Marriage Trends

How to explain ERE, arranging family matters
User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:13 pm

Even though my marriage was pretty miserable, I agree that there are some inherent benefits that can't easily be duplicated in less committed scenario. However, that still leaves open the question of whether the sum of the benefits available in less committed relationship(s) PLUS the benefits of being single add up to better overall deal.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Riggerjack » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:11 pm

jennypenny wrote: ↑If I had no interest in sex I would still have married
Not many men would say that.
I would.

Marrying for sex is like buying a car for the free storage unit in the trunk. Yes, it does have several cubic feet of storage, and it's free, but that's hardly the point.

If you are in it for the sex, you are just going to be better off single. All relationships have more sex in the first year, so if that is your goal, and for some reason you have to be married to achieve it, expect short marriages.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:49 pm

My recent "ex" (as opposed to my first ex ) and I consistently had sex 7 -10 times/week for the entire 3 1/2 years we were together. Obviously, we still broke up for other reasons, but I think if both individuals in a couple include "strive for consistently hawt sex life" in their relationship mission statement, it can happen, given other prerequisites. If I didn't think it could happen, I absolutely would not want to marry again.

radamfi
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:46 pm

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by radamfi » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:02 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:11 pm
I would.

Marrying for sex is like buying a car for the free storage unit in the trunk.
But would you even be interested in dating at all if you didn't have interest in sex? Can chemical castration drugs be obtained at low cost in certain countries, or even free in countries with socialised healthcare? Your body is tricking you into wanting sex so if you take that out of the equation, the whole dating/sex/marriage thing becomes irrelevant.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:52 am

@radamfi:

Many people with very low sex drives are still interested in romance, simple affection, companionship and the social benefits of being half of a couple. "I" wouldn't choose to marry a man who showed any sort of inclination towards slacking off in the sack, but that doesn't negate my recognition of other possible benefits of relationship. For instance, I have occasionally chosen to continue dating a man who was not a good match for me sexually because I enjoyed doing other things with him, like hiking or talking about books over dinner. I mean, there is a whole range along the continuum from a pure f*ck-buddy to affectionate friend with only occasional benefits.

IlliniDave
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by IlliniDave » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 am

Riggerjack wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:11 pm

Marrying for sex is like buying a car for the free storage unit in the trunk. Yes, it does have several cubic feet of storage, and it's free, but that's hardly the point.
I know a lot of people who view it the other way around :lol: Maybe that's why the statistics don't live up to the romantic ideals.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Dragline » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:04 am

Cue the Georgia Satellites and stories about free milk and a cow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMFMf9cN64U

classical_Liberal
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by classical_Liberal » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:36 pm

@ dragline
LOL, Your video links are always either comic or informational gold mines!
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:13 pm
Even though my marriage was pretty miserable, I agree that there are some inherent benefits that can't easily be duplicated in less committed scenario. However, that still leaves open the question of whether the sum of the benefits available in less committed relationship(s) PLUS the benefits of being single add up to better overall deal.
Personal experience has taught me that committed, but not married is the best of all worlds. However, my current career allows me access to rather deep conversations with the elderly, many of whom have had successful (in the fact that the lasted multiple decades) marriages. Many will clearly state that even great, long-term marriages can have "bad years" (not days or months). I would venture to guess that even the most committed long term relationships, without marriage, would struggle to be maintained after an entire "bad year". Whereas the commitment of marriage is more likely to survive such a long period of difficulty, even if its simply due to the degree of effort required to terminate the relationship. IOW, the more difficult it is to end, the more likely effort is put into fixing or maintaining.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:03 pm

@classical_Liberal:

"Committed, but not married" could encompass a range of possibilities, but my personal experience has taught me that "forever boyfriend" is not best of all worlds for me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I would prefer "married, but not exclusive" to that option.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Dragline » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:42 pm

For the unmarried there are the "Very Good Years": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydcUaTpiHgQ

classical_Liberal
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by classical_Liberal » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:29 am

@7WB5

Fair enough, the title "committed, but not married" encompasses a great many relationship possibilities. Maybe serial monogamy is a better term, but that's not necessarily true either. I tend to take the libertarian/Harry Browne stance (although he eventually married); form relationships that are mutually beneficial and then end them if those circumstances change.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:00 am

@classical_Liberal:

Well, I would note that what Harry Browne might have discovered is that even if you can't imagine a woman who could offer so much value in relationship that you would find it beneficial go so far as to throw down for a ring to sweeten the pot, that doesn't mean that she doesn't exist.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 773
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by fiby41 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:06 am


User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Dragline » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:56 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 7:00 am
@classical_Liberal:

Well, I would note that what Harry Browne might have discovered is that even if you can't imagine a woman who could offer so much value in relationship that you would find it beneficial go so far as to throw down for a ring to sweeten the pot, that doesn't mean that she doesn't exist.
Much of HIFFIAUW seemed to me to to be an apologia (that means explanation, not apology) about Browne's then-recent divorce from his first wife and dysfunctional relationship with his then young child. Years later when he remarried and patched up things with his daughter he admitted that many of the things he wrote at that time about family relationships were in error.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by classical_Liberal » Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:19 pm

@ dragline
Blood runs thicker than water... I get it, and definitely don't treat my family relationships as transient. You can't choose your family (cliche machine activated), but you can choose how you interact with them. This is how I tend to look at Browne's work when dealing with family. OTOH, you absolutely can choose your lover/partner(s) in modern western society. It could be argued this is a bad thing for happiness and life satisfaction, but I take advantage of this freedom nonetheless. If children enter the picture, well, back to blood. (Un)Luckily, this is likely not going to be an issue I deal with.

User avatar
TopHatFox
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:07 pm
Location: NY; 23

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by TopHatFox » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:02 pm

fiby41 wrote:
Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:39 am

Why marriage is a scam
Ding ding ding!

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Ego » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:03 am

Hat tip to both Tyler Cowen and David Brooks, The All-or-Nothing Marriage, How the Best Marriages Work.

https://www.amazon.com/All-Nothing-Marr ... 052595516X

Brooks's column is excellent, contrasting the two models of human development.

The book was just released so I have not yet read it but I like the premise. As Seligman pointed out in one of his books, experts spend most of their time and energy studying the failures, the sick, the problems.... when what we ought to be doing is studying those who are extremely successful to figure out what they are doing right, then teach people how to replicate it.

A quote from the study on which the book is based:

As we have increasingly come to look to our marriages to help us achieve our deepest psychological needs—rather than helping us harvest crops or even just loving us, for example—we need much stronger communication and responsiveness than ever before. More and more marriages are struggling to achieve those lofty standards, especially on top of all of the other stresses in our lives.

However, those of us who succeed in building a marriage that can meet our deepest psychological needs—a marriage that helps us become closer to our ideal self—are immensely satisfying. That is, achieving a successful marriage today is tougher than in the past, while at the same time the payoff for such achievement is larger than in the past.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:16 pm

I ran into my DS28 at the bus depot yesterday. He told me that my ex-husband, his father, had recently been institutionalized (again) due to suicidal depression. By happenstance, just that morning I found myself walking through the neighborhood in which we had lived when we were first married almost 30 years ago. Our marriage vows were very modern and egalitarian, and inclusive of "support for each other's development as individuals."

So, the above strikes me as very Pollyanna-ish. Or, maybe more like "True, but so what?" The average relationship starts breaking apart after only 3 months of the stress of significantly uneven development or power disequilibrium. I agree that "going all in" and striving for self-awareness is key to performing better than average in this regard, but it still doesn't speak to the reality that oftentimes disequilibrium is not just a cycle that both partners would benefit by riding though, but rather a continuing trend that will find you standing in a bus depot 10 years after your divorce, not knowing how to properly name the emotion you are feeling, or not wanting to admit to what extent it consists of feeling lucky to no longer be significantly yoked in functioning with somebody you once loved.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by Ego » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:23 pm

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:16 pm
He told me that my ex-husband, his father, had recently been institutionalized (again) due to suicidal depression.

.... feeling lucky to no longer be significantly yoked in functioning with somebody you once loved.
That's a good point. WHO I yoke myself to is as important as HOW I yoke myself to them. Maybe more important?

He seems to be doing a lot of work on the "who" problem as well. Interesting stuff on machine learning and dating. Look for non-conscious synchrony. You'll like the part about language style matching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS3vBYRYOCw

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage Trends

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:16 pm

Ego wrote:You'll like the part about language style matching.
I watched the video and skimmed the associated paper. Then I attempted to analyze text conversations with my BF based on this research. However, I can't tell whether my relative lack of personal pronoun use is indicative of incompatibility or just poor thumb-typing skills. Also, he frequently uses voice-to-text . IRL, we have an easy time talking with each other, but I have difficulty getting along with him sometimes because he is super-grouchy about the proper way to do things. He says he might end up a lonely old man with a model train collection, and I think he might be right. So, we are compatible in our agreement on this point.

ETA: Seriously, I think the suggested implementation is a bit too geeky and far-fetched. One of the reasons being that even live video-dating does not make a man seem like he is full-size and sitting across a booth from you. I think that is why the very simple dating apps like Tinder are proving increasingly popular. Just enough functionality to make arranging to meet in person sooner rather than later might be ideal. When I first engaged in online dating, I made the mistake of entering into long exchanges of written communication before actually meeting in person with quite horrifying results.

Also, I think the ability to get into synch with anybody in a dating context might be more than a bit of a learned skill. The difference in quality of conversations or simple interactions I have had over coffee or dinner with men I dated in middle-age vs. boys I dated when I was young has been striking. The balance tipped more towards "Where have you been?" rather than "Where are you going?" , and decades of conversations in adult contexts such as job interviews, PTO meetings, directing scuba class, co-operating in cubicles, negotiating for car leases, and all the times we have been around the block in other relationships behind us. IOW, I think the ability to behave or converse in a manner that is pleasant, interested/interesting and affirmative for a period of time, but then make a decision based on other factors is a function of social maturity. People who consciously or unconsciously exhibit a good deal of off-putting behavior if/when they aren't instantly thoroughly attracted to another person will likely not enjoy the process of dating. I sometimes think that the reason why many people stick with unsatisfactory relationships or unsatisfactory work is that they are more put off by the tasks of dating or interviewing.

The modern reality, due to the internet, is such that as a reasonably attractive single woman, I am never more than a week out from spending an enjoyable evening in recreational companionship with a reasonably attractive male peer or even 24 hours out from having sex delivered to me like a free pizza. When I divorced my ex, my final statement was "Regular engagement in sex, social dates, and joint projects or I am done." I am currently engaged in one major project with an ex-lover, another major project and affectionate-cuddly-recreational-social-dating relationship with my BF (who has never been particularly interested in me sexually), and I am free to make arrangements to meet a 41 year old with an 8-pack to discuss the possibility of sexual interaction over coffee next week. I will concede that this sometimes seems more like "confusing mess" than "functional resilient system", but much more happiness-making for me than being locked into a miserable marriage.

Post Reply