Page 2 of 3

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:59 am
by Farm_or
@7wb5 Grouchy old men AND grouchy young men? Sorry, but couldn't help seeing the common denominator...

Evolution is inevitable. The hardest part is accepting that no matter how good of a choice you think you make, it can (and usually does) go upside down.

The second hardest part is the realization that the change for better is only possible in your own self.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:06 am
by 7Wannabe5
Chad wrote:The avatar is Hunter S. Thompson.
Duh on me. Kind of thing that makes me fret about early onset dementia.

The part of me that was once a 19 year old individual who wept when she read "On Liberty" deeply appreciates the quote you posted. The part of me that is a 52 year old crone attempting to cram some level of comprehension of general systems theory into her brain before dementia does dim, would note (hear my tone as completely matter of fact autistic monotone, like voice of objective alien intelligence) that I am almost certain that there was another female human in the vicinity when Hunter S. Thompson, Chad and BRUTE were born. IOW, nobody is born alone.

The trick is to accept this reality without experiencing the reactivity that might summon up urge to deny that you "owe" anything to your mother, society, the rest of the human race....

Or parse the difference between "Put on your own oxygen mask first." and "Put on your own oxygen mask." What comes next?

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:13 am
by 7Wannabe5
@Farm_or

Well, perhaps more reflective of my own personal experience than the general population, but recent studies indicate that females are on average happier than males. Testosterone has a brightening effect, so it must be something else.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:40 am
by IlliniDave
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:47 am
Therefore, I have a somewhat informed perspective/opinion that right around 52 is the age that a guy will feel the urge to decide for once and for all whether he will ever get married, analogous to how women often feel compelled to make final call on kids around the age of 39. However, just like is often the case with the woman considering maternity at 39, they have waited too long.
What a relief. Having just incremented past 52, sounds like I'm now safe! :D

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:17 am
by 7Wannabe5
@IllinDave:

You were already far out of danger territory due to acquiring two daughters in previous marriage. You just need to loosen up a bit and round up some action.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:47 am
by Chad
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:06 am
... that I am almost certain that there was another female human in the vicinity when Hunter S. Thompson, Chad and BRUTE were born. IOW, nobody is born alone.

The trick is to accept this reality without experiencing the reactivity that might summon up urge to deny that you "owe" anything to your mother, society, the rest of the human race....
This quote also has nothing to do with "owing" anyone or trying to get out of "owing" anyone. No doubt there were other humans around, especially my mother, at my birth. That still doesn't make me not alone. No matter how many people love you and no matter how deep this love is, you still have to face everything alone. I'm not, and I don't think Thompson is either, suggesting we don't get help and support. This doesn't change the fact that we are still actually alone. This truth was displayed to me during my mother's battle with brain cancer. There was no level of help, love, etc. that could really make her not alone.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:43 am
by 7Wannabe5
@Chad:

You are right in noting that I shouldn't have predicted the standard "Well, "I" didn't ask to be born." sort of response to my observation, since I am not addressing an audience of 14 year old libertarians.

What I am trying to get at is something like the disconnect between the system of psychology, the system of economy/finance and the system of ecology. What interests me is that financial independence depends on the conventions of one model and going completely "moneyless" depends on the conventions of another model. This is relevant to the argument I am attempting to make here about marriage, but I am too stupid to do a very good job at it.

Okay, here goes again. Would you choose to get married in a world without money? What do you think marriage would look like in that world? Is cleaving to your money in this world actually preventing you from having the FREEDOM to enter into that sort of relationship in the here and now?

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:28 am
by Chad
@7w5
Considering my score on the recent libertarian test, I don't think I qualify even if I was 14. :)

Would you choose to get married in a world without money?
I lean a little away from getting married at all, but this would increase the odds slightly (see below for more on this).

What do you think marriage would look like in that world?
Not a lot different for most people. Very very different for some.

Is cleaving to your money in this world actually preventing you from having the FREEDOM to enter into that sort of relationship in the here and now?
I doubt it. A world without money would probably increase my likelihood of getting married. However, all a world without money would do is increase the number of possible mates and I don't think it would increase them by a lot.

Money is just another variable in the equation, like if she does or doesn't want kids. These are big enough variables were certain values would rule out the relationship, but there is no value in those variables that would guarantee a relationship. These are just ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:44 am
by Chad
@7w5
As a side note, we seem to think very differently, which is one reason why we miss on this subject.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:46 pm
by classical_Liberal
My personal experiences as a 41 yr-old never married/no children bachelor seem to confirm @7W5’s assertion's to a large degree. I will also agree with @Riggerjack’s statement of being a Gen X’er who never had a very high opinion of marriage, for the same reasons he mentions, along with anecdotal experiences from other males in my life.

Given my age and previous life choices, I am in a situation in which I must choose between starting a family and having time as a physically/mentally able adult to enjoy freedom of ERE lifestyle. There is no longer time/ resources for both. I have chosen the Freedom of ERE.

As a result of this choice, my dating options (if LT relationship is a goal) are limited. First I nix all low-quality women.* The idea she will be a good mother, income earner, home-maker, or the like (which may offset low-quality characteristics for men looking to have families) are rather meaningless to me. Secondly, all high-quality women under the age of 39, who do not have kids, but want them, are out. Thirdly all high-quality women with children under high school age are out. They are often looking for a co-parent/income earner, if I don’t have the time, resources, or energy to raise children of my own, then I don’t want to do it for another.

Of the remaining women, I can choose from high-quality mid 20’s to early 30’s women who do not want or haven’t decided if they want children(current situation, but if she changes her mind on kids, I’d be out). High-quality women my age or older who have children = or > HS age or are childless and happy about it.

I do think there is a large advantage for both men and women, children or not, to couple up past the middle age line (65+). My experience in healthcare has taught me, as people age, co-habitation couples are much more likely to remain independent later into life. Both financially and in health related symbiotic situations. This is the only practical reason I can think of that makes sense for coupledom outside of personal satisfaction/happiness/fulfillment of emotional needs. The former should be legitimately considered as we age, some people simply do not have a high need for the later. Edit: Prefer to say some people do not need a partner to fulfill the later.

*I believe high quality women to be those who are above average attractiveness, physical fitness level & intelligence; combined with below average controlling/try to change the man attitude. Low quality are the opposite. Sex is important, but can (and often does) improves as a relationship deepens, as long as one does not use sex as a barter tool for control/forced change or there is a total mismatch of drive.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:23 pm
by 7Wannabe5
@Chad:
You may be right, but likely I am the one not quite getting the birdie over the net. I think modern legal marriage contract does tend to muck up what could be a more natural bond or pattern of human mating behavior. So, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with my "marriage without money" question. Since I refer to the model of perma-culture fairly often, I was thinking about what if a human male with a large stock market account was more like a male bear with a 50 square mile territory? Humans don't really behave like bears, but what I have observed of "natural" human male mating behavior does not seem totally consistent with seeking female with the same amount of money (territory) before mating.

@classical_Liberal: What you refer to as "high quality", I would call "universal mixer." I am coming to agree with you on the issue of coupling up before old age. One of the reasons I am still with my current BF is he took very good care of me when I fell victim to multiple viruses caught due to exposure to germ-ridden children. Also, he assured me that all the men in his family just suddenly fall over dead without need for extended nursing.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:47 pm
by Chad
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:23 pm
I think modern legal marriage contract does tend to muck up what could be a more natural bond or pattern of human mating behavior. So, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with my "marriage without money" question.
I would agree completely with this. I have always joked with my friends that I would like to "sign" long-term contracts with women in place of marriage. After the time frame we both evaluate.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:23 pm
Since I refer to the model of perma-culture fairly often, I was thinking about what if a human male with a large stock market account was more like a male bear with a 50 square mile territory? Humans don't really behave like bears, but what I have observed of "natural" human male mating behavior does not seem totally consistent with seeking female with the same amount of money (territory) before mating.
I agree that humans really aren't naturally monogamous. It kind of seems like we are more naturally a "tribal family" than two person family units. Though, it seems like the two person family unit works better in modern society. The culture becoming more ok with non-traditional relationships (numbers, sex, etc.), with a traditional two person family unit being slightly preferred is probably the best way to go with our current economic and culture models.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:55 pm
by classical_Liberal
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:23 pm
Also, he assured me that all the men in his family just suddenly fall over dead without need for extended nursing.
:lol: well, then, he's a keeper?
Chad wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:47 pm
. It kind of seems like we are more naturally a "tribal family" than two person family units. Though, it seems like the two person family unit works better in modern society.
I believe we still see this tribal family behavior, even in the US with economically depressed classes/areas. In addition, these groups also tend to display stronger extended family ties. It may be hard to see if you haven't lived within them. Both of these social situations are actually very conducive to an ERE systems approach to life, so maybe it's the wealth of modern western society that has deteriorated the more natural social state. In any event, I would guess that marriage rates within these social situations are lower based on the single parent and low socio-economic class correlation. Maybe this explains the apparent Incongruity @Jennypenny expected based on religious participation/beliefs.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:20 pm
by enigmaT120
Chad wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:28 pm

There will be no traditional funeral arrangements. I hate traditional funerals and really despise graveyards. Why do dead people need land? And, half the time it's really good land.
I think Riggerjack's idea for old growth forest cemeteries is a great one.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:02 pm
by fiby41
Chad wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:28 pm
My preferred method of body disposal would be to be drug out into the middle of the woods and left for the animals, bugs, and bacteria. Of course, that's probably illegal most places, so the cheapest method is likely cremation along with a few kegs for a party.
Zoroastrians follow a method where the body is eaten by vultures and then left to decompose.
37% of Americans prefer cremation iirc. I could dig up the source from my browser history is anyone is interested.
enigmaT120 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:20 pm
Chad wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:28 pm

There will be no traditional funeral arrangements. I hate traditional funerals and really despise graveyards. Why do dead people need land? And, half the time it's really good land.
I think Riggerjack's idea for old growth forest cemeteries is a great one.
You may be also interested in biosUrn, the thing grows one full tree from your remains.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:38 pm
by Chad
fiby41 wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:02 pm
Chad wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:28 pm
My preferred method of body disposal would be to be drug out into the middle of the woods and left for the animals, bugs, and bacteria. Of course, that's probably illegal most places, so the cheapest method is likely cremation along with a few kegs for a party.
Zoroastrians follow a method where the body is eaten by vultures and then left to decompose.
37% of Americans prefer cremation iirc. I could dig up the source from my browser history is anyone is interested.
enigmaT120 wrote:
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:20 pm
Chad wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:28 pm

There will be no traditional funeral arrangements. I hate traditional funerals and really despise graveyards. Why do dead people need land? And, half the time it's really good land.
I think Riggerjack's idea for old growth forest cemeteries is a great one.
You may be also interested in biosUrn, the thing grows one full tree from your remains.
We planted a tree on the family farm for my grandfather and mother and just poured the ashes in the hole for the tree.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:24 pm
by radamfi
Would you get married if you weren't interested sexually in either sex? Would you even be interested in living with someone?

Men can simulate this by their thoughts within 1 second after ejaculation. Sexual desire is extinguished temporarily. That is the time you should ask yourself whether marriage is worth doing.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:30 pm
by 7Wannabe5
Women can simulate this in their thoughts with 1 second after seeing a post-it note saying "Clean me" attached to a kitchen appliance.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:42 pm
by BRUTE
fiby41 wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:02 pm
37% of Americans prefer cremation iirc. I could dig up the source
badum tish

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:36 am
by Lemur
Funny I married quite a few years ago before I thought about investing/savings/FIRE and before I owned any real assets. When I married, I had "nothing to lose" so to speak. I was young (and admittingly had low self esteem) so when I married my spouse I felt that this was the best it is going to get. I sort of rolled the dice and got incredibly lucky because she is still great. We still get the goosebumps with each other now and than if we haven't seen each other. If I got divorced now, it would really be devastating mentally and financially and set me back through half my investments, child support, and alimony. I'd like to imagine if I ever got divorced, I would #1 never re-marry again and #2 because I'm single now I could drastically cut down the "FIRE number" or the "Stash number" whatever you might call it. Single small apartment close to work would fit my needs nicely.

I would greatly prefer this not to happen, but you never know I guess. I'd like to believe my odds of divorce are generally a lot lower given that the spouse and I are on the same goal with FIRE and we both come from conservative cultures where we "ride or die" together. Both of our parents stuck together despite my parents being in relative poverty and her parents being in true poverty in a foreign country.

On a day to day basis, I don't think about this. In hindsight, I wonder sometimes if I still would of gotten married if I was aware of ERE principals? Maybe or maybe not; I am not sure. Part of me is glad I didn't because I love my wife + kids now even though these variables inevitably increase the time that I am employed. I couldn't imagine life without them though.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:57 pm
by radamfi
Which is cheaper? Marriage and subsequent divorce, possibly multiple times, or chemical castration?

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:12 pm
by jennypenny
Life isn't all about money and marriage isn't all about access to sex. If I had no interest in sex I would still have married DH.

When it's firing on all cylinders, a marriage can be a powerful thing. And I'd argue a better hedge against potential crises than a pile of cash.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:17 pm
by radamfi
jennypenny wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:12 pm
If I had no interest in sex I would still have married
Not many men would say that.

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:56 pm
by IlliniDave
jennypenny wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:12 pm

When it's firing on all cylinders, a marriage can be a powerful thing. And I'd argue a better hedge against potential crises than a pile of cash.
That's a pretty big IF to stick in front of it! Of course the best situation is to have a truly dependable partnership *and* a big pile of cash. In my sorry case there is one of those two things I'm highly likely to achieve/maintain; and the other I have a vanishingly small chance of achieving. No sense in letting the low fruit fall to the ground and rot while I risk serious harm to myself scaling the precarious upper branches for a piece of fruit that might not even be there.

Yes, I am incorrigible. :D

Re: Marriage Trends

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:50 pm
by Dragline
jennypenny wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:12 pm

When it's firing on all cylinders, a marriage can be a powerful thing. And I'd argue a better hedge against potential crises than a pile of cash.
Agreed.

And sometimes its better to be lucky than good (at least in my case). ;)