage. Other aspects of character and compatibility are far more important.

 

HA! Thats an over simplistic view of a non monogamous world! Why on Earth would the alternative to monogamy be polygamy? Not all women are monogamous now, be they single, not, dealing in honesty or not. That is going to magically change in a non monogamous society? All that is down to is one guy's anthropological ignorance and personal blind spot when it comes to female sexuality.

 

Maybe so, but I thought he had a good point on the stats. If you have one woman who loves you and has sex with you on a regular basis, that isn't something to take for granted!

[musemaj11]

You sounds like a man who's never been in love.

I had been in love and felt like I wanted to do and give everything for the woman I loved. But then luckily as I got older and wiser, I started to realize why should I give everything I have for love when women's love seems to be determined by how much I can give rather than my willingness to give.

 

Its not coincidental that nearly all women marry men of higher status or wealth. Where is the love in that?

 

 

Everyone is looking for a rewarding relationship, but using wealth as a leading criterion for a partner isn't wise, imo.

 

I'm not saying you can't have a GREAT marriage with a wealthy man (or woman). I'm just saying that "wealthy man" or "wealthy woman" doesn't in any way improve chances of a GREAT marriage. Other aspects of character and compatibility are far more important.

In a world where the majority of women are valuing a man by his net worth, a woman must be so genuinely in love with me to want to be with me despite being richer than me.

 

Of course it wouldnt be the only factors just like your husbands money wasnt the only factor for you. But it surely was definitely one of the top criteria, wasnt it?

 

My ideal woman is someone like my mother. An army general's daughter who married a village farmer's son. Now thats true love from my mother's part.

Edited April 22, 2011 by musemaj11

[giotto]

looks like we have lots of young cynics here on LS at the moment...

 

Even if my situation might indicate the contrary, I'm still all for love and romance... in fact, I miss them quite a lot in my life and this saddens me.

 

Kids, when you find true love, don't throw it away for some cold, (mis)calculated, cynical approach to life. You'll have plenty of time to be cynical in later life...

[xxoo]

Of course it wouldnt be the only factors just like your husbands money wasnt the only factor for you. But it surely was definitely one of the top criteria, wasnt it?

 

Not even close. Wouldn't have picked him if it was!

 

We had faith we could make it together (financially and otherwise). Our families were less convinced But we made it

[dreamingoftigers]

My mother is the daughter of a multiple- millionaire oilman executive. (turned drug lord in the 80s, lives in Florida with his mistress).

 

She married my father who came from ridiculous poverty. He was the sixth of nine children and his single-mother parent died when he was 17. He took care of the younger 3 until they turned of age.

 

They met because my mother was living with his oldest brother's ex-wife and he went to visit his four nieces.

 

My mother and him hung out and painted the apartment together. Then when he went back home, she missed him.

 

My Dad was a jackass, no question, but they have been together for 35 years this summer.

 

My father actually did become a millionaire himself. My daughter gets to reap some of the rewards with that, her two year old self already has a total fictional extra-large playroom (complete with climbing apparatus) in their basement.

[Holding-On]

You have good reason but for the women with faithful and loving husbands would they do it again?

 

Yes Woggle. I would.

[Woggle]

It's good to hear some women actually like being with their husbands. I am sorry for being so cynical but the way some women talk about their men makes me never want to end up in that position.

[Enchanted Girl]

All the time we hear women whining about their men not wanting to get married. But it seems to me that women are so blinded by their own want that they fail to see from the men's point of view.

 

When you expect a man to marry you, you are basically asking him to make at least these three sacrifices:

So imagine for a minute that you are a man. With this knowledge in mind, honestly would you want to get married?

 

The only thing I think is valid of what you said is the losing half your money thing if it doesn't work out. That's a hard blow.

 

But as a woman who LOVES sex and who has a lot more freedom than a man in this area (I could probably go out and decide I'm going to get laid any night of the week and come home with someone who is up to doing whatever kinky thing I want to try that night), the sexual freedom thing is stupid. When you have sex with the same person over and over, you learn them and their body well and get to try more awesome stuff with them. Sex over time only seems to get better in relationships for me, not worse. And on average, people have more sex while in a relationship than they do out of one.

 

Also, I don't marry a man for his ****ing money. Holy **** you are a shallow *******. I've only dated guys who make minimum wage and I've never minded. In fact, my current boyfriend comes from a poor family and since people from poor family's are usually poor all their life as well (he told me this will probably be the case), I'm definitely not with him for the money. And I don't value him for shallow reasons like that.

 

I love him because he's a wonderful and beautiful person and I have a deep sexual and emotional attraction to him. He actually can't take me out on nice dates and no boyfriend I've ever had can, but that's okay.

 

I'm glad you date women just for their bodies and don't actually see them as people. You'll make some girl really happy.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Enchanted Girl

[xxoo]

It's good to hear some women actually like being with their husbands. I am sorry for being so cynical but the way some women talk about their men makes me never want to end up in that position.

 

I get the same feeling reading about women's "declining value" in the original post I never want to end up with a man who thinks like that.

[Nikki Sahagin]

Well I don't want to get married, and I am a woman, so I assume if I was a man, my opinion would remain the same.

 

That said I think when two people use marriage and don't abuse marriage, it is a beautiful and amazing thing and something to be proud of.

 

A marriage is a commitment to being together and making it work. It is not about taking the others money, or not communicating or not having sex or beating someone up.

 

It is about weathering the storms and at least explaining and sharing why you might not want to talk anymore, why you might feel bored, why you might have gone off sex...

 

It is having a partner for life.

 

People that leave their partner and run off with the money, or cheat, or stop having sex and never at least explain what they are feeling/thinking, are not really understanding what marriage is, in my mind, but that doesn't take away from the fact that couples who DO work hard at their marriage and care for one another, are people who are achieving an enviable, difficult but amazing task and I have tremendous respect for those people.

[DreamerGirl27]

Lol, thank you for the comedy.

 

I said what would you do if you were a man, not what you would like a man to do. Doesnt seem like you understood the question fully.

 

That is what I would do if I were a man, dingle berry.

[Woggle]

I get the same feeling reading about women's "declining value" in the original post I never want to end up with a man who thinks like that.

 

Not that it is an excuse for being like that but in most cases I see it is because they were screwed over. Almost every misogynist I know was hurt deeply by a woman in their past.

[Richard Friedman]

If we applied the same logic we do in every other part of life to marriage we'd agree it's suicide for guy with any kind of prospects/status. Marriage is a contract which ties your assets to those of your "partner" with the stipulation that they get half upon dissolution. The caveat is that the lesser party(usually the women) can dissolve the contract at any time and make off with the spoils, with no penalty and for no justifiable reason. Indeed that's what happens half of the time. In business signing such a contract with 50% possibility of failure would be insanity. No rational person would do it, but for some reason in matters of love we jtend to lose our heads. Marriage is almost solely for the benefit of women; once they're married they're free relax, let themselves go, whatever and all the husband can do is compromise because he has a bomb strapped to his chest and wifey has the remote.

[J200]

If we applied the same logic we do in every other part of life to marriage we'd agree it's suicide for guy with any kind of prospects/status. Marriage is a contract which ties your assets to those of your "partner" with the stipulation that they get half upon dissolution. The caveat is that the lesser party(usually the women) can dissolve the contract at any time and make off with the spoils, with no penalty and for no justifiable reason. Indeed that's what happens half of the time. In business signing such a contract with 50% possibility of failure would be insanity. No rational person would do it, but for some reason in matters of love we jtend to lose our heads. Marriage is almost solely for the benefit of women; once they're married they're free relax, let themselves go, whatever and all the husband can do is compromise because he has a bomb strapped to his chest and wifey has the remote.

 

Many women nowadays earn more than their spouses. I know of quite a few.

[Woggle]

Many women nowadays earn more than their spouses. I know of quite a few.

 

But courts don't usually side with men and women tend to be more prone to waking up one day and wanting out while she takes everything he has.

[Stung]

I would marry if I were in love and felt ready and trusted her, after living with her for a couple of years, yes. If I had significant assets I was concerned about, I would simply suggest a pre-nup.

 

I would want to build a future with a partner and have children, and would not want to grow old or face terminal illness on my own.

[StoneCold]

Indeed that's what happens half of the time. In business signing such a contract with 50% possibility of failure would be insanity. No rational person would do it, but for some reason in matters of love we jtend to lose our heads. Marriage is almost solely for the benefit of women; once they're married they're free relax, let themselves go, whatever and all the husband can do is compromise because he has a bomb strapped to his chest and wifey has the remote.

 

what he said

[dreamingoftigers]

But courts don't usually side with men and women tend to be more prone to waking up one day and wanting out while she takes everything he has.

 

I believe in my case that my husband stands to lose his entire life savings of $3.24 that I found in the couch, a gum wrapper and a backpack.

 

The funny part of all of that is that when we met, he had no couch even.

 

Sorry actually I would get half of the gum wrapper and half of the backpack, as for the money I'm going for all of it.

[Enchanted Girl]

If we applied the same logic we do in every other part of life to marriage we'd agree it's suicide for guy with any kind of prospects/status. Marriage is a contract which ties your assets to those of your "partner" with the stipulation that they get half upon dissolution. The caveat is that the lesser party(usually the women) can dissolve the contract at any time and make off with the spoils, with no penalty and for no justifiable reason. Indeed that's what happens half of the time. In business signing such a contract with 50% possibility of failure would be insanity. No rational person would do it, but for some reason in matters of love we jtend to lose our heads. Marriage is almost solely for the benefit of women; once they're married they're free relax, let themselves go, whatever and all the husband can do is compromise because he has a bomb strapped to his chest and wifey has the remote.

 

Except, ironically, women on average do less well than man financially when they get a divorce, which shouldn't be happening if she's getting half of all his stuff.

 

Also, one of my best friends was the bread winner in the relationship and she got her home, her car, and a lot of her money taken from her and he gave her nothing.

 

Men usually are the ones who do worse off emotionally after a divorce rather than financially (compared to their spouse.)

 

And its just really shallow to base everything on money.

 

Its like if I refused to get into a relationship right now. I am 25 years old and have only a few years left of being young and beautiful and getting whoever I want that I shouldn't be wasting it on some guy who will steal all of it from me. XD But I don't think that way.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Enchanted Girl

[Stung]

I think there's a pretty big range of what happens after divorce. I know people who parted amicably with no significant trouble dividing finances, and I know people who lived together without marriage who separated with great rancor and required mediation as they fought over property and child custody. I know women who were impoverished when their husbands hid money and assets, even to the detriment of their children, and I do know women with an undue sense of entitlement who tried to take it all--both situations put some people's character under a terrible light.

 

I once met a man who was going through a divorce and we dated once or twice and then just became friends. He was really angry about his divorce, very bitter about the amount of alimony and child support he was paying: it really was half of everything. For a while I felt sorry for him. Then as time went on he told me more details of his situation, like the fact that his wife had worked and put him through school for many years while he got his MS and PhD, and only quit her job after he got his PhD and they had their first baby. At the time of their divorce, she had been a stay-at-home mom for three years, her resume was out-of-date, and they had two toddlers who she was the primary caretaker of. He was upset about not getting as much time with them as he wanted--but when questioned, he admitted himself that he couldn't actually spend more time with them than he did, because of his work schedule. Kind of changed the picture for me and taught me to regard the bitterness of the newly divorced with a grain of salt.

[Baroness67]

If I were a man, would I get married. Interesting question.

 

I think the only answer is that there are benefits to not being married and benefits to being married.

 

Which benefits matter most to you?

[Afridi]

yes, i marry the sexy woman

[Woman In Blue]

If I were a man, I'd never marry. I'd rather spend my life sleeping with a wide variety of hot 20-something babes and playing first-person shooters after work. Or more realistically, dying at 55 of a heart attack and being found glued to my computer chair with my pants down and Cheetos stains on my fingers and t-shirt. No compromising allowed!

Bwahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think you just described about half the men in the world.

[Woman In Blue]

So imagine for a minute that you are a man. With this knowledge in mind, honestly would you want to get married?

 

1) By marrying, he takes on the risk that there is 50-50 chance he is going to lose half of his wealth in the future.

 

2) By marrying, he restricts himself to having sex with only one woman for the rest of his life in a world where a man has complete sexual freedom.

 

3) Since in nearly all marriages the man is richer and the woman is more beautiful, by marrying, a man agrees to enter a disadvantageous long term deal in which chances are his financial value will only rise overtime while her physical value will only steadily decline. In other words, marriage is good investment for the woman and poor investment for the man.

 

I find it highly amusing that only men think they're making a "sacrifice" in marriage.

 

I guess no one's noticed that more WOMEN are graduating from college than men. That would lead one to assume that more and more women are becoming fnancially independent and - gasp - may make as MUCH if not MORE than their husbands. Therefore, it stands to reason that there's every possibility that a WOMAN might be in a position to "lose half of her assets" by getting married. I know quite a few women who have, as a matter of fact. Guess that blows that stereotype right out of the water.

 

And hey - maybe you men missed the memo, but an awful lot of women have come into their own sexually. They think nothing of one-night stands, FWB relationships, and using men for sex. While I don't find any of that personally appealing, the fact remains that an awful lot of women are now engaging in this type of behavior. Therefore, once again I have to ask, doesn't it stand to reason that just maybe a WOMAN is also making the supreme sacrfice of vowing to only have ONE sexual partner for life?

 

ROFL - where did you get the idea that in "nearly all marriages" the woman is more beautiful and the man is always richer? See my first paragraph. If you're talkiing about rich old letches buying themselves young 20-somethings, then yes, that sterotype applies. But you know what? I've actually lost COUNT of how many women I know that have good-paying jobs and are married to LOSERS. Not only do these woman support these lazy-asses, but they ALSO get stuck with most of the household chores and child-rearing, as well.

 

Oooh, sign me up for a lifetime of THAT crap.

 

I personally won't marry again because like MANY women, I'm sick to damn death of being a slave to a man - all while ALSO working a full-time job.

 

You guys need to get OVER yourselves. Contrary to popular belief, all women are NOT just dying to marry your sorry asses.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Woman In Blue