Why Are People Choosing To Couple Up Without Getting Married?
Your thoughts and experiences?
And if you decided to marry the person you're with, why marry instead of just continuing as a couple without the state license and all?
And for those who married, did being married change your relationship?
For the record, per Science Daily about research from Bowling Green State University, the marriage rate in the U.S. is the lowest it's been in a century:
Since 1970, the marriage rate has declined by almost 60 percent. "Marriage is no longer compulsory," said Dr. Susan Brown, co-director of the NCFMR. "It's just one of an array of options. Increasingly, many couples choose to cohabit and still others prefer to remain single."Furthermore, a woman's average age at first marriage is the highest it's been in over a century, at nearly 27 years old. "The age at first marriage for women and men is at a historic highpoint and has been increasing at a steady pace," states Dr. Wendy Manning, co-director of the Center.
There has also been a dramatic increase in the proportion of women who are separated or divorced. In 1920, less than 1 percent of women held that distinction. Today, that number is 15 percent. "The divorce rate remains high in the U.S., and individuals today are less likely to remarry than they were in the past," reports Brown.
The marriage rate has declined for all racial and ethnic groups, but the greatest decline is among African Americans. Similarly, the education divide in marriage has grown. In the last 50 years there have been only modest changes in the percentage of women married among the college educated and the greatest declines among women without a high school diploma.
Something Oprah said about the "wife" role, from NecoleBitchie, quoting an Access Hollywood interview Oprah did with Shaun Robinson:
I'm gonna leave this earth as a never married woman, and that's really okay with me. Stedman would tell you Shaun, if you ever interviewed him, he would tell you [that] had we married, we would not be together.Really? Why is that?
Because he's a traditional man and this is a very untraditional relationship. I think it's acceptable as a relationship, but if I had the title 'wife,' hmmmm. I think there would be some other expectations of what a wife is and what a wife does. First of all you gotta come home sometimes.*laughs hysterically* I think it's time for this interview to end.
Is there something to this -- the "wife" role (or the "husband" role) -- changing the relationship?
I'm not sure I want kids, and, until I figure that out, I don't think it's fair for me to marry anyone.
Even so, I'd very much like to marry my boyfriend of 5 years. However, the actual "getting married" process would be dicey, given the religious expectations my boyfriend's parents have. Drama will ensue if the wedding is not in their church. Problem is, I attended a retreat at said church to appease his mother, and was treated to a workshop about when it was OK to beat your wife (spoiler alert: It's OK if she doesn't cook for you or starts to become too independent). My boyfriend and I walked out, and I've made it clear the only way I'd be back there is with a gas can and a match.
So, we plan vacations instead of weddings. Eventually, we figure they'll be so desperate to see us married, we could elope and get married by Spock in Vegas for all they care.
sofar at April 16, 2014 1:49 PM
I don't think so. Shortly after marrying my wife, I left my "breadwinner" job at IBM to go to work for her at her data security company. When, surprise, a baby came along (a first for both of us at 46 and 41, respectively), I was fine with taking on a majority of the baby duty. Her time during the day is simply more valuable than mine. I don't think either of us has ever even thought of gender roles. We just do what works for us. And yes, few days go by that she doesn't wish she had more time at home, or I think it'd be fun to be back wrangling with Fortune 10 companies, but it works perfectly for us. Most importantly, none of this would have happened if we hadn't married.
Matt at April 16, 2014 1:53 PM
These days, getting married is asking Dracula over the threshold -- each spouse is actually married to the State, which mediates their relationship. Unless children are the goal, a man has NOTHING to gain -- and MUCH to lose -- by getting married.
From my perspective, most of today's feminist-besotted young women have not the slightest idea of what a "wife" is. They think of it as "co-husband." Well, men don't want a "co-husband," and are willing to do without unless and until a woman who is true wife material shows up.
Jay R at April 16, 2014 2:07 PM
Oh my gosh, I'm gonna bite. Please, Jay R, do tell - what is "true wife material?"
gooseegg at April 16, 2014 2:33 PM
I don't think Jay R's description of co-husband is quite there, tho I'm sympathetic to what is posted.
Most of the young (20-something) women that I know are not what I'd consider true wife material. They are flighty, and spend every cent they earn on silly things (hair extensions, anyone?), and yet complain that the men (boys) they meet at bars are not reliable or honest or (this is my take) willing to support them in their pursuit of happiness. That pursuit being, to make cute babies and hang out with their besties.
The young men are only a little better. Particularly wrt money, they seem to see the value of it and kinda like to keep some of it, tho certainly not all of it. But they also don't want to bend into a relationship - the companionship is fine, but don't ask them to give up bball with their buds on Thursdays and boys night out on Fridays.
I am a little jaded, probably.
For my own self, I am looking to be married, mostly because I see other couples who are significantly older than I am, some of whom are on their second marriages, who are extremely happy and content together. I see them celebrate milestones, and I see them support each other when one gets sick. I see them grieve when one dies. I see them satisfied with finishing their life as a widow/widower, keeping the memory of their spouse close by. I think coupling-up in some cases might feel that close, but being in the institution I think gives you the support of the "village" during those life events. Besides which, it's just weird checking into a hotel with him and having the clerk assume we're married when we're not. Shallow, but there you go.
As to the "not worth it for men", I lean to agreement. I had to prove I was wife material: not insane, not money-grabby, not jealous, not sneaky... He was burned by the usual stuff, and was (still is) cautious about the whole dive in again. I was cautious also, but quicker to relax.
flbeachmom at April 16, 2014 2:49 PM
I'm a tax professional and advise my single clients to stay that way. The marriage penalty never really went away and is going up again.
Beyond that perspective: Marriage is no longer meaningful except as a way to change a few of the law's assumptions about things like inheritance. Its original purpose (a very public contract that ensured both of you stay around to raise the kids) has been superseded, first by technology and then by the predatory child-support system we have now.
Lifetime commitments made sense when average life expectancy was 40 years. And committing at all made sense when it was a two-way deal. Now men have all the duties and women have all the rights, and most of both can be enforced even if you don't sign the contract. Before I start a family, I insist on moving to a free country -- and there isn't any.
jdgalt at April 16, 2014 2:59 PM
Marriage absolutely changes the roles for me. As a single woman, I do what is best for me. As a married woman, I do what is best for the family unit.
I worked three jobs to put my husband through school so that our family would be more secure at the expense of investing in my own education. I was also the one who took sick days off to tend to ill babies since he had more career and earning power. I would have never done that with someone that I wasn't legally committed to. I invested in his career and I believe that it paid dividends.
My sister refused to invest in her husband. Yes, they divorced. Their combined incomes never reached what my husband alone earns.
It's rather scary that this concept is being honored less. I've heard of babies being taken away from stay at home moms because dad made more money and could thus provide better for them.
Unequal incomes can still have equal contributions. I work now but in the past I did stay at home and focus on all the little things so that my husband could focus on his job.
Jen at April 16, 2014 3:03 PM
Marriage, like Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, and Valentines day, has been coopted by the celebration industry.
Many people want to get married, but few seem to have the values that make a long term relationship work.
jdgalt pretty much nailed it. The tax laws favor the unmarried, and the divorce laws are heavily titlted in favor of women who have children that can be used as hostages in those inevitable bitter divorce battles.
If I survive my husband, I will not be getting married again. My kids are adults now, and there is no reason to complicate my life, and theirs by getting married again.
Isab at April 16, 2014 3:24 PM
"It's rather scary that this concept is being honored less. I've heard of babies being taken away from stay at home moms because dad made more money and could thus provide better for them."
This rarely happens. In fact, usually it is a fight for a man to get custody even when the woman has a serious drug addiction or a mental illness.
I wish men got custody at least fifty percent of the time. More men might be willing to marry if it did. And more women might elect to stay married.
Isab at April 16, 2014 3:29 PM
I think marriage is more about being companion-ate by nature.
I have been with my husband for 27 years, 13 we lived together. We have never had children. I never wanted to get married, it was important to him so I decided to do it after 13 years. I thought there would be no difference , just a piece of paper but there is a two week period after you marry that is bliss. I get why it's called a honeymoon.
There are ebbs and flows in all relationships, there is an invisible tether that can be stretched sometimes as long as it doesn't break, that basic respect is there it will work.
I love being married, the boring parts of it like stability, coming home to the this person who knows me well, those things I love about it.
Wanda at April 16, 2014 3:53 PM
"These days, getting married is asking Dracula over the threshold -- each spouse is actually married to the State, which mediates their relationship. Unless children are the goal, a man has NOTHING to gain -- and MUCH to lose -- by getting married."
This is not new, and is not a product of the institution, but of the expectations of the people who enter into marriage.
The institution itself is not at fault due to the corruption of life afterwards by those who would simply take advantage of any situation.
Radwaste at April 16, 2014 4:02 PM
simple. you get more of what you reward, less of what you punish.
Young women are doin' their thing, and young men are opting out...
So when those ladies [oops, non-pc, I know] are "ready" in their mid 30's... huh, nobody is interested.
Honestly, even being ready at that point is prolly a losing bet, because your career takes a hit if you get offa the treadmill...
so the point was what again?
The question ends up being, do you want to have a family, or don't you? It is in everyone's best interest to be married to have kids, in an ideal world. If you aren't gonna have kids, then, meh, marriage not really needed.
Now, let's talk that ideal world. This ain't it. SO make sure you choose WELL, and even then, sometimes time and hormones change everything...
still, where'd this thing come where it is more than acceptable to ruin the other parent, 'cuz they were mean... or something.
Guess I'm old enough to feel happy about opting out, while many of my bros. decided to get re-married. Could be a curmudgeon, I suppose.
SwissArmyD at April 16, 2014 4:15 PM
I know just as many women who don't want to marry as men, so I don't think it's that just men are opting out.
Mostly, I think it's that we no longer stigmatize NOT being married. Fifty years ago, everyone would talk if you lived with a partner, and especially if you had a child out of wedlock. Now, people are cool with it. Take away the social pressure and you take away most of the reason for getting married.
MonicaP at April 16, 2014 4:52 PM
The problem most people don't get is that there is a legal component and a religious/societal component to marriage.
As MonicaP noted "I think it's that we no longer stigmatize NOT being married."
So what is happening is that even without a religious component in it people can commit on a personal level to their SO, without having ever told the state that they did it. That is why common law marriages exist(ed). The courts recognized them for multiple purposes. Even the IRS recognized them, if you decide(d) to file that way.
Many states did away with the recognition of common law marriages when the LGBT community tried to get their couplings recognized in the '80s and '90s.
Now there is a nether world in which those who would would have been in a common law marriage are now getting screwed by the IRS on inheritance and the people that are in that situation don't realize what is going to happen if the SO dies unexpectedly while young.
The IRS will still recognize the yearly filing as long as it is legal. But on inheritance it is still questionable without a piece of paper from the state.
Then the next question is what is going to happen when life long friends (the Oscar Madison/Felix Unger type) get married because of Alzheimer's to offset the inheritance taxes and it is challenged as not a valid marriage by a distant (angry) relative.
Jim P. at April 16, 2014 5:38 PM
My only advice is, if you're going to live with someone, marry them. My out-laws came charging in my house before we even had my husband's funeral and were attempting to take everything that was not nailed down, even as I stood there. I practically had to kick them all out of the house. Had we just been living together, they could have taken anything I couldn't prove was mine.
I've heard horror stories of women who lived long-term with men in houses that were in the mens' names, and the relatives came in and kicked them to the curb before the ink was dry on the death certificate. No, not everyone is like that, but what if the ones you know are?
After the husband, I had a great eleven-year relationship with a man where we kept our own houses and lived apart. Granted had something happened to one of us the other had no say over medical care, but that was a small price to pay, and I didn't really want that responsibility in that case anyway, and neither did he.
Daghain at April 16, 2014 6:11 PM
Fascination with the word "role" betrays modernity's inability to consider these matters seriously.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 16, 2014 6:19 PM
Jeeez! That was another GREAT blog comment! From me!
Concise… Engaging… Illuminating, and indisputably correct!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 16, 2014 6:20 PM
I have been with my husband since I was 19, married since 2002, I think.
We married primarily because I am the primary wage earner, and am estranged from my family. I knew that if I were to die first, my family would come in and take everything we'd built together, no matter what wills, etc stated. I got married to protect my husband on the long term. Being able to designate him next of kin in all aspects with one signature that no one can question was just too huge an advantage to pass up.
Ultimately, it didn't change our relationship much, if any. We were a matched pair to begin with, and marriage didn't change that. It does increase the consequences of splitting up, even though we don't have kids, and during rough times I think that has helped us stay together. But we have also always both been in it for the long haul, and have been together for 20 years...our entire adult lives. Even when my husband is driving me bat crap crazy, I know that he is the one person I know I can count on. I know how rare and valuable that is. It would take alot at this point to split us up.
-Julie
Julie W at April 16, 2014 8:46 PM
I liked being married. There is a lot explained with introducing someone as your wife. "This is my girlfriend" could mean a lot of different things. "This is my wife" means only one. People know that it's a no kidding commitment without you having to explain anything.
Also, children. If you're going to have children, I think you really ought to be married. That's just my view and I know there are a lot of perfectly adjusted kids out there with parents that aren't married. It just seems to me that it makes everything easier. It just feels right to me to have everyone in the family have the same last name.
That being said, I have a hard time understanding why people get remarried. Maybe at some point in my life I'll get it, but I'm not there yet. I particularly can't understand why in the hell people get remarried quickly after a divorce. I'll never get that one.
whistleDick at April 16, 2014 8:49 PM
"And if you decided to marry the person you're with, why marry instead of just continuing as a couple without the state license and all?"
Good point. As a middle aged guy with a vasectomy who enjoys female company, marriage is nuts. It's just an opening for lawyers to bleed you dry in the unfortunate event that the relationship doesn't work out. So why did I marry? I was nuts. Nuts over the wonderful lady I was and am with. This wonderful lady had the nutty belief that marriage was about love or commitment or social respectability. No talking her out of it. She absolutley demanded marriage. So I was nuts. I caved. I married her cuz I didn't want to lose her. She was ready to walk if I didn't.
"And for those who married, did being married change your relationship?"
Yes. It gave her security. Stopped her from hounding me for marriage. Helped her mellow out. She became more happy and more loving. Which made me more happy. So I guess you could say it all worked out. For 10 years now. Life is about taking risks. This risk paid off.
Jim Simon at April 16, 2014 8:57 PM
A husband is like a fire, he goes out when unattended. -- Evan Esar
Jim P. at April 16, 2014 8:58 PM
Like you Amy, I'm in California. While I love my girlfriend, I'm also fully aware of what the legal system will do to me if I marry here. So no, never walking into a church or visiting City Hall. One more MGTOW evading the nets.
Chris at April 16, 2014 10:27 PM
> There is a lot explained with introducing
> someone as your wife.
☑ YESSS!!
And it's a concise explanation, one that gets much less respect than it deserves: It makes further inquiry unnecessary. Strangers aren't expected to ask a bunch of other stuff to flatter you— In fact, courtesy resists glib, premature chatter about backgrounds and intentions.
Being married is wonderfully adult.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 16, 2014 10:52 PM
You know, I had a lot of issues in my youth and for a while I was the sort of girl you don't bring home to mother. So for me, marriage and its whole, "This is the girl I'm bringing home to all of you, to my family, my friends, and my community" thing was very important. It's a public statement.
I am also a big believer in the power of ritual. I could have just studied subjects that interested me on my own, instead I went to college and grad school and each time got a piece of paper, following a ceremony with funny dresses and hats.
In addition, if you look at statistics, married people are more likely to stay together.
Really, though, I see the marriage as a sign that each of the person really is committed and isn't letting themselves have an easy way to duck out and begone. We married rather quickly because my husband had a job offer in another state, and we didn't like the idea of long distance, and I didn't like the idea of giving everything up and being totally socially, emotionally, and financially dependent on someone who wasn't family.
It's a bit like adoption. You could just keep a kid around as a foster parent, and tell the kid "adoption is just a piece of paper, we don't need it to be a family or to prove we love each other". But if I were the kid I wouldn't buy it.
NicoleK at April 16, 2014 11:49 PM
> about research from Bowling Green
> State University
Y'know, when I really, really need to get a grip on human nature and American culture, state colleges in Kentucky are my first stop.
Because, academia.
How 'bout you?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 17, 2014 2:37 AM
Lifetime commitments made sense when average life expectancy was 40 years.
I hate to inject actual statistics and math into a otherwise math free discussion, but there's a reason the average life expectancy was just 40 years.
A lot of people died at birth or in the first few years. That reduces the average. A lot. Especially if young mothers are also dying in child birth.
If you managed to get out of your youth intact and relatively whole, you tended to live well past 40.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 17, 2014 5:57 AM
I've heard of babies being taken away from stay at home moms because dad made more money and could thus provide better for them.
Really? you got some case numbers? otherwise I'm calling that urban legend.
Isab is right: pretty much the only way a father gets primary custody is if either the woman involved gives that up, is in prison, or is so addicted to drugs that she represents a clear and present danger to her children.
Otherwise most courts are backwards and hold with the "tender years" doctrine and think that young children are better served by living primarily with Mom.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 17, 2014 6:03 AM
I'm married and have been for ten years (got married in my early 20's).
Both my husband and I felt different walking into our apartment for the first time as husband and wife. We had lived together for two years prior to marriage and it absolutely changed things... but not in an easily definable day-to-day way (at least not right away).
Perhaps it has to do with experiencing the ceremony itself - a public statement of our mutual desire to stay together "through thick and thin" as it were. There is something quite definite about having your partner stand in front of all your friends and family and say "I want to spend my whole life with you, whatever it may bring." Going through the ceremony (and all the family issues that crawl out of the woodwork) is a shared experience that can further unite a couple. What says commitment more than dancing with your crazy Aunt Gertrude and her talking parrot? :)
At the time, I couldn't say either of us had traditional "wife" or "husband" roles in mind, and that was fine. We have made some of the same choices mentioned earlier here - I went part-time and now stay home with the kids because his income is greater and we value the ability to raise our own kids (rather than having daycare and before/after school care raise them).
I can't say that, absent a marriage, I would be comfortable not working because I wouldn't feel the stability. That said, I am a very independent person, so it is almost comical to me that I ever even THOUGHT of staying home with the kids, better yet did it.
Worth mentioning - one of our neighbors made the opposite choice. The husband stays home because the wife was earning more when they had kids. It works well for them.
As to the question, why get married instead of just staying a couple. We both wanted marriage and the commitment it brings. Maybe we're both insecure or something, but it was also the norm we grew up with. However, the inside of our wedding album reads "Death Before Divorce." I think though, we both found it to be a different level of stability and commitment than just being together long term.
For what it's worth, I am quite glad we married, despite the tax consequences. Had I a chance to do it over, I would do it the same.
Shannon M. Howell at April 17, 2014 6:27 AM
Thanks -- loved reading these answers. I'm writing a column on this -- a subject I've covered in years past. Regarding the documents thing, if you aren't married but are coupled, it's really important to have a few things: A Healthcare proxy, durable power of atty (for both medical care and financial management), and a will.
You can have a lawyer draw these up, which is very expensive, but I've been looking into this for the column, and the best alternative seems to be using a program called WillMaker from Nolo Press that has all these things. Here's a link to it on Amazon: Quicken Willmaker Plus 2014. It's about $40-some bucks, which is fantastic, considering all it offers. It's also only for PC, but you don't input sensitive info on the PC, they've told me (the people at Nolo, that is), so you can borrow somebody's PC to do this, and then print out the docs and fill out the info. (Apparently, it just asks how many children you have, etc.)
I haven't used this yet -- Gregg and I are going to do this, so I didn't want to get a review copy from them. We're going to buy it and go over to a friend's house and borrow his PC laptop and get it done. Really important.
PS The financial end of power of attorney allows you to get into your partner's accounts, which is important if they're say, paying the mortgage, so you can keep getting it paid if they're incapacitated.
Amy Alkon at April 17, 2014 6:28 AM
Isab you may be right that married people are more likely to stay together. That doesnt necessarily mean they like or even love ecah other though.
My grandparents had been married from 17 to the day my grandpa died. They slept in separate rooms and didnt even pretend to enjoy each others company at family gatherings.
Regarding men getting custody. I could tell you a few stories about women in jail for murder r drug and the fathers still didnt get custody, their kids were placed in foster care
lujlp at April 17, 2014 7:23 AM
Bowling Green State University is in Ohio, Crid, not Kentucky. I guess you'll have to find another reason to look down on its faculty.
Eric Hanneken at April 17, 2014 7:26 AM
I was married once. It turns out I picked the right girl to have a divorce with. No courts, no fights, hassles were at a minimum (no assets I assumed the $10k in marriage acquired debts) and we share custody of our son. That said I wouldn't do it again without a prenup. Mainly because I have assets now including a house.
It isn't that the roles are changing it's that marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment for most people.
Matt at April 17, 2014 9:01 AM
> I guess you'll have to find another reason
> to look down on its faculty.
No; it's in Ohio.
Besides...
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 17, 2014 10:47 AM
Is there something to this -- the "wife" role (or the "husband" role) -- changing the relationship?
My parents once told me--many, many years ago--that they knew several couples who lived together unwed for 5 years or more, then got married. In each case, the expectations they had of each other changed, and they split within 6 months.
Rex Little at April 17, 2014 11:48 AM
Let be honest crid, the institution or location of said institution has jack shit to do with your ridicule.
You look down on EVERYTHING that doenst conform to you preconceived notions, even when it comes from prestigious institutions
lujlp at April 17, 2014 1:07 PM
Isab you may be right that married people are more likely to stay together. That doesnt necessarily mean they like or even love ecah other though.
My grandparents had been married from 17 to the day my grandpa died. They slept in separate rooms and didnt even pretend to enjoy each others company at family gatherings."
My great grandparents also lived apart in their declining years, but back then without the government picking up the tab for separate living at arrangements, and without court mandated child support, people generally didn't bother with a divorce.
There are a lot of women and a few men, who thrive on drama, and serial marriage, and serial divorce is the kind of soap opera drama they need to keep their usually meaningless lives, interesting. They leave a lot of social and financial wreckage behind them.
Isab at April 17, 2014 3:30 PM
I waited till I was 32 to get married. My wife is 30. In my opinion she is the only woman I've met who is marriage material.
The divorce and child custody laws are extremely biased against men. It is normal for women my age to threaten the men in their lives with taking their children away. So many men just don't attach. To women or children.
Marriage still requires the consent of both parties. So until the law becomes more equal you will continue to see men opting out of a bad deal.
Ben at April 17, 2014 4:53 PM
Too many people think you get married and that's all there is to it; you live happily ever after. And when they see others not living happily ever after, they think the flaw is in marriage itself, not in the people or in their expectations of marriage.
"The truth is you can never tell yourself there is only one thing you could be. If you are a priest or if you marry a woman it's the same challenge. You cannot make a real commitment unless you accept that it's a choice that you keep making again and again and again." ~ Father Havel (Keeping the Faith)
The truth is, to stay married, you have to make the decision to be married every day for the rest of your life - despite the frustration, anger, angst, and ennui that come with long-term commitments.
To live with someone, all you have to do is not move out. It requires a much lower level of commitment.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2014 5:10 PM
One last chance to really hate on this blog post, if not its several thoughtful responses:
> Is there something to this -- the "wife"
> role (or the "husband" role) -- changing
> the relationship?
One more time! I can't let go!
> Is there something to this -- the "wife"
> role (or the "husband" role) -- changing
> the relationship?
Blecch......
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 17, 2014 9:28 PM
For all of you saying that men are opting out of marriage because of unfair laws, I see women opting out of it too (though admittedly not for the same reasons.)
What bothers me is that people opt out of marriage because they dont believe in the commitment but dont opt out of children.
Whoever you have a kid with you will be bound to them in a manner that not even marriage come close to. I really wish people thought of who they have children with in this manner. Ok maybe marriage isn't forever but kids are.
Whether you stay together or not you are eternally bound to this person and whoever else they choose to bring into their life.
I don't want to hear how you won't marry someone but will have kids with them. It doesn't make sense.
Also there is a reason marriage exists. Don't waste the time of the courts with break ups when the specific reason you didn't get married was so you could just "walk away" from the relationship. You are involving the public over accumulated debt and property.
You live together without the responsibility of a community commitment marriage entails? Then live apart without the benefit of its protections.
Ppen at April 17, 2014 9:56 PM
This is a point made more effectively by some smart conservatives: Marriage, and especially stable marriage (as opposed to young derpy divorcy marriage common among the poor and religious across racial lines), is increasingly an institution adhered to by the relatively wealthy and educated.
The failure of marriage among the poorer, less educated and aspiring classes further enhances socioeconomic divides. I'm not a political person by nature, but it seems noteworthy that failed marriage culture is rampant among the low prestige members of both Democratic and Republican political party bases. In the Democratic Party, it's blacks and latinos. In the Republican Party, it's evangelical Christians. Young members of all of these groups have failed marriages at appaling rates.
Dodo at April 17, 2014 10:20 PM
Regarding the whether the "wife" or "husband" role changes the relationship, isn't the sensible answer "yes"? None of my married friends; and neither my wife nor I, would claim marriage doesn't change things -- isn't that why one does it? It's not glamorous, despite the trends; the real thing is that is solemnifying a relationship that a couple has chosen to care for even when doing so is difficult. First corinthians and all that shit. Solemnifying does change things, though, or should; it's more serious, hopefully in a good way. Even if not, it's not simple to extricate oneself.
Dodo at April 17, 2014 10:31 PM
> What bothers me is that people opt out of
> marriage because they dont believe in the
> commitment but dont opt out of children.
☑ ☑ ☑ ☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 17, 2014 10:36 PM
> Regarding the whether the "wife" or "husband"
> role changes the relationship
Needs moar quotation "marks"! They really moisten the "meaning" of what you're trying "to" convey!
"Nuance!" A whole "role" of "nuance!"
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 17, 2014 10:38 PM
Chill out bro, my iPad was balking at copy/paste; I opted for easy things to type. You may now feel free to address substance.
Dodo at April 17, 2014 11:03 PM
OK!
Role is a shitty word by which to describe humans to each other… REALLY shitty.
Quotation marks, as used by Amy in the ultimate question of her blog post, are an embarrassingly naive demonstration of contemporary foolishness... In this context, they remind me of a seventh-grader playing a schoolyard game called "Logic!" like that character on Star Trek, which is a TV program seen in color. (Pointy ears!)
They're a transparent, unearned, and entirely vapid feint at sophistication, suggesting that the words themselves have odors and and must be held at a distance because... Because... Because, well, we all know why.
…Except we don't. Whatever we (or many of us) would pretend to be agreeing about with those quotation marks is insincere, frightened, and unlearned. In short, those quotation marks convey the concentrically metaphysical opposite of what was intended by their their deployment for this, of all, topics.
Hitchens, or Orwell or Baby Jesus or somebody, once said "Always look to the language."
It's like "Follow the money," except for ideas.
"Wife."
"Husband."
See?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 18, 2014 3:36 AM
I don't want to hear how you won't marry someone but will have kids with them. It doesn't make sense.
Except as an unmarried couple with kids if you break up she doesnt get the hose if its yours, she doesnt get alimony to sit on her ass, she doesnt get a "standard of living" check.
As an unmarried man with kids as opposed to a divorced man with kids you child support payments are smaller and visitation more frequent.
lujlp at April 18, 2014 7:56 AM
I'm not going to deny that in many places, divorce law and/or practice favors women. But, let's not act as if that is true 100% of the time. My neighbors are divorced and the husband has custody. No, the mom isn't a drug user, violent, or a criminal.
Amy, some of the comments here support what I am about to say, and that is that I disagree with your term marriage concept. Part of what makes marriage special is the lifelong/forever bit. It means you either WORK at it, to grow together rather than apart, or you fail and have to admit that just as publicly as you declared your commitment. If there is a set term, say 10 years, then where is the incentive to work? What separates it from any other contract?
Given how wholly disruptive divorce is for families (kids in particular) why take away that incentive? Consider this example, if I'd had a ten-year marriage contract it would have ended when my kids were 6 and 3. We conceived the eldest only 2 years into the marriage! Even a 20 year contract, which has all the same issues that a lifelong commitment does in terms of growth/change/self-discovery would only have made it until my kids would be 16 and 13.
I do, however, think the idea has merit. I just think it would be better for those who don't actually want marriage/kids, but are in stable relationships that both members want to keep for awhile. It would afford all the ease-of-access marriage does in terms of things like mortgages, buying cars, insurance, etc. but without the stuff that makes it marriage (in my mind), which is the "forever" section of the vows.
Shannon M. Howell at April 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Here's some stats about percentages of men who ask for custody and get it:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html
NicoleK at April 19, 2014 10:40 AM
Leave a comment