Great Article on Men and Marriage

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
Since most of the arguments I get into here are regarding men and marriage, and why fewer and fewer men are willing to get married, I thought yall would appreciate this little article. Very well worded, and right on the money. I especially liked the part where it refutes the typical female perspective that men are just unwilling to grow up. It's far deeper than that, as this so eloquently states.

“Nowadays, for many men, the negatives of marriage for men often outweigh the positives. Therefore, they engage in it less often. Not because they are bad, not because they are perpetual adolescents, but because they have weighed the pros and cons of marriage in a rational manner and found the institution to be lacking for them.”

I think women don’t understand how clinical men can be when it comes to analyzing a relationship. (Note: just because we don’t talk about our relationship with you, doesn’t mean we don’t analyze it.)

Here’s how I explain it. I think that men keep a running ledger going in their subconscious—all the good/great things about their relationship on the one side, and all the bad/terrible things on the other. At some point or another, if the perceived negatives outweigh the positives, the man will quit the relationship—I mean, just bail out of the whole thing—and usually with a swiftness and finality which confounds women.

Because we’re guys, we don’t talk about this much—even, or especially with other men, and hardly ever with women. But it’s a plain fact.

Now, because we’re guys, certain things have a disproportionate effect on both the good and bad things: on the good side, sex, food and shared interests being probably the best examples; on the bad, infidelity, constant nagging and invasion of privacy constitute the negative. The degree of each, good or bad, will vary among individual men, of course. Some men will put up with almost anything if the sex is of the “bed on fire” variety, for instance, while others will walk out of a relationship for something as trifling as compulsory weekly visits to Mom (hers).

Frankly, it doesn’t matter what these things are. What’s important is that they are each weighed, and applied to the ledger. And when the negatives consistently outweigh the positives, the man will say (to himself), “You know what? This isn’t worth the hassle. The hell with it.”

And once that decision is made, the relationship is over. Now, it may take a long time for all that to happen. Men are not accounting machines, and this is not a daily, or even a regular process. But it takes place in every man, sooner or later, when the negatives get too much to live with.

What’s interesting about all this is that as men grow older, the process becomes a lot quicker—mostly, it should be said, because younger men can put up with almost anything if they’re getting laid. As men get older and sex becomes less important, however, the “bull” factor and the tolerance thereof become more important.

I am not interested, incidentally, in hearing the female side of this. The topic is “why men are putting off getting married”. Here’s why.

All the great advantages of the women’s liberation movement have created an environment which, frankly, does not leave men with much. We can’t flirt with women at school, college or at the office anymore, because one man’s “flirting” has become another woman’s “sexual harassment” and the punishments for such transgressions are not only severe, they’re permanent—crippling a man’s career and prospects thereof.

When a woman can get pregnant outside wedlock, and still hound a man forever for child support (with the enthusiastic support of the State), is it any wonder that men, even though ruled by their sex drive, might actually step back a little and think with their heads? And once married, if a divorce becomes a later reality, he stands a real risk of losing access to his kids forever, because if Milady is feeling vengeful—and most do, in a divorce—the merest suggestion of “endangerment” or “violence”, and he is completely screwed, forever, even if the allegation is a complete falsehood.

I am not denying, by the way, that men have brought a lot of this on themselves. But remember, men are more clinical about relationships than women are. It is an absolutely certainty that men read all the news about some guy losing his right to own a gun just because a spiteful ex-wife filed a nonsensical claim of “abuse”, or guys getting ruined because of an intemperate offhand comment at the office, or even, good grief, getting hit up for child support after having been an anonymous sperm donor—and ask: ”Looks like the rules are all in her favor. Remind me: what’s in this ‘marriage’ thing for me , again?”

And the fact that women have become more sexually liberated doesn’t help matters. The old saw is true: why would a man go to the trouble of buying, stabling and feeding a cow, when milk’s available at the supermarket?

Remember: the early post-adolescent years are the time in men’s lives when they are most ruled by their sex drive. If the drive can be constantly sated by willing women, can anyone be surprised that when the sex drive starts to fade in importance, men look at all the other parts of a relationship, and find that the game just isn’t worth the hassle?

At ages 19 to about 27, men are at their most vulnerable for marriage, because the nice thing about married sex is not that it’s necessarily great, but that it’s pretty much always available, without too much work involved.

But if during those early years women don’t get their hooks into a man soon enough, the job becomes progressively harder as the man ages. So if women spend those early adult years building themselves a career and “fulfilling themselves” at the expense of getting married, they will find that when they do finally want to settle down and get married, men are no longer as welcoming as they were before.

And the foundations of all that were put down when women tried to stop men from being like men. Even with sex involved, men will always apply “The Ledger” to a relationship. Without sex, men are, quite simply, unwilling to put up with all the sh*t that a woman brings to the party. And when men feel that the dice are constantly loaded against them, they’ll simply refuse to play the game, at all.

None of this, incidentally, applies to the lucky men and women who found their soulmates—but I have to tell you, life isn’t much like the deliriously-happy couples on eHarmony.com. For every blissful couple in the ads, there are literally millions for whom a relationship is not a joy, but a wearisome chore.

What feminism hath wrought is simple: if men are to treat women as equals, then they will treat them like men—or at best, they will not treat them like women.

One more time: I’m not interested in hearing The Other Side Of The Story from women. We’ve heard little else for the past thirty years. The question was: why are men getting married later, if at all?

This post is the answer, and women should not be shocked by its conclusions.

The saddest part of this is that all things being equal, most men actually enjoy being married, and look forward to it. It’s nice to have someone to come home to, someone with whom you can just be yourself, and someone to share the wonderful joys of having kids. And don’t kid yourselves, the sex is great. A buddy of mine, married to his childhood sweetheart for over twenty years, put it to me this way: “A lot of the time, the sex [between longtime marrieds] is fine, or just so-so. But every once in a while, it’s fantastic, tremendous, brilliant, and better than you could ever ever get from a stranger.”

The men who are resisting being married are cutting themselves off from all this—and women should ask themselves why this is the case, without resorting to the “men are just refusing to grow up” bull. They’re not refusing to grow up: this is the reaction to the constant belittlement and the infantilizing treatment they’ve been exposed to all their lives. "
 
Last edited:

B_Hung Jon

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Posts
4,124
Media
0
Likes
617
Points
193
Location
Los Angeles, California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I have mixed feelings about this article. While I understand the premise, I think men as human beings are more complicated than "if I can get good sex", then I want to get married. To me the biggest issue women talk about concerning men is that we aren't aware of our own feelings, which causes us to never really get emotionally involved with a marriage partner or even begin to understand her. If we don't know how to love and care for a woman, how do we ever expect her to somehow enjoy the relationship. While guys may be able to analyze a relationship, that's not the most important aspect of it. Relationships hopefully bring us the same things that they bring women: emotional and physical fulfillment, sharing common interests as good friends, sharing the responsibility and commitment of having children, having an understanding and caring mate to help and support us. To me these are the aspects of a satisfying relationship and are worth more than all the columns of positive and negative analysis.
 

NEWREBA

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
441
Media
4
Likes
18
Points
103
Location
Cali
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
I have mixed feelings about this article. While I understand the premise, I think men as human beings are more complicated than "if I can get good sex", then I want to get married. To me the biggest issue women talk about concerning men is that we aren't aware of our own feelings, which causes us to never really get emotionally involved with a marriage partner or even begin to understand her. If we don't know how to love and care for a woman, how do we ever expect her to somehow enjoy the relationship. While guys may be able to analyze a relationship, that's not the most important aspect of it. Relationships hopefully bring us the same things that they bring women: emotional and physical fulfillment, sharing common interests as good friends, sharing the responsibility and commitment of having children, having an understanding and caring mate to help and support us. To me these are the aspects of a satisfying relationship and are worth more than all the columns of positive and negative analysis.


You're a sexy and smart boy Jon:tongue:
 

Ed69

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
2,890
Media
0
Likes
1,283
Points
258
Location
Oregon (United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"The men who are resisting being married are cutting themselves off from all this—and women should ask themselves why this is the case, without resorting to the “men are just refusing to grow up” bull. They’re not refusing to grow up: this is the reaction to the constant belittlement and the infantilizing treatment they’ve been exposed to all their lives. "

This is why I walked away from 4 women and my mother and I have limited contact.I've had 18 wonderfull years with my wife,because we respect one another as human beings.
The rest of the article I'm not real sure about.I do know I don't keep a running tally of the good,bad and ugly.
 
D

deleted356736

Guest
After 23 years of happy marriage, I agree with the premise of the article. In the generation before mine, the only way to get sex and companionship was through marriage. In my generation this changed, but we tended to get married through habit, although I was different. I didn't find a woman who I was interested in sharing my life with, per the article, for quite a while. And when I did in the strangest of circumstances, we got married. Until then I had casual affairs, relationships, sex and all I wanted. My now wife was a liberated woman when I met her, but she was also from a different culture, and she has never tried to rule me, hound me, nag me or deny me sex. She's my best friend.

I agree with the premise of feminism, and a liberated woman is a much better life-partner than the housewives of my mother's generation. But what modern women do need to understand is that the power of equality comes with the responsibility to use that power wisely. And my observation is that too often it isn't being used wisely. Men may not analyse why they don't want to marry the woman they are with, or why they break up and look for someone else, but in hindsight I worked out what my problem was when I was younger, and it was pretty much as summed up in the article.
 

B_Bonky

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Posts
882
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
238
Location
LA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The essay goes from pretty good to a standard whining exercise about how shitty it is for men these days. Whatever. If you want to get married, do so. If you don't, don't. I don't.

But don't expect shit to change any time soon just because you're sitting around whining about it.

Marriage eventually ends up sucking for a very large percentage of people who enter into it. Always has, always will. In fact, I read recently that divorce is the largest wealth-destroyer known to man. And on average it destroys the wealth of women moreso than men. Not much more, but statistically so.

I'm not the marrying type, so maybe my opinion is skewed. I'm cashing in on all the liberated women that are out there ;) If I really really wanted to get married but felt it too risky, then my opinion might be different. But there are always prenups. If done right, they will be upheld in court.

"this is the reaction to the constant belittlement and the infantilizing treatment they’ve been exposed to all their lives." Says more about the author than men in general.... sounds like a pansy to me.
 

greatdickismydrug

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Posts
495
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
]

So sad but very true. I read somewhere last week that romantic love tops out around 18months max so marrying for money or security makes more sense than marrying for love. Marrying for "love" is a relatively new phenomenom in the course of history and perhaps not a good idea.

I think that both men and women expect way too much from marriage, underestimate the hard work required and misery it can bring. Oh, yeah... and just how EXPENSIVE (but worth it) the entire process of divorce is.
 

B_certainrestriction

Just Browsing
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
4
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
86
Location
chicago
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I really hate all this "accept gay people, their lifestyle, and their interaction with you sexually, or else" mentality. They say "why cant people just leave us be, and give us our rights" but factually, there is a MASSIVE gay population that looks to stand where a straight man stands to see if they can pull a straight person. Then their only defense is that "well if he wanted me he wasnt straight anyhow"

You can go in chat room after chat room, message board after message board and you will see gay males playing like women to get pics from the straight. ANYONE that denies that reality is full of crap and on an agenda.

If the gay populous merely wants to be left alone and NOT influence others... why is there lesbi gay clubs in high schools? why did the gay people try to make a highschool JUST for gay people, and when rejected...they said they will try again? Gay supporters claim that it is just for "support"... but do you know how many groups get harassed in HIGH SCHOOL? Maybe there should be a fat people highschool, or an Ugly person highschool...

The fact that lesbi gay clubs in highschool are started by gay males who are NON board members who go from school to school to set them up shows a clear agenda. Such clubs never even go through the normal means to set them up, they do so without the votes of the board, nor parental involvement.
Their defense? "are you afraid your son is gay?" and then they try to deviate the conversation to THAT instead of their intent in the first place.... WHICH SHOULD BE... why the hell are they making a social sex club (which is what that is) in a high school, where teens are BY SCIENCE..easy to influence...hence legal limits on sex with them till 18.


The gay people have a clear issue with attempting to stand where they know the room is straight...

Like the miss america thing... that guy asking the question is a known gay activist...CLEARLY looking to be in that position JUST to ask such a question like he did... to influence the listeners of what HE THOUGHT WAS GONNA BE a pro gay marriage issue....

The woman didnt bring up religion, and said she was NOT pro gay marriage, and the audience CHEERED her. The gay man who asked the question is on Youtube calling her BITCH and all this...and saying how that was the first time a contestant got boo'ed...which she clearly did not.. and he said she brought up religion, which she did not.....

IF THAT isnt clear and obvious evidence of the agenda, what is? THAT man after his gay tirade on youtube should have NEVER been a judge in the first place... THAT makes me feel like their next thing is to see if they can fill the judge ranks so as to allow a MALE that has had surgery to look female, as a contestant.. right now the rules say you cannot do that, but the gays will SOON MAKE THAT PITCH...Mark my words.


And regarding gay marriage, this is not about Hate for gays, or whatever..this is about their CLEAR intent to not only have you, the straight person, ACCEPT their behavior, but they want you to actually ENDORSE it...AND PROMOTE it.

The truth? The logic gays use for 2 males to marry, can be used to say 2 swinger couples should marry...Or a man and 5 women, or a woman and 5 men. Or a american and an illegal who paid him to marry for citizenship.

GAYS will counter, "well we still want One on One"...but you cannot have your cake and eat it too..the concept of One person to one person is NOT secular but religious. Because the USA is christian based (which is the law of Jesus, One to one) we marry as we do..BUT THE FLAW IS... he didnt say One person to one person, he said One Man and One Woman...

So Any who respnd, dont try that crap either.

Much of their behavior is based on the false assumption that they are Born gay. NO SCIENCE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT AT ALL..AND NO I AM NOT A SCIENTISTS AND NEITHER DO I HAVE TO BE TO SAY THAT (so dont try that response either)....

In order for a theory to be proven fact, the person conducting must list his findings and how he got them, And it has to be proven from another non bias source who can find the equal result....NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DUPLICATED TO FIND MATCHING RESULTS OF ANY GAY STUDY EVER DONE......so the pro gay media has said, "study proves men are born gay" after the first man finds what he finds...the bad part...many studies are done by gay people themselves!!! ONE even tried to show porn to TEENAGERS in college and they monitored their penis (monitors on the penis for ANY blood flow showing arousal) and they flashed Straight and gay porn, and their conclusion?

TEEN STRAIGHT MALES ARE TURNED ON BY GAY PORN.....And THATS what the media printed...HOW FREAKIN SCIENTIFIC WAS THAT SHIT?!?!

I have studied Many of the gay studies "proving" biological homosexuality for a paper I did. And it was clearl as day, the intent of this group.

In 1970s the gays protested like Lobyists to the APA(American Psych Association) to have them STOP calling gay behavior an abnormality...WHY ws that so key? because if they could uproot that, then they could walk freely in other areas to Push their business card in straight areas.... Like a sex addict or something. Like a child molester trying to use logic to place himself by youths.

in the 70s, a influential member of the APA was himself gay. And LO AND BEHOLD...the apa caved in and voted by narrow margin that gays were normal, resulting after a PROTEST raid of their meeting by gay activists.. it was not SCIENCE AT ALL... there were no previous studies to uproot the previous logic... only stuff like "the therapy to change us only hurts the person" which ALSO was not factual when looked closely. But regardless... It DEFINITELY wasnt science. But a lot of "science" certainly followed didnt it?


Lastly, regarding Homosexual behavior and molestation (NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE REGARDING THAT...I wonder why?)

THIS is a topic that gay males REALLY REALLY hate bringing up.. I wonder why?

If you ask a group of males who are "bottoms" and exclusively gay... certain questions... the answers will suprise most, not me.

In my paper, i interviewed 25 gay males (a small number? the publicized studies boast an average of only 1000 or so...and then use their findings to imply them on millions)

Here are a couple of the questions...

How old were you the VERY FIRST TIME YOU HAD ANY HOMOSEXUAL CONTACT... including Kissing, touching, Video or Magazine, in what you would call sexual in nature?

ALL of them said ages before 10 years old.

Question: Did the first homosexual act start with actions on YOUR part or the other parrty..this would include the conversation requesting the act.

ALL 25...The OTHER PERSON CAME TO THEM

Question: How old was the other person that you had you FIRST homosexual encounter or conversation leading to homosexual behavior?

ALL 25 of them... The person was at least 3 years older...A HUGE difference in youthful years and development.


Yet MOST of them saw where I was headed and quickly added "But I WANTED IT to happen though"

Yeah.........Ok.
 

hung

Expert Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,624
Media
11
Likes
213
Points
283
Location
USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The topic originator presented an interesting article for all of us to read.

Now for my spin.

When a couple determines that they need to marry a whole new aspect of their lives engulfs them. There is a whole industry devoted to "Having the Perfect Wedding."

Books have been written, magazines published and Wedding Consultants know all the tried and true methods for a perfect wedding day. The dream must become reality. In far too many cases unavailable "funds" are expended at the expense of a decent future.

Couples become engaged and are ready to marry, but in steps a plethora of organizations, people and even Mothers to say that you need to get the perfect venue for the wedding and they the reception. This often requires waiting a year, and in some cases even more.

Now the wedding day is history, the couple has experienced the perfect wedding event, the perfect reception and the perfect honeymoon.

Then life become real once again. Mr. Groom and Mrs. Bride are not perfect. Each may have some flaws that have not yet been exposed or identified. Then the difficult aspect of real life enters into the situation. In the quest for the perfect everything, the couple now finally realizes that life as a couple will never be perfect, although they have been misled to belief that it will be so.

So what happens next. I think we all know the answer.

The quest for perfection has driven us all over the edge and we have expectations that are not normal. Not normal a hundred years ago, not normal now and not even normal in our futures.

Deal with it!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
Whining? The article doesn't whine at all, but tries to offer an explanation. To me, rather than whining, it is showing how men are pushing back and empowering themselves by simply refusing to play the marriage game. Definitely not a cause for whining, but eye opening shedding light on trend that has well been established with young, single men.
 

Steve26

1st LPSG Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Posts
824
Media
34
Likes
3,484
Points
748
Location
New Hampshire + Massachusetts
Gender
Male
This "article" strikes me as one person's opinion masquerading as The Truth. I've been married since 2002, happily for the most part, and while parts of this piece ring true for me, on balance I don't buy it.

I'd say there are at least as many opinions on marriage as there are marriages. It's disingenuous, to say the least, to try to paint them all with such a broad brush.

This sentence jumped out at me in particular: "For every blissful couple in the ads, there are literally millions for whom a relationship is not a joy, but a wearisome chore."

Does anyone seriously believe that for every happy couple there are "literally millions" of miserable ones? This would mean there might be, at most, 100 truly happy couples in the U.S. Were that the case, marriage would have died out long ago.

Steve
 

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
It is just one opinion, worth no more or less than your own. Still, just because you are happy in your marriage doesn't mean it's like that for everyone, and statistically speaking, the trend of young men refusing to get married has been well established for a while now. That is fact.

The opinion in that article attempts to explain that fact. That's all. An opinion I find quite valid. I for one, would never, ever, risk ruining my life financially and socially by getting married. The fact that women are constantly pushing men to get married sooner rather than later should raise red flags in itself.

I like this article because it shows that men still do have power in relationships, we have the ultimate power. The power to analyze our relationships logically rather than emotionally, and the power to ultimately walk away based on a cold, hard calculation. Something women generally do not do in this instance.

And that ability we have as men REALLY seems to rub women (and many men themselves) the wrong way. I guess they find it threatening, which they should. Men seem to be slowly waking up to the fact women use sex against us to get what they want, and more and more of us are starting think with the big head rather than the small head. Those of you who took that article to mean that all men base their decisions on is sex obviously didn't understand what you were reading.

edit: Also, I know that article tends to paint very broad strokes. I know quite well that not all women, probably not even most women, are as vindictive in a divorce as that claims...but guess what...that is the common perception men have these days regarding marriage, and women, and society at large have done little if anything to combat that perception, in actuality it seems they do their best to perpetuate it by pointing the finger at men in general calling us whiny, stupid, brutish, etc. So....the perception is well established, right or wrong, so deal with it I say.
 
Last edited:

B_Bonky

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Posts
882
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
238
Location
LA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The best definition I could find online for "whine" was: "to complain or protest in a childish manner or about trivial things."

Let's look at parts of the original essay.

“Nowadays, for many men, the negatives of marriage for men often outweigh the positives. Therefore, they engage in it less often. Not because they are bad, not because they are perpetual adolescents, but because they have weighed the pros and cons of marriage in a rational manner and found the institution to be lacking for them.”
This is a good start, not a whine. It's factual and straightforward.

I think women don’t understand how clinical men can be when it comes to analyzing a relationship. (Note: just because we don’t talk about our relationship with you, doesn’t mean we don’t analyze it.)
Uh oh, the writer is now starting to address women directly ("you"). Methinks he's going to go on a rant....

Here’s how I explain it. I think that men keep a running ledger going in their subconscious—all the good/great things about their relationship on the one side, and all the bad/terrible things on the other. At some point or another, if the perceived negatives outweigh the positives, the man will quit the relationship—I mean, just bail out of the whole thing—and usually with a swiftness and finality which confounds women.
Good up until the part about "confounding women." I think that women confound men just as much by ending relationships suddenly. I don't one sex is all that powerful vis-a-vis the other.

I am not interested, incidentally, in hearing the female side of this. The topic is “why men are putting off getting married”. Here’s why.
..Trying to define who can participate in the discussion. Good rhetorical move, but shows that he feels there are weaknesses in his argument.

All the great advantages of the women’s liberation movement have created an environment which, frankly, does not leave men with much. We can’t flirt with women at school, college or at the office anymore, because one man’s “flirting” has become another woman’s “sexual harassment” and the punishments for such transgressions are not only severe, they’re permanent—crippling a man’s career and prospects thereof.
Complete whine in my book. Total illogical argument that greatly exaggerates any "problems" men might face. Yeah right, men are left with nothing at all in society. There's absolutely no flirting at school! Riiight. All flirts by men are punished as sexual harrassment! Riiight. Come on, silly.

When a woman can get pregnant outside wedlock, and still hound a man forever for child support (with the enthusiastic support of the State), is it any wonder that men, even though ruled by their sex drive, might actually step back a little and think with their heads? And once married, if a divorce becomes a later reality, he stands a real risk of losing access to his kids forever, because if Milady is feeling vengeful—and most do, in a divorce—the merest suggestion of “endangerment” or “violence”, and he is completely screwed, forever, even if the allegation is a complete falsehood.
More exaggeration. It's not "forever," and the only reason the state "enthusiastically" supports it is so the state itself doesn't have to bring up a bunch of illegitimate kids. And I doubt that "most" women accuse their ex-husbands of violence.

I am not denying, by the way, that men have brought a lot of this on themselves. But remember, men are more clinical about relationships than women are.
Any time you have "men are [x]" and "women are [y]" it's overbroad.

It is an absolutely certainty that men read all the news about some guy losing his right to own a gun just because a spiteful ex-wife filed a nonsensical claim of “abuse”, or guys getting ruined because of an intemperate offhand comment at the office, or even, good grief, getting hit up for child support after having been an anonymous sperm donor—and ask: ”Looks like the rules are all in her favor. Remind me: what’s in this ‘marriage’ thing for me , again?”
While I agree with much of this statement, the "absolute certainty" part annoys me. Overstatement.

And the fact that women have become more sexually liberated doesn’t help matters. The old saw is true: why would a man go to the trouble of buying, stabling and feeding a cow, when milk’s available at the supermarket?
Doesn't help WHAT matters exactly? Helps MY matters :D I bang sexually liberated women left and right.

Remember: the early post-adolescent years are the time in men’s lives when they are most ruled by their sex drive. If the drive can be constantly sated by willing women, can anyone be surprised that when the sex drive starts to fade in importance, men look at all the other parts of a relationship, and find that the game just isn’t worth the hassle?
Ok.

At ages 19 to about 27, men are at their most vulnerable for marriage, because the nice thing about married sex is not that it’s necessarily great, but that it’s pretty much always available, without too much work involved.
mm, I don't know a whole lot of men who marry just for sex, quite honestly. Anybody who's dated more than a couple chicks knows that sex takes a major dive once you start hanging out with a girl a whole lot.

But if during those early years women don’t get their hooks into a man soon enough, the job becomes progressively harder as the man ages. So if women spend those early adult years building themselves a career and “fulfilling themselves” at the expense of getting married, they will find that when they do finally want to settle down and get married, men are no longer as welcoming as they were before.
"Hooks" indeed. Very childish. "Fulfilling themselves" in quotes, a subtle way of saying that the author looks down upon women doing so, at least through career or extra-marital ways.

None of this, incidentally, applies to the lucky men and women who found their soulmates—but I have to tell you, life isn’t much like the deliriously-happy couples on eHarmony.com. For every blissful couple in the ads, there are literally millions for whom a relationship is not a joy, but a wearisome chore.

What does eharmony have to do with anything? For every one person in a toothpaste ad with great teeth, there are millions with cavities. Does that mean toothpaste is bad? No. This is just an illogical argument.

What feminism hath wrought is simple: if men are to treat women as equals, then they will treat them like men—or at best, they will not treat them like women.
"Hath wrought" indeed. Well we know the side that the author is on, don't we?

One more time: I’m not interested in hearing The Other Side Of The Story from women. We’ve heard little else for the past thirty years. The question was: why are men getting married later, if at all?
Reiterates his rhetorical exclusion..

The saddest part of this is that all things being equal, most men actually enjoy being married, and look forward to it.
Yet another "men like/do [x]." Overbroad.

It’s nice to have someone to come home to, someone with whom you can just be yourself, and someone to share the wonderful joys of having kids. And don’t kid yourselves, the sex is great. A buddy of mine, married to his childhood sweetheart for over twenty years, put it to me this way: “A lot of the time, the sex [between longtime marrieds] is fine, or just so-so. But every once in a while, it’s fantastic, tremendous, brilliant, and better than you could ever ever get from a stranger.”
Opinion and anecdotal evidence.

The men who are resisting being married are cutting themselves off from all this—
Weird flip.. ie "marriage would be great if it weren't for the damn women."

and women should ask themselves why this is the case, without resorting to the “men are just refusing to grow up” bull.
Straw man -- not all women think this way.

They’re not refusing to grow up: this is the reaction to the constant belittlement and the infantilizing treatment they’ve been exposed to all their lives. "
This seems like a VERY personal statement, and perhaps a clue to the whole piece. The author is stating that ALL MEN are constantly belittled and "infantilized" throughout their lives. My response: Whaddaya mean "we" white man? Sounds like he's been treated like a child his whole life, and had thus written a very childish essay on,.. well.. himself.

I'm not saying it's not a fairly well written essay, and the author uses some mid-level rhetorical moves to advance his argument, but it's still a whine. :rolleyes:
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,256
Media
213
Likes
32,278
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I really hate all this "accept gay people, their lifestyle, and their interaction with you sexually, or else" mentality. They say "why cant people just leave us be, and give us our rights" but factually, there is a MASSIVE gay population that looks to stand where a straight man stands to see if they can pull a straight person. Then their only defense is that "well if he wanted me he wasnt straight anyhow"

You can go in chat room after chat room, message board after message board and you will see gay males playing like women to get pics from the straight. ANYONE that denies that reality is full of crap and on an agenda.

If the gay populous merely wants to be left alone and NOT influence others... why is there lesbi gay clubs in high schools? why did the gay people try to make a highschool JUST for gay people, and when rejected...they said they will try again? Gay supporters claim that it is just for "support"... but do you know how many groups get harassed in HIGH SCHOOL? Maybe there should be a fat people highschool, or an Ugly person highschool...

The fact that lesbi gay clubs in highschool are started by gay males who are NON board members who go from school to school to set them up shows a clear agenda. Such clubs never even go through the normal means to set them up, they do so without the votes of the board, nor parental involvement.
Their defense? "are you afraid your son is gay?" and then they try to deviate the conversation to THAT instead of their intent in the first place.... WHICH SHOULD BE... why the hell are they making a social sex club (which is what that is) in a high school, where teens are BY SCIENCE..easy to influence...hence legal limits on sex with them till 18.


The gay people have a clear issue with attempting to stand where they know the room is straight...

Like the miss america thing... that guy asking the question is a known gay activist...CLEARLY looking to be in that position JUST to ask such a question like he did... to influence the listeners of what HE THOUGHT WAS GONNA BE a pro gay marriage issue....

The woman didnt bring up religion, and said she was NOT pro gay marriage, and the audience CHEERED her. The gay man who asked the question is on Youtube calling her BITCH and all this...and saying how that was the first time a contestant got boo'ed...which she clearly did not.. and he said she brought up religion, which she did not.....

IF THAT isnt clear and obvious evidence of the agenda, what is? THAT man after his gay tirade on youtube should have NEVER been a judge in the first place... THAT makes me feel like their next thing is to see if they can fill the judge ranks so as to allow a MALE that has had surgery to look female, as a contestant.. right now the rules say you cannot do that, but the gays will SOON MAKE THAT PITCH...Mark my words.


And regarding gay marriage, this is not about Hate for gays, or whatever..this is about their CLEAR intent to not only have you, the straight person, ACCEPT their behavior, but they want you to actually ENDORSE it...AND PROMOTE it.

The truth? The logic gays use for 2 males to marry, can be used to say 2 swinger couples should marry...Or a man and 5 women, or a woman and 5 men. Or a american and an illegal who paid him to marry for citizenship.

GAYS will counter, "well we still want One on One"...but you cannot have your cake and eat it too..the concept of One person to one person is NOT secular but religious. Because the USA is christian based (which is the law of Jesus, One to one) we marry as we do..BUT THE FLAW IS... he didnt say One person to one person, he said One Man and One Woman...

So Any who respnd, dont try that crap either.

Much of their behavior is based on the false assumption that they are Born gay. NO SCIENCE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT AT ALL..AND NO I AM NOT A SCIENTISTS AND NEITHER DO I HAVE TO BE TO SAY THAT (so dont try that response either)....

In order for a theory to be proven fact, the person conducting must list his findings and how he got them, And it has to be proven from another non bias source who can find the equal result....NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DUPLICATED TO FIND MATCHING RESULTS OF ANY GAY STUDY EVER DONE......so the pro gay media has said, "study proves men are born gay" after the first man finds what he finds...the bad part...many studies are done by gay people themselves!!! ONE even tried to show porn to TEENAGERS in college and they monitored their penis (monitors on the penis for ANY blood flow showing arousal) and they flashed Straight and gay porn, and their conclusion?

TEEN STRAIGHT MALES ARE TURNED ON BY GAY PORN.....And THATS what the media printed...HOW FREAKIN SCIENTIFIC WAS THAT SHIT?!?!

I have studied Many of the gay studies "proving" biological homosexuality for a paper I did. And it was clearl as day, the intent of this group.

In 1970s the gays protested like Lobyists to the APA(American Psych Association) to have them STOP calling gay behavior an abnormality...WHY ws that so key? because if they could uproot that, then they could walk freely in other areas to Push their business card in straight areas.... Like a sex addict or something. Like a child molester trying to use logic to place himself by youths.

in the 70s, a influential member of the APA was himself gay. And LO AND BEHOLD...the apa caved in and voted by narrow margin that gays were normal, resulting after a PROTEST raid of their meeting by gay activists.. it was not SCIENCE AT ALL... there were no previous studies to uproot the previous logic... only stuff like "the therapy to change us only hurts the person" which ALSO was not factual when looked closely. But regardless... It DEFINITELY wasnt science. But a lot of "science" certainly followed didnt it?


Lastly, regarding Homosexual behavior and molestation (NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE REGARDING THAT...I wonder why?)

THIS is a topic that gay males REALLY REALLY hate bringing up.. I wonder why?

If you ask a group of males who are "bottoms" and exclusively gay... certain questions... the answers will suprise most, not me.

In my paper, i interviewed 25 gay males (a small number? the publicized studies boast an average of only 1000 or so...and then use their findings to imply them on millions)

Here are a couple of the questions...

How old were you the VERY FIRST TIME YOU HAD ANY HOMOSEXUAL CONTACT... including Kissing, touching, Video or Magazine, in what you would call sexual in nature?

ALL of them said ages before 10 years old.

Question: Did the first homosexual act start with actions on YOUR part or the other parrty..this would include the conversation requesting the act.

ALL 25...The OTHER PERSON CAME TO THEM

Question: How old was the other person that you had you FIRST homosexual encounter or conversation leading to homosexual behavior?

ALL 25 of them... The person was at least 3 years older...A HUGE difference in youthful years and development.


Yet MOST of them saw where I was headed and quickly added "But I WANTED IT to happen though"

Yeah.........Ok.
all I can say is WOW.......what a load of crap! My first gay experience was initiated by ME, I was not recruited, molested, forced etc......for the record, studies HAVE been done regarding pedophilia and it is Mosty men molesting girls.......What exactly do YOU think the Gay Agenda is?????There is so much Malarkey in this post I can't be bothered to refute it. It's almost as if you have never known a gay person personally. Reading your post made me feel sad for YOU. BTW, the USA is NOT a Christian nation.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
BTW, the USA is NOT a Christian nation.
Pretty obsessed with killing Muslims in God's name though.

Anyhow, although I will agree the article isn't the best written, I do agree with it. Shoot me in the face before I get married! I'm darkly pragmatic and I can't afford in my stage of my life to be shackled down and psychologically, financially and perhaps sexually enslaved. People who find soulmates, well good for them, but I am not going to waste my time looking when the most important person in my life (myself) already exists.
 
D

deleted356736

Guest
So sad but very true. I read somewhere last week that romantic love tops out around 18months max so marrying for money or security makes more sense than marrying for love. Marrying for "love" is a relatively new phenomenom in the course of history and perhaps not a good idea.

I think that both men and women expect way too much from marriage, underestimate the hard work required and misery it can bring. Oh, yeah... and just how EXPENSIVE (but worth it) the entire process of divorce is.

This is true in the majority, but like all statistics do not take the majority for all. For a significant minority of couples, romantic love grows and swells over the decades, not the months or years. I know this because it has happened to me in my marriage, but I also know of others in the same situation as us.

If all the ingredients are there in terms of romance, companionship and sex, then love lasts. For people like myself, the chase was worth it, although I was VERY selective about the woman I was prepared to marry