will men really commit after marriage?

[Henry123]

Given the divorce rates I so often hear about these days I'm pessimistic about it. I'm guessing "long term" relationships might be the trend.

[IndiReloaded]

I dunno Henry. There are sometimes things that you experience as a married couple that you wouldn't necessarily tolerate as even a committed LTR. The gravity of the vows forces most (not all) ppl to try their absolute hardest to work out the bumpy parts.

I have no idea whether this is a good thing or not. I think so, but I try to think of everything we experience as a learning opportunity. Not everyone may agree.

[Mish]

I dunno Henry. There are sometimes things that you experience as a married couple that you wouldn't necessarily tolerate as even a committed LTR. The gravity of the vows forces most (not all) ppl to try their absolute hardest to work out the bumpy parts.

Is it posible to enforce the gravity of vows without the commiseration of marriage?

[vashti]

Is it posible to enforce the gravity of vows without the commiseration of marriage?

Why would you? What would be the point? The marriage vows indicate a level of commitment that can't be matched by a long term relationship. If marriage and long term commitments were equivalent, people wouldn't oppose marriage so vigorously.

[Mish]

Why would you? What would be the point? The marriage vows indicate a level of commitment that can't be matched by a long term relationship. If marriage and long term commitments were equivalent, people wouldn't oppose marriage so vigorously.

Hmm, I'm under impressionate the reason marriage is opposed so vigoursly is because commitments are equivalent to LTR. A lot of people just can't be bothered with all the fuss when they pretty much get the same result in the end.

Perhaps, it's slightly different in places where "Till death do us part" still plays some sort of significance. It hardly does around here outside of Religious circles.

[vashti]

Hmm, I'm under impressionate the reason marriage is opposed so vigoursly is because commitments are equivalent to LTR.

I don't buy it. If they were equal, there would be no real reason to oppose marriage, would there?

[Mish]

I don't buy it. If they were equal, there would be no real reason to oppose marriage, would there?

There would be. Less hassle and more money saved

As well as no stigma of divorce to worry about. Everyone goes through break ups, they are not as bad.


Pretty pessimistic that last line. But I think it takes someone unnaturally optimistic (Or exceptionally lucky to have found that special one who can be trusted) to believe in lifelong relationships these days.

[vashti]

^ rationalization

besides, it doesn't save money. You don't get any tax benefits by being in a long term relationship.

[IndiReloaded]

Is it posible to enforce the gravity of vows without the commiseration of marriage?

Sure. You could have the bonding partners administer a lethal poison that requires the partner to administer an antidote. Till death do you part, indeed.

A lot of LTR couples just have kids together & get their finances so intertwined so that it makes no difference, practically. Its just as difficult to separate in these cases.

Its what Vash said. If it wasn't a big deal, ppl wouldn't opposite it so strongly. At present, marriage is still a Big Deal in many ppls minds. Sure, its b/c we've been conditioned by society & tradition to think so, but there it is all the same.

[Mish]

A lot of LTR couples just have kids together & get their finances so intertwined so that it makes no difference, practically. Its just as difficult to separate in these cases.

Keep it in seperate bank accounts and the problem is solved.

Its what Vash said. If it wasn't a big deal, ppl wouldn't opposite it so strongly. At present, marriage is still a Big Deal in many ppls minds. Sure, its b/c we've been conditioned by society & tradition to think so, but there it is all the same.

I don't find that people oppose it really. They just ignore it due to lack of relevance to them. A lot of people (The younger generation) I know are apathetic. The general attitude is "Why bother?" and "What does it give me that I'm not getting anyway?"

Sure. You could have the bonding partners administer a lethal poison that requires the partner to administer an antidote. Till death do you part, indeed.

Sounds like, an effective description of marriage

[vashti]

I don't find that people oppose it really. They just ignore it due to lack of relevance to them. A lot of people (The younger generation) I know are apathetic. The general attitude is "Why bother?" and "What does it give me that I'm not getting anyway?"

I don't know what things are like over there where you live, but this is total bullshit in most of the western world. Girls begin fantasizing about marriage when they are very young. Young women f*ck their male friends and move in with boyfriends in hopes of propelling the relationship to the next level. MOST women would prefer a marital relationship as a foundation for raising a family. Males traditionally resist the idea (at least for a while) because they are hesitant to limit their options, not because they think their relationship is equivalent to marriage.

The younger generation isn't apathetic. They are bitter and pessimistic. Relationships require more effort and compromise than their parents have taught them to expect or tolerate.

[GrkScorp]

I don't know what things are like over there where you live, but this is total bullshit in most of the western world. Girls begin fantasizing about marriage when they are very young. Young women f*ck their male friends and move in with boyfriends in hopes of propelling the relationship to the next level. MOST women would prefer a marital relationship as a foundation for raising a family. Males traditionally resist the idea (at least for a while) because they are hesitant to limit their options, not because they think their relationship is equivalent to marriage.

The younger generation isn't apathetic. They are bitter and pessimistic. Relationships require more effort and compromise than their parents have taught them to expect or tolerate.

And i've always wondered why sex is so much better when guys start talking more positively about marriage.. lol.. ahh..

honestly.. what difference does it make? honestly.. cut through the crap about raising a family.. because you can raise a family if there's a mom and a dad and they're together.. they don't need to be "married" to be together.. the fact that they're not married doesn't mean that they're going to leave eachother (conversely, the fact that they ARE married doesn't mean that they're NOT going to seperate and leave).. so.. that dispells the pathetic excuse that I hear all the time about family..

that being the case.. why is there a need for marriage? two single taxpayers can find a ton of creative solutions to avoid taxes.. in fact.. if you work through the tax code well enough, it's actually advantageous to start a family as two single people rather than "married filing jointly".. at least for MOST people who's income does not exceed $300,000 per/year.. AND they get to avoid situations where the so called "marriage penalty" applies..

so, we've tossed the family excuse and the tax excuse out of the way.. we've tossed aside the notion that marriage guarantees that your S.O. won't leave you.. so what is left? well? i'm waiting..

nothing really.. it's nothing more than a fantasy, an imaginary notion created and drilled into the minds of young children by an early age.. to the point where it's hard and nearly impossible for people to be open-minded enough to comprehend that marriage (in the western world).. serves no practical purpose..

custody? right to children? blah blah? well.. thankfully.. much case-law establishes a thick basis surrounding those issues.. and for as long as both parents are the biological parents and no funny business is going on.. then.. guess what.. they're the legal parents and they share responsibility..

so.. you can go on and on.. and ON.. all you want.. but at the end of the day.. you know.. I know.. and we all know.. that marriage serves no practical purpose.. it's purely a social creation and only of ceremonial significance.. In fact.. think hard enough about it.. and it's the most UNROMANTIC thing two people can do.. you're asking your S.O. to legally bind themselves to you.. because the love you feel for eachother is not strong enough to hold the two of you together.. (or that, you're too lazy to keep putting on this act so he won't leave you and would like to take things easy and relax already).. so you instead need this legal contract and the force of law (not love) holding the two of you together.. (sorry, but that doesn't sound very romantic to me)..

if you want to spend the rest of your life with someone.. that's great..!! go ahead and do it.. nobody is stopping you.. it's free.. you can take lots of pictures when that moment comes.. and you can throw a big party to celebrate it.. but to bind yourselves to eachother by the force of law acting as the only thing keeping you together rather than the force of your mutual love.. maybe you really shouldn't be spending the rest of your life together..

[vashti]

honestly.. what difference does it make?

It makes no difference to me if people choose NOT to get married, but let's not pretend there is some sort of equivalence. There isn't. Deciding to marry should not be done out of a sense of romance (you guys kill me with your silly idealism!).

Long term relationships say "I'll stay with you until I'm not feeling it anymore, no harm no foul". That's fine. It is probably even better for the majority of relationships.

However, it isn't the same thing as saying "I am committing my life to you, even on days when I don't especially like you".

That many people choose not to take their commitments seriously does not negate the fundamental difference of intent.

PS - Grk, please do attempt to be more succinct in your posts, bavakasha.

[IndiReloaded]

Long term relationships say "I'll stay with you until I'm not feeling it anymore, no harm no foul". That's fine. It is probably even better for the majority of relationships.

However, it isn't the same thing as saying "I am committing my life to you, even on days when I don't especially like you".

That many people choose not to take their commitments seriously does not negate the fundamental difference of intent.

I agree with this.

Where LTRs can't measure up to marriage is the making of a decision that a partnership is irrevocable.

How do you decide something is that important? Think think HARD about it. Then you choose. And then you stick to your choice, even when its hard. There are huge lessons you learn from this experience.

Sure, there are ppl who get serially married & then divorced, but these ppl aren't really making a commitment of the sort that marriage is meant to entail. They are missing the point. I'm not talking about ppl who genuinely need to get away from their spouse b/c of serious abuse or mental issues, BTW, tho even those get cited as excuses to split more often than what is actually merited, IMO. I feel especially strong about this when children are involved. The data is too powerful to ignore about the effect of broken homes on children.

IMO (and Vash's, it would seem) there is a decided lack of 'sticktoitness' in the current "generationME" that's out there. That's a nice way of saying many are too lazy to work out their relationship issues, so they bounce from partner to partner, repeating the same mistakes over & learning nothing about themselves.

Grrr.... young ones, get over yourselves.

[Mish]

It makes no difference to me if people choose NOT to get married, but let's not pretend there is some sort of equivalence. There isn't. Deciding to marry should not be done out of a sense of romance (you guys kill me with your silly idealism!).

Long term relationships say "I'll stay with you until I'm not feeling it anymore, no harm no foul". That's fine. It is probably even better for the majority of relationships.

These days marriage communicates almost exact same message. What's to stop a partner who is "Not feeling it anymore" in marriage? Absolutely nothing. In that respect it's the same as the LTR.

You say that there is an ocean of difference between the two Vash, but in practical terms I'm not seeing it.

However, it isn't the same thing as saying "I am committing my life to you, even on days when I don't especially like you".

That many people choose not to take their commitments seriously does not negate the fundamental difference of intent.

Well, sure there is an intent in marriage to stay for life in marriage. There is an intent to stay for life in many LTRs as well. People exchange vows on their day of wedding, but these vows are worth as much as any vow outside of marriage. They can't be enforced and just like in LTR subject to change with the winds of change.

There was a time, a long while back when those vows actually stood for something and meant something. There was a time when people simply didn't have the power to go back on their words after those words were uttered. A person't entire existance (current and the after life) it seemed depended on raising a family. Those times are long gone. There's virtually nothing left to keep two people together, but their own personal intent and commitments. And those are subject to change with time, in any relationship be it a marriage or an LTR.

So I ask once again, what is the real difference?