The marriage strike is a media term for the recently acknowledged sociological mass action social phenomenon of men choosing to avoid legal marriage. The marriage strike refers to a behavioral trend, usually of men, living within the Western world. Media commentators examining the marriage strike believe that after a considered cost-benefit analysis, the legal contract that is modern marriage no longer represents an attractive option for men living in the changed legal, economic, sociological, cultural, and demographic environment.
In Britain, the number of weddings in 2006 was the fewest since 1895, with the proportion of people getting married falling to the lowest level since 1862, when marriage records began.
Appearance in the Media In 2002, 'National Marriage Project', published their annual report on the state of marriage in the United States, The State of /Our Unions. The 2002 report was subtitled: Why Men Won't Commit - Exploring Young Men's Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage. This study broke new ground in investigating men's role in the equation of contemporary marriage.
The report found that young men were reluctant to marry. Ten main reasons for their reluctance to marry were cited. The first 3 reasons were: * 'They can get sex without marriage'. * They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation'. * 'They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks'.
'Marriage Strike' After the publication of the Rutgers report, columnist and radio broadcaster Glenn Sacks, and Dianna Thompson, the executive director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, published a July 5, 2002 article in the Philadelphia Enquirer, titled Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike?.Versions of this original article were then disseminated widely.
An excerpt from the Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks article:
'Kathleen is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirty-something software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan Syndrome--they refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up"'.
'However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31 year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment--wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again"'.
'The US marriage rate has dipped 40% over the past four decades, to its lowest point ever. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system which is hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike"'.
'"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk"'.
Rutger's 2004 Marriage Report
In a 14 July 2004 article for Intellectual Conservative, retired professor of psychology and commentator Carey Roberts wrote a follow up article, this time on the findings of Rutgers University's 2004 The State of Our Unions report.
In his 2004 article, Carey Roberts stated:
'When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years -- that’s two million potential husbands -- declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis'.
'News of the Marriage Strike first began to settle into our national consciousness in 2002. That year, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University interviewed sixty men to probe their attitudes about marriage. And to their surprise, they discovered that some of these men were flat-out opposed to tying the knot. So this year, the Rutgers researchers decided to launch a full-scale national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. These men represent almost 10 million of the nation’s most eligible bachelors. The report was just released last month'.
'Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon -- the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern. But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as “hardcore marriage avoiders.”
'Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report: “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy…There is also a mistrust of women who may ‘trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill. Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce…They fear that an ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and that 'men have more to lose financially than women' from a divorce."
'Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework -- or even do away with -- the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride'.
'Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found'.
Distinction *The Marriage Strike is not 'organised'. It does not have 'leaders'. The marriage strike is a sociological example of . Mass action refers to situations where large numbers of otherwise isolated individuals independently come to similar conclusions, at the same time, and then act simultaneously on those conclusions in a seemingly coordinated action. A bank run is another example of mass action at work.
*The marriage strike also differs in how individual men prefer to apply their individual strike against their legal system. **A man may continue a day-to-day marriage like relationship with a partner, and choose to simply forgo the legal contract aspect. **A man may choose to completely disengage from all relationships. **Taking advantage of a globalized world, a Western man may decide to pursue marriage and long-term relationships, but overseas, within a different legal jurisdiction, and a different cultural climate.
Key Elements *Observers of the marriage strike hold that the combination of no-fault divorce, and prevailing prejudices within Western family law applied in divorce courts that are substantially more likely to favor the wife over the husband. This disadvantage extends to rulings over primary child custody, child visitation rights, ownership of the family residence and other shared property, child support, and alimony.
*It has been observed that this situation enables a woman to unilaterally divorce her husband, financially pauperize him, while simultaneously depriving him of the right to see his offspring.
*Observations have been made that since the divorce rate is high, and that women are more likely than men to seek no-fault divorce, then such divorce scenarios are a likely outcome of marriage, and therefore, men cannot be blamed for choosing to side-step a marriage contract. Many women with financial assets or with high paying salaries are also avoiding legal marriage.
*There have also been numerous studies showing that approximately 76% percent of no-fault divorces in the United States were initiated by women -- usually against a man who works a blue-collar job, and for subjective grounds such as "emotional unfulfillment", rather than any actual wrongful conduct of the man himself.
*Divorce is a $28 billion-a-year industry with an average individual case-load cost of about $20,000. Furthermore, it is an unquestionable fact that those men most unable to afford adequate legal representation, are most likely to financially suffer the greatest in resulting judgments and settlements.
*Such evidence gives rise to allegations that many women are unfairly reaping a financial windfall through divorce at their ex-husband's expense, and therefore, men should simply avoid this risk through avoiding marriage altogether.
*Commentators have conjectured that marriage poses absolutely no utility to a man whatsoever, in that traditional positive benefits of consortium, financial security, and child custody have been entirely revamped and eclipsed by reforms to original marriage laws.
*Likewise, external commentators have observed that other social changes, such as the opportunities presented by the advent of and the sexual revolution now represent equal or greater benefits to the lifestyles of non-married persons.
*Commentators hold that changes in family law have created a one-sided situation that unfairly benefits women in both marriage and divorce, to the man's detriment.
Legal Causations of Emerging Western Marriage Strike The Financial Penalty of Divorce *Marriage, while being publicly understood as a union between man and woman, is also a legal contract. Divorce then is considered a legal contract that is broken, and legal consequences come into play. There is a division of the previously shared financial assets of the married couple. Assets are divided for distribution to both parties by a court order. Typically, a woman will receive 50% ownership of the couple's assets on the divorce decree. These assets include property, housing, vehicles, savings, and investments.
No-fault Divorce *No-fault divorce is divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require fault of either party to be shown, or, indeed, any evidentiary proceedings at all. It occurs on petition to the court, typically a family court by either party, without the requirement that the petitioner show fault on the part of the other party. Either party may request, and receive, the dissolution of the marriage, despite the objections of the other party.
Father's Limited Access to Children After Divorce *In the Western world, family law is structurally more likely to award primary child custody to a child's mother in the case of divorce. This legal situation results in fathers often having very limited access to their children after divorce. In an attempt to balance the rights and needs of the mother, father, and children, courts may award a couple joint custody of their children after divorce.
Alternatives to Traditional Marriage Cohabitation Without Marriage *Strong evidence suggests that Western men are choosing to cohabit, and not actually marry. Living with a partner presents a legally safer alternative, with marriage's benefits to both parties, a reduction in the penalties found within marriage, and without the hostility of divorce.
De-facto Law/Common Law:
*However, it should be noted that family law can also be applied in some nations (eg, Australia and Brazil) to de-facto relationships, also called common law marriages. After a certain length of time, the breakup of a non-marriage, live-in relationship can legally result in a man losing his assets to his 'de-facto wife', as considered by the law.
Prenuptial Agreement *A prenuptial agreement, commonly abbreviated to 'prenup', is a contract entered into by two people prior to marriage. The content of a prenuptial agreement can vary widely, but commonly includes provisions for the division of property should the couple divorce and any rights to spousal support during or after the dissolution of marriage.
*All marriage dissolutions (divorces) have property distribution plans, either decided by the married parties, or decided by a divorce judge using guidelines written by state law. So technically speaking, all marriages have either a "prenup" decided by the marriage partners, or a "postnup" decided by a judge.
*Prenuptial agreements are rarely recognized by law in case of divorce. Prenuptial agreements are, at best, a partial solution to obviating some of the risks of marital property disputes in times of divorce. They are not the final word.
*Prenuptial agreements cannot specify zero amounts, can expire after time depending on state law (examples include Donald Trump divorcing Marla Maples before five years expiration, Tom Cruise divorcing Nicole Kidman before ten years expiration), and must be written properly to withstand court challenges.
*Prenuptial agreements are frequently challenged in court. For example, film mogul Steven Spielberg and actress Amy Irving had a prenup, written on a restaurant napkin, that was thrown out by the divorce judge, and Amy was awarded $100 million. Fashion models Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook had a prenup that was written so well Mr. Cook commented later that he would use Christie's prenup in his future marriage, as Peter was only awarded $2 million.
Consequences of the Marriage Strike *Men's marriage strike is contributing to profound social changes in the West, increasing the pressure upon policy-makers to protect men's human rights in the equation of marriage & family. In mid-2008, the 2006 statistics on British births and marriages were released: 'Since 2006 the proportion of children born to married British parents is thought to have dropped below 50 per cent for the first time. They are being outweighed by those who are part of cohabiting couples or single-parent families. It comes as data from the Office for National Statistics show that women are having more children than at any time since the 1970s'.
*The same day, the Daily Mail also reported on the latest set of numbers: 'Official figures indicate that only a minority of children of long-standing British parents will grow up with a married mother and father. Most will be part of cohabiting or single-parent families. In contrast, only one in 50 children of mothers who were born in India before they came here had unmarried parents.'
*On the issue of less children being born into two-parent marriages, in 2006, Ann Widdecombe, a former Tory Home Office minister, said: 'After the death of the extended family, we are now seeing the death of the nuclear family. "The long-term consequences are bad for everyone. A well-ordered society is based on the bedrock of marriage, otherwise we will have increasing social disruption.'
Projected Future Consequences of the Marriage Strike for Western Women Just as wider society is being shaped by Western men's disengagement from marriage, the marriage strike also represents a profound challenge to the lives of Western women.
*After the 2005 release of a government-commissioned study of contemporary social trends, the British government observed the future shape of British life: 'The report said that by 2031 40 per cent of men and 35 per cent of women aged 45 to 54 in England and Wales would not have married. "At the age of 45 to 54 the proportion of people married is projected to fall from 71 per cent in 2003 to 48 per cent in 2031 for men," a spokesman for the actuary department said. "For women, the figures are 72 per cent to 50. "The proportion of those never married by 45 to 54 is expected to rise over the same period from 14 to 40 per cent for males and nine to 35 per cent for females."
*In reaction to the publication of the same 2005 report, Jill Kirby, of the Centre for Policy Studies, stated: "The serious decline of marriage is a very worrying development. Cohabitation is an inherently fragile partnership. A lot of women in their forties and fifties will be living alone, perhaps having had a relationship or two but never having been married, with all sorts of emotional and financial implications. The question is: do we want these predictions to come true or do we want to try to recover some of the virtues and values of the past?"
*The Telegraph's article on the government report also observed that: The marriage projections have great implications for Government policy, as well as significant sociological effects. For example, terms such as mother-in-law and father-in-law will become far less common and there will be far fewer hefty divorce settlements in favour of women.
hi of course i am a man.the woman s adultries and the subsequent dirty things is the main detrimental factors behind men s reluctance to marry.they can easily get sex and everything without these bad head ache. And they get the main thing peace and security.this is good for men.
Guest
3. 04-09-2010 08:39
Marriage isn't the only way that women can use the law to take advantage of men. Sexual harassment laws are routinely exploited by greedy, vindictive, unscrupulous women to steal money from men and from corporations. Once a complaint is made, a man is considered guilty until proven innocent or guilty by accusation alone. Feminism, under such euphemistic slogans as "women's rights', has succeeded in dismantling such basic constitutional protections as the presumption of innocence and equal treatment before the law --- all under the guise of 'protecting women'--- very suspicious
Guest
4. 28-11-2010 00:14
I am a 33 year old graduate male with a good career, own two apartments with one rented out, tall etc. I refuse to marry as there it is just not a good deal for men any more. Anyway, I had to put up with a gender biased towards women education system, bitching women and work and being politically correct all day. The last thing I want is a woman at home as well. My parents have a good marriage, but times have changed and I do not even want to live with a woman let alone marry one.
Guest
5. 28-11-2010 06:33
TO NATHAN: not all women are bitchy, bossy, and annoying. And many of us don`t really like this whole ultra-Feminism speech but we can`t protest it cause it would be going against pioneers of equal rights and freedoms. You just need to find your "rare pearl" , don`t give up searching for it :)
Guest
6. 10-12-2010 03:10
What's funny is that most Western men still allow family and society into pressuring them into a lifestyle they know they will resent later. How many middle-aged, bitter anal married men do you know? I know A LOT! Yet society keeps trying to convince non-married men they will be happier and live longer as a married man through bogus studies. I will adopt but don't need a nagging, bossy woman who will never be happy despite how advantaged she becomes in the western world!
Guest
7. 11-12-2010 20:36
To Suzy,
You say "....many of us don`t really like this whole ultra-Feminism speech but we can`t protest it..." and there lies your problem. You can protest it and until you do, men like me will not marry. Attitudes and laws need to change. I have already found a "rare pearl" but I was strong enough to resist marrying her.
Guest
8. 15-12-2010 08:50
If you haven`t lost her yet... marry her! It is a truly magical rite of passage for us girls :)
Guest
9. 21-12-2010 14:15
@Suzy: It’s not ultra-Feminism – just plain simple feminism (promoted as “the best thing since sliced bread” for women) which goal: “women’s equality” reminds just too much of “people’s democracy”. There is a democracy or there is none There is an equality or there is none Don’t be deceived – feminism was never about equal rights and freedoms – just check the sources for yourself
@Nathan: “rare pearl” – there is no point in wasting your time and energy on searching for it – as you can see even a girl who clearly sees there is something wrong believes she can’t protest and it doesn’t even cross her mind that in healthy society it would be her obligation to protest
Guest
10. 21-12-2010 15:03
@Suzy: Society tells you that marriage is only about her right (vide your “rites of passage”) and even if she is a very decent woman once something in the vehicle called relationship breaks (and that’s inevitable in any relationship) instead of trying to fix it she will be encouraged by EVERYONE to blame it on him, take all the remaining parts and leave.
We don’t hate women (well, not all of us) – my best friend is a woman who would like to marry one day, has a boyfriend she loves (and the feeling is reciprocated)… but I am not sure if I would advise him to marry her. I know it sounds cruel as she is a great woman and I know that until I am around (or any “fatherly” figure for that matter) they will be fine and will have very respectful relationship. And no, it’s not because male opinion is better – it’s because it provides balance
Unfortunately “fatherly”, male opinion (and even more so: male presence… existence) is laughed at at best in the society, the only opinion that counts are her emotions (supported by law, media and other institutions), the only rights that count are hers and without having a balanced view someone will be hurt. At first just men, then their children in the end women like you Suzy or Nathan’s “rare pearl”, who can’t understand why men don’t want to get married anymore...
Guest
11. 25-12-2010 06:42
@ Greg , calm down dude, and thanks for a good laugh - reading you speak of me in a third person..
You have interpreted my 1 sentence a little weirdly here. All I`m saying is : those women that bitch, demand, command, refuse to fulfill their natural roles, disrespect, and abuse in any sense of the word are in the wrong. Curiously, being a woman myself, I sum this phenomena up as " ultra-feminist". And protesting it... like how? Shout out random slogans? Sign petitions? I speak out instead- when ladies close to me misbehave.
I might be totally wrong, equating it to ultra-feminism. It might just be about human nature. Men have to put up with some wicked women, just like us , ladies we get confronted with cowards , cheaters and wife beaters...
Let`s not pick virtual fights! My initial comments was just to say : " Lets not give up on each other! " And that is one of the reasons I support marriage. Because it allows one more obstacle , to both men and women to throw the towel and walk away. It`s like we don`t try to fix problems and compromise and work on our relationships : we just move on. We solve our problems by leaving, instead of working it out. Especially sad when kids are involved..
-just sayin`
Guest
12. 26-12-2010 04:29
Suzy. believe me, the giving up part. its happening already. the numbers don't lie. if not a fact, that the numbers are a serious indicator of sorts.
this is what we general men face everyday: doomed if we do, doomed if we don't.
we say a word, we're masogynist if we don't, we are weak, broken men whatever we do, we are wrong, dumb, neanderthals. and even right now, im sure im being deemed a "bitter 40 y/o virgin dumped by some b*tch.. and still living with his parents, whose yet to meet the right woman that belongs to that special 1% of society"
yes it remains true that not all women are bad, but this issue is not about the 1%, it's addressing the threats of the 99% pose to an average person like myself and mr. Nathan are up against every waking days of our lives.
what's frustrating is, i can attest that most men, want a healthy relationship and the ability to hold his child and love his child just as much as any woman. so this is a hard decision for the cornered men to take by silently opting out of marriage, but it is the only choice available at the moment, with all matters pressing towards the fault of Male for all things his fathers before him did.
so now this same majority of male just say "fuck it, im going to do what it want, eat this steak, go fishing and be a douche bag by leaving the woman if she's leaning towards marriage or anything thereof"
call this a skewed misconception or anything you will, but again, the facts, the numbers are out there, its real, and it's happening all around us everyday. it is a sad sad time we live in and my sympathy extends to both men and women. even more for the next generations... if there were to be any.
Guest
13. 28-12-2010 00:39
yeah right Suzy. maybe the "2 apartments, good career" tickled you, aye? Women nowadays just look at material possessions, so they can reap it with a divorce. So, take care, nathan.
Guest
14. 31-12-2010 00:40
I found my rare pearl. The best years of my life. Then she turned on me.
The worst years of my life. Even without the court system, and no financial hold over me, she was very cruel.
How can I trust any of them again?
Guest
15. 03-01-2011 17:49
@Vin:
So marriage as opposed to a civil union risks financial assets , is that it? Thank you for sharing your stand on the subject, I would appreciate if you could elaborate more.
@Jim :
Then she wasn`t all that rare after all. I too once thought to have found the love of my life, until I caught him cheating with a mutual friend. He simply admitted being fearful of monogamous relationships... It hurt A LOT , as he was the man I pictured myself growing old with. But we must continue and search for our connecting piece of the puzzle. Its not the number of times that we fall, but the number of times that we get up - that matters.
May year 2011 bring pure,sane,comforting love to all of us.
XOX
Guest
16. 08-01-2011 15:36
In 2011, for an individual of high worth or of high income, there is NO REASON TO GET MARRIED ! Marriage will lead to divorce 50% plus of the time. The higher earner/worth individual could be ruined or best case lose a portion of their estate. Family courts are setup to protect the "poorer" spouse, and brutally punish the breadwinner.
Specifically, the following will occur: 1) In equitable distribution states, 50%-80% of ALL the assets brought into and acquired during the marriage, could be given to the "poorer" spouse. Bye bye house(s), cars, cash, 401k, ect....
2) Alimony - This is money paid to the poorer spouse in order to "maintain the lifestyle" of the poorer spouse. These payments can be 30-50% of the breadwinner's gross earnings, and last A LIFETIME as seem in US states like MA. This is a form of modern day slavery, but many people do not know about such horrific laws. In addition, spouses of 2nd marriages in some cases, have to forfeit their earnings and assets to the ex spouse to maintain their lifestyle (in MA) !
3) Child Support - If you made the HUGE mistake of having 1 or more children with your ex-spouse, you will pay a 30-40% or more of your gross income. Most of this money is "free spending" money for the ex spouse, and little goes to the child.
4) Legal fees - Divorce lawyers are trained for conflict. The more a divorcing couple fights and goes to court, the more money spent on legal fees. HUGE amount of money can be lost to the deep pockets of lawyers.
ALL HIGH EARNERS AND THOSE OF HIGH NET WORTH MUST STAY AWAY FROM MARRIAGE, OR ELSE BE FACED WITH DIRE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED !
Guest
17. 12-01-2011 20:07
Why can't you protest it, Suzy? Lots of men supported feminism in the beginning, and many of the pioneers of feminism are just as disgusted by what it's been perverted into today as many men are. To rephrase your comment so that it says what it means, you CAN protest against it, but you choose not to. To paraphrase Edmund Burke and others, "The only thing necessary for ultra-Feminism to win is for good women to do nothing."
Guest
18. 16-01-2011 03:21
Women are no longer ladies - they are wimmin. The one thing men should not be doing for these women is providing them sperm. Men should only donate to a known couple. No anonymous donations taht could end up in teh wombs of a feminazi. Without us they can't breed. We can kill off their thinking in one generation if we act together.
Guest
19. 26-01-2011 00:26
Good article. I'd say U covered most of the reasons why men are increasingly avoiding marriage. I'd also like to add that many women's magazines consider marriage a dictatorship of the wife and give advice on how to get the husband to do what U want. Men see this garbage & think "Why would I want even want a wife". I'd also like to point out paternity fraud remains legal throughout most of the US and Britian. http://sxmodels.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-men-increasingly-avoid-marriage.html
Guest
20. 27-02-2011 05:37
Don't get married. Once you do, your wife has no reason to be civil, and even less after you have kids. Family court is hell. Don't co-habitate, it's the same as being married in the eyes of the court. Anyone who thinks that their spouse isn't capable of lying on the stand, or lying to the police, is an idiot. No matter how blatant it is, your ex is NEVER going to be held accountable for anything she says or does.
I'm sure some woman is going to go: Well, you should have known she was evil. Really, no way to tell, and why is it that women get protection in court, but men do not?
Or say: not every woman is like that. Yeah, right. When she wants out, wants to move on, or wants to get even, "fair" is not part of the equation.
Or say: You're just bitter from a bad divorce. I've spent a lot of time in family court over the last decade, and have seen it over and over: Women cry on the stand and laugh about it in the hallway.
Women have nothing to fear from marriage. Men, look at the divorce rate, and realize you have everything to lose that's important in your life, and little to gain except stress, poverty, jail, and decades of grief.
Guest
21. 05-04-2011 04:33
Nathan, go abroad and look for a traditional woman. She'll believe in marriage and love more than these mostly low-quality Western women. Non-Western women are more likely to appreciate what you do for them. I've lived in America, France, Taiwan and China. By far, American women, generally speaking, are the most shallow, materialistic, egomaniac, money-grubbing creatures ever.
While in Taiwan, the women dress well, act humbly, talk sweetly, and believe in a loving relationship. Avoid Western women!
Yes, there may be a few good ones in the West, but they still would not be able to compete with a good one from abroad! I hear Brazilian women are awesome, too!
Guest
22. 02-06-2011 02:09
I have a kid out of wedlock and I told my babies mother parents that if we got married we would have been divorced by now. We've had our issues WHEN WE LIVED TOGETHER. But even though I don't live with her anymore we still talk and have sex. And yes I tend to my daughter like a regular dad.
Weigh the risk and the reward. Why take the risk if you already have the reward. Why fix something if it's not broke. You can have all the things of a typical marriage and peace of mind without signing papers and letting the government in. Marriage is no longer ideal for men or women any more. And not even cohabitation. Always be aware of common law. And it always works better if she has her place and you have yours simply because it maintains respect and keeps that I gotcha mentality of women down.
It should only be expected for power to be abused. Keeping the finical aspect of the relationship separated as much as possible helps keep things smooth. Matter of fact nothing of money should be factored in unless it's about the kid. So yes avoid marriage and cohabitation at all cost.
Guest
23. 02-06-2011 02:25
To Nathan and Jon, I have gone out the country so I could speak on travel abroad and finding a broad, lol. BTW I'm not the other Greg I'm a different guy (no pun to the other Greg that has been posting). This is my second post on this but I'm passionate about the subject.
This is regarding traveling abroad for love. No matter what her culture is, she will act up when she is married and comes to America. True it's not ALL WOMEN but why take the RISK. Why RISK what you've worked hard for to possibly have it taken 10, 20 or more years down the line because of traditionalist values that no longer apply.
And believe me women abroad know the rights and legal advantages women in America and other Western societies have. So it is best to avoid marriage altogether. If you give someone power over you expect respect to go out the door. Don't even marry her in her country. If she can't come back to your country with you either you stay there or leave her there but don't get the government involved. If you didn't need the government to meet up and lay down with each other then you shouldnot bring government into it. And that is all a marriage is no matter where it takes place. And please understand a pre-nup means nothing. And donot come with this security for women bs. It is her job to provide her own economic security and pay her own way in life. This is 2011.
And outside of economics not being married and no cohabitation maintains peace in the relationship. She can visit and spend the night. But you keep your place and she keeps hers. When she get's buck and starts to argue with you, you got to be able to be out the door in 10 mins. And you can't do that with having all your stuff in the same place.
Guest
24. 09-06-2011 20:52
I've enjoyed reading the comments here. I am currently getting a first hand education of what the "family" court and our current divorce laws have in mind for men. My main question is that if both sexes are supposed to be equal in the US, then why are equal responsibility not part of the equation. After my experiences I am a firm believer in the marriage strike and will be advising any and all men of the movement. I personally have nothing against women but simply refuse to subject myself to such an unfair legal contract ever again. If I had realized what it would mean before I got married, I would have never done it. I do believe in equal rights amongst the sexes but if and only if that also means equal responsibilities including abolishment of things like alimony without equal compensation or sole custody of children.
Guest
25. 27-08-2011 13:36
I'm shcoked that I found this info so easily.
Guest
26. 03-02-2012 14:52
Reading all of you younger people writing about the bitterness and brokeness of marriage in America is very sobering.
No fault divorce was paid for by Porn magnate Hugh Hefner and supported by radical feminists in an attempt to "free men" from marital fidelity and "free women" from marriage and family.It was designed by the "free love" (sex) people like Margaret Sanger. How foolish and detrimental has that been (especially to the children)? It is reflected in all of your comments and in all the crime statistics of our modern world. All the "technology" in the world will not put Humpty together again. It has to start with us.
Guest
27. 19-02-2012 15:25
The reasons are touched upon in the thread of comments above and the bottom line is crystal clear: given today's laws and cultural circumstances, no man should ever marry. Virtually without exception, the contemporary institution of Western marriage offers men benefits that at best trend toward zero, and yet carries extraordinarily high risks and liabilities that are specific to men and men alone. To Suzy's point, there very well may be good, even wonderful, woman to be found, but that abstract prospect does nothing to obviate the deep, inherent structural anti-male bias of Matrimonial Law itself.
