People sometimes love the person they marry. You're a retarded frogposter, so this is beyond you, but it is the answer.

>>82687660
You call me retarded, and yet you haven't offered an actual argument as to why marriage should be desirable to a man. Just a descriptive statement of "sometimes people do it", which doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.

>>82687684
>sometimes people do it
That's not even what he said lmfao

>>82687694
Okay. Let's amend it then. "Sometimes people feel love for the person who they marry". My criticism of it being just a descriptive statement and not an argument of any kind supporting the value proposition of marriage still applies. Got anything to say to that, or do you think my criticism is fair?

File: 1000003033.png (32 KB, 640x425)

32 KB PNG

OP, notice how normies cannot defend the legally-binding business contract of marriage, so they lash out with character attacks, or by branding you as unintelligent. This normie lacks an argument, so he simply attacks you, in the exact same way a woman will attack a man for not signing his bank account and assets away via signing a marriage contract. >>82687660

Anyway, OP, marriage is a scam for men. If you look at the data, a man is more likely to pay alimony even if he makes less money than the woman. Divorce courts are blatantly anti-male, routinely invalidating Prenups on a whim.

But let's say all of this was untrue and unsubstantiated. Let's keep it simple. Marriage is a legally binding business contract that says when the wife divorced you, you lose half your money and assets. You also lose a significant portion of your paycheck each month in order to keep her quality of life high.

If this business contract wasn't called "Marriage" no one would ever sign it. What other business contract says "If your partner cheats on you and breaks this contract, you'll be court ordered to pay them monthly."

Statistically, women initiate over 80% of divorces because it favors them massively. Imagine Satan whispering in your wife's ear: "Divorce your husband, and I'll reward you with tens of thousands of dollars." That's reality for most men.

>>82687694
>>82687660
OP explicitly mentioned "tangible" benfits of the marriage, so love is redundant here

>>82687749
Even when it comes to love, I don't see how marriage would enhance it. If that was the case, why do other grand gestures that are essentially "I'll put myself in massive financial jeopardy just to show how devoted I am to you" not similarly perceived as love-enhancing, and instead as pathetic simp behavior demonstrating desperation and low mate value?

>>82687170
A few months ago my retarded incel neighbor barry hung himself outside his 2nd floor window for everybody driving by to see. Don't be like barry. Its not fun being alone

>>82687813
What does that have to do with marriage offering a good value proposition to a man? You can still have a romantic life and a sex life without getting married.

>>82687836
Uhh having a family and not being alone is enough incentive in itself. sex <> love. you need love and socialization or you end up like Barry.

>>82687860
You can have all of that without marriage

>>82687870
You literally cannot unless you adopt some retards kids, and have a lifelong girlfriend (a marriage.) or temporary side pieces/gf's which don't count. Temporary shit is hollow. You need genuine human connection and commitment.

>>82687905
You absolutely can have a long-term relationship and kids without getting married.

>>82687920
Yeah and that shit is pathetic. You fuck over your kids by making them bastards because you're afraid of commitment/messy, and you fuck over your partner by providing a half-ass non-committed love. of course situations can be complex, but if your going into it saying "I want all the benefits of a marriage without actually being married because I'm a selfish asshole." then tough shit. you don't get that because you're a selfish asshole.

>>82687960
>You fuck over your kids
How exactly? What is it that they get out me being married? There isn't really much social stigma left to being born out of wedlock, since it's so prevalent.
>because you're afraid of commitment/messy
I outlined why marriage is a terrible value proposition. You can still be committed to someone without being married.
>you fuck over your partner by providing a half-ass non-committed love
How is not marrying them fucking them over exactly? Is there anything tangible that's missing by not being married? Or is it just being upset at not being given this grand romantic gesture without considering how utterly destructive it is for the man to do so?
>I want all the benefits of a marriage without actually being married because I'm a selfish asshole
What are those benefits of marriage? It seems to me that people simply try to ascribe to marriage the benefits of long-term relationships. So far I haven't been convinced that marriage provides any unique benefit that makes it worth all the disastrous risks.
>you're a selfish asshole
How is it selfish to not want to put your entire life at risk for what amounts to a symbolic romantic gesture?

>>82688143
Your kids grow up without stability is what fucks them over. Having two married parents who conceived them in wedlock gives them a far more substantial support system than otherwise. Look at the effects on children of singles mothers/divorce and you can see this.

>to not want to put your entire life at risk for what amounts to a symbolic romantic gesture?

The problem here is that I don't think you understand exactly what marriage is and what it represents. It is not just a legally binding contract or lofty romantic gesture. It is a social, emotional, and spiritual VOW to another human being until death. From that you gain stability, emotional support, financial support, love, sex, and most importantly you stop being just yourself and become part of a half. you cannot have this in a long term relationship for long before hitting a wall. Eventually you will say "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person." and if you ask them and they agree then that is technically the beginning of a marriage. The vows solidify it. This is why places have common law for people too lazy to get it done legally.

>It seems to me that people simply try to ascribe to marriage the benefits of long-term relationships.

No. you are trying to ascribe the benefits of a long term relationship to a marriage.

>>82688221
I fucked that last sentence up but you get what i'm saying

>>82687170
becuase I have a child and am not a deadbeat like the majority of modern fathers. Also I love my wife and wouldn't want her to be with someone else. Not to mention all the tax breaks. Bottom of the line kids don't like their parents not being together

>>82687170
Marriage only makes sense when you are a religious fundamentalist and are in a society where divorce is seen as absolutely unacceptable.
If you and your wife are in a community where divorcing you means social suicide then the risks get lowered substantially.
However even that is useless when your wife is not a born again Christian because she may fall away.
Here is the thing: marriage only makes sense when you are both born again Christians and are in a fundamentalist congregation and that is the center of your life.
In all other cases it is insane to get married in current year

>>82687660
People who are not born again christians are incapable of love. Whoever says that they are marrying out of love, are almost always marrying out of romantic infatuation. Thats actually not love and has nothing to do with it.
Read 1. Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 NIV

Infatuation is the opposite of that. It is inherently selfish, inpatient and driven by emotion and it often fails and infatuation always passes away.
Love never ends and never fails. It keeps loving even after all emotions are gone and what remains is only suffering.
If you do not love like that, then you do not love.
So dont tell me you married out of love, my little kek, you do not even know what the word means.

>>82688221
>Your kids grow up without stability is what fucks them over.
I don't see what potential stability is granted by marriage. It can be dissolved on a whim, which is additionally incentivized by great financial gains on the women's side.
>Look at the effects on children of singles mothers/divorce and you can see this.
Let's make it clear, you're arguing why it's better for the kids to be raised by a couple who is married vs one that isn't married. So I don't see how this is relevant.
>It is a social, emotional, and spiritual VOW to another human being until death.
But it is absolutely not that in practice. You could argue that it's what the practice was originally about in religious contexts, but we're talking about the secular practice here. I'm not religious. If I am to consider marriage, it would be withing a secular framework.
>From that you gain stability, emotional support, financial support, love, sex, and most importantly you stop being just yourself and become part of a half.
Again, you can have all of that without marriage. That's just what comes with relationships. I don't know how many times I need to repeat that.
>you cannot have this in a long term relationship for long before hitting a wall.
Why? Seems arbitrary.
>Eventually you will say "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person." and if you ask them and they agree then that is technically the beginning of a marriage. The vows solidify it.
Not really, given the divorce rates. I'll be honest, all of this just looks like glorified larping to me.
>No. you are trying to ascribe the benefits of a long term relationship to a marriage.
I take it you meant it the other way around, so that's what I'll respond to. You have to engage with institutions and practices for what they are, not for what you wish them to be. And the fact of the matter is, that my depiction is much closer to reality. I remain unconvinced.

>>82688303
>becuase I have a child and am not a deadbeat like the majority of modern fathers.
You can have a child and be present in their life without being married.
>Also I love my wife and wouldn't want her to be with someone else.
You can love your partner and not want her to be with someone else without being married.
>Not to mention all the tax breaks.
You have to consider the expected value of the financial impact of marriage, which tax breaks contribute to, but the risk of divorce and asset loss contribute to it as well, so much so that it looks like a hopelessly unsound financial decision.
>Bottom of the line kids don't like their parents not being together
You can be together without being married.

>>82688329

>you're arguing why it's better for the kids to be raised by a couple who is married vs one that isn't married. So I don't see how this is relevant.

its relevant because the family dynamic adds to your stability and the child's. Its a mutually beneficial relationship as opposed to non commitment of a parent which is destructive to upbringing and a parents relationship with their child.

>You could argue that it's what the practice was originally about in religious contexts.

I am not. Marriage is not a a solely religious act. It is evolutionarily advantagous. Humans are inherently monogamous creatures, like penguins, seahorse, wolves, owls, swans and monkeys. Marriage is the term we coined to legitimize that pair-bonding. If it were purely religious why would atheistic states like china or the ussr have instilled it into their societies? Obviously it must have its advantages in comparison to random breeding cycles.

>Not really, given the divorce rates. I'll be honest, all of this just looks like glorified larping to me.

This is what I really don't understand. Yes it IS larping. The entire idea of marriage is conceptual. But it is in place to avoid the very consequences of marriage that you detest (divorce, intimidation, exploitation.) if there was no marriage or formal contract of commitment, and we just considered everything a long term relationship without bound, then all humans relationships could be exploited for some gain and then abandoned without consequence. yes divorce still happens, but it is WRONG thanks to marriage.

If you don't want to get married then don't anon, idgaf. But understand that it is beneficial because it is an option and PROMISE of pure commitment that long term relationships cannot not provide alone.

>>82688352
>You can have a child and be present in their life without being married.
>You can love your partner and not want her to be with someone else without being married.
>You can be together without being married.
Yeah but it is significantly harder to do this when not commited through marriage. You are thinking of this too autisticly and I am not trying to make that an insult. Your child will also grow up hating you for not commiting to the woman you claim to love.
>You have to consider the expected value of the financial impact of marriage, which tax breaks contribute to, but the risk of divorce and asset loss contribute to it as well, so much so that it looks like a hopelessly unsound financial decision.
All this tells me is that you are insecure and don't believe you can stay with someone, or you have trust issues and cannot put trust in your partner

>>82687170
the real move is to marry a homie you know that won't divorce you for the benefits

>>82687813
that's fucking hardcore. hardcore barry, imagine driving by and fucking seeing that shit

>>82688564
Bus full of 5th graders rode by and saw it first. Fucking rough dog

>>82687740
>Statistically, women initiate over 80% of divorces because it favors them massively. Imagine Satan whispering in your wife's ear: "Divorce your husband, and I'll reward you with tens of thousands of dollars." That's reality for most men.
yea, anything else? i divorced my wife, she sent me nudes to try and get me back, and i won in court. the judge gave me everything i wanted. but i suppose when you're not fucking ugly like most of the retards here, things tend to work out a little better for you

>>82687905
lmfao, no dumbass. most of the robots here just need sex every once in a while. do you think they give a fuck about commitment? cum deep inside a vagina raw and you're fine for a good amount of time if you're self sustaining which most of the robots here are quite self sustaining considering the torment they deal with daily, fucking retard

>>82688612
You think they're still going to get pussy when they're 50 and all alone bc they were too autistic to see the value of human connection? No. they're going to fucking off themselves like my retarded incel neighbor barry. Retards like you are why they think pussy is god instead of some unfulfilling pocket it actually is

>>82688527
(1/2)
>its relevant because the family dynamic adds to your stability and the child's.
Sure, but I still don't see how marriage aids in that.
>Its a mutually beneficial relationship as opposed to non commitment of a parent which is destructive to upbringing and a parents relationship with their child.
You're still committed. Just not married. I don't see what kind of commitment marriage introduces outside of just being a contract to fuck yourself over financially with. Again, it can be dissolved for absolutely nothing, and is dissolved very frequently. It's not some great bringer of stability for a couple's relationship.
>Marriage is the term we coined to legitimize that pair-bonding. If it were purely religious why would atheistic states like china or the ussr have instilled it into their societies? Obviously it must have its advantages in comparison to random breeding cycles.
Marriage has also transformed through time. Just because the practice exists in secular states doesn't mean it wasn't just a carry-over from more religious times. Also in the past it was much harder to dissolve a marriage. Practically impossible in many cases. Regardless of how one might feel about everything that that would entail, at least arguments about it introducing some sort of stability would hold water. As opposed to today, when that's clearly not the case. Also keep in mind that what once was advantageous may not be anymore. Due to the societal changes and the changes in the practice itself.

>>82688740
(2/2)
>This is what I really don't understand. Yes it IS larping. The entire idea of marriage is conceptual.
Okay, so what I understand from this is that there really is no tangible benefits. It's all just symbolic gestures that don't hold any positive real world consequence.
>But it is in place to avoid the very consequences of marriage that you detest (divorce, intimidation, exploitation.)
But it doesn't prevent that. In modern times it actively enables some of the worst exploitation that can come from any kind of relationship. Men kill themselves over divorces, and it's not just because they're sad they aren't with their wife anymore. People aren't exaggerating when they call it divorce rape.
>if there was no marriage or formal contract of commitment,
But it is not that. You have to engage with institutions for what they are. And what marriage is is a "pretend" contract of commitment. Playing out a fantasy that isn't actually real, but the negative consequences of which are very real.
>then all humans relationships could be exploited for some gain and then abandoned without consequence
That's exactly what marriage facilitates.
>yes divorce still happens, but it is WRONG thanks to marriage.
I don't see divorcees being socially shunned. So calling it "wrong" as if it holds any moral weight is again just pure fantasy.

>>82688740
>You're still committed. Just not married.
Nigga, no you are not in practice. Your idea of commitment is irrational. Marriage is the real commitment. That is the point. You cannot have a long term relationships of years and years and suddenly say "you are obligated to me." if you are not also married. The commitment is not inherent in the relationship, until it has been consentually agreed upon. That is the marriage.

>>82688542
>Yeah but it is significantly harder to do this when not commited through marriage.
I don't see why. Marriage can be dissolved for nothing on a whim, and is greatly incentivized for the party bringing less wealth into the relationship (almost always women). So I don't see how it ensures some greater level of commitment. It's literally just larping.
>All this tells me is that you are insecure and don't believe you can stay with someone, or you have trust issues and cannot put trust in your partner
I have enough faith in my love for someone to nod need government approval for our relationship. I also don't think that not wanting to play russian roulette is a sign of insecurity, but instead just being rational. Things happen in relationships. You love a person and things are good today, something may happen along the way and in ten years it won't be the same anymore. I can hope and have faith that it will be alright, but I'm also pragmatic and understand that this is simply not the case in a very large amount of cases. I don't think my relationships are above or more special than those of other people. Frankly I'd say your view is overly idealistic to the point of being detached from reality, which is rather immature, when coupled with the fact of not taking into account the actual value proposition of such a contract.

File: 1000003377.jpg (66 KB, 940x1024)

66 KB JPG

>>82688753
OP, you have woken up. You recognize that "marriage" is a legally binding business contract that steals hundreds of thousands of dollars from men and gives it all to women. Women are financially incentivised to divorce their husbands and reap the immense rewards. Judges throw out prenups on a whim, because prenups stop the male to female wealth transfer.

The next blackpill is realizing that everything is for-profit. Divorce extorts men for profit to benefit women. Men are legally considered second-class citizens in America. Don't believe me? Just look at Circumcision. It's a multi-million dollar profit industry. Why are doctors allowed to mutilate male infant genitals to resell to medical testing companies for $800 each (plus the $1000+ profit from the fifteen minute circumcision) BUT this practice is ILLEGAL FOR FEMALE BABIES and has been for OVER TWO DECADES NOW!!

Men are legally second-class citizens in America, full stop. If a woman can't pay to feed and support her kid? She gets benefits. If a man can't afford to feed and support his kid via child support? He's fined, charged, driver's license suspended, and ultimately imprisoned. Debtor's prison exists for men, but you'll never find a single woman in America imprisoned for debt.

>>82688811
All you're doing is just asserting "marriage is the real commitment" as a truism, and when I'm asking you for anything concrete to demonstrate that, you're unable to give me anything. You just repeat the same assertion in different elaborate ways. Do you at least understand why it's not very convincing?

>>82688753
I'm not sure how to respond to you at this point because either you're baiting or you're genuinely retarded and unable to see that marriage is more than a business transaction. You are choosing only to see the worst case scenario of being wed to someone, and how that can be detrimental, instead of looking at the bigger picture of marriage as a whole and its benefits. YOU are the one refusing to engage with institutions for what they are. if you aren't willing to take on some risk to have real stability, support, and commitment then that's on you anon. Have fun with the bullshit of uncertain flagrant relationships for the rest of your life.

File: Screenshot_20251001_205517.jpg (884 KB, 1079x1074)

884 KB JPG

>>82687170
no one has figured out how to enjoy the company of a women up to old age, most old fags lie about being in a happy marriage if you enter their home for a week you will see all the resentment towards each other behind closed doors women are difficult to live with, if you decide to take that challenge be ready for failure 99.99% fail to achieve true happiness with their SO

>Could someone convince me why marriage is something I should want?

Why?
Basically every normie these days agrees that the idea of marriage being something you "must do" is outdated.
Go on facebook or tiktok or whatever and you will find no shortage of posts saying that you shouldn't be ashamed of being single, or that marriage is just not for some people.
Any relationship comes with risks. Some people want to accept those risks and build a family together because that's what they want from life.
Other will agree with you and say that life is more fulfilling without being tied down.

This isn't the medieval age. No one is going to accuse you of witchcraft for being single. You live in an age where you are least likely to be judged for life choices.

>>82688886
So to reiterate, in your view marriage doesn't really offer much in terms of tangible benefits, it's just a larp of undying life-long commitment, that people engage in to feel good about themselves. And then a massive percentage of them are hit with a divorce which can be filed for no reason and financially raped without lube so hard that a percentage of them will kill themselves over it. What a great sacrament.

>>82688861
Because it is bound by law and God. There are definite consequences to defying the promise you make to your partner. You think every woman is out to divorce you. This is stupid. Some women want life partners. Some women want YOU as a life partner. Don't you think a marriage to one of them would be more valuable than a long term relationship legitimized by nothing. Don't you think this would incentivize them to stay with you? make the best decisions for you instead of just themselves? Make the best decision for you and their children? Don't you want to be daddy, husband, father, instead of mommy's boyfriend anon? Be serious.

>>82688940
Yeah its literally that if you want to be a cynical fuck, but its better than offing yourself alone in a basement because you were too retarded and autistic to try.

File: 1000002883.jpg (32 KB, 421x369)

32 KB JPG

Keep in mind there are two types of marriages.

"Marriage" is a legally binding business contract that unjustly steals millions in income and assets from men, and financially rewards women for betraying and abandoning their partner, along with using any means of manipulation necessary in court (for example, falsely claiming the husband was emotionally or physically abusive, with no burden of proof necessary.)

"Marriage" as a concept and sacrament is a testament to love and cherish a partner for a lifetime.

THESE TWO ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. DO NOT LET WOMEN AND NORMIES CONFLATE THE TWO. DO NOT GET MARRIED. DO NOT SIGN THE LEGALLY BINDING BUSINESS CONTRACT KNOWN AS "MARRIAGE".

>>82688949
>Because it is bound by law and God.
If you think it's some religious necessity, then we won't see eye-to-eye on this, as I'm not religious. But the law doesn't force you to marry someone you date. And if it did, then law should be down-stream from morality, not the other way around.
>There are definite consequences to defying the promise you make to your partner.
No, there aren't. Quite the opposite. One of the spouses can get huge benefits from the divorce.
>You think every woman is out to divorce you.
No. I just recognize the expected value of the financial impact of a marriage, which takes into account both the probability of a divorce and the total value of assets lost. It's what you do when betting.
>Some women want life partners. Some women want YOU as a life partner.
You don't need to be married for that.
>Don't you think a marriage to one of them would be more valuable than a long term relationship legitimized by nothing.
It's legitimized by the amount of time, effort, and money I invest into it. I can do that without telling my partner "here, have this way to legally utterly financially rape me, perhaps for years to come, in the case you decide to leave me for any and no reason". I don't think that's a healthy expectation of your partner. If we didn't call it "marriage", I'm sure more people would recognize how insanely abusive placing this demand on a man is.

>>82687170
i think marriage is cool because it's a promise to one another :]
it seldom works out perfectly but i like the idea

>>82687170
>social status
>the pursuit of love
>tax breaks

File: 1000002954.png (305 KB, 1031x1085)

305 KB PNG

OP, I'd like to offer a legally binding business contract.

Flip a coin. If heads, you get minor tax benefits. If tails, you forfeit half of your bank account and all assets to me.

If I offered you this contract, you'd be laughing your ass off. You'd say "fuck no, I'm not a total retard, I'm not signing that shit."

YET THOUSANDS OF NORMIE MEN SIGN THIS CONTRACT EVERY SINGLE DAY IT'S CALLED "MARRIAGE"

>>82689034
You can make a promise without signing a legally-binding contract that ensures you'll get raped if the relationship dissolves.
>>82689043
>>social status
I don't think people outside of religious communities care that much about the marital status of others.
>>the pursuit of love
You can pursue that without marriage,
>>tax breaks
The only actual tangible benefit identified so far. But again, you have to look at the expected value of the financial impact of a marriage, which also includes the probability and the cost of a divorce. And then it looks like an utterly unsound financial decision.

>>82689027
So, you think the best option is to wholeheartedly give yourself to a person in a long term relationship (i'm talking years and years), providing time, effort, and money Invested into it without any legal binding of commitment. You think the other person should then feel obligated to be bound to you thanks to your contribution without any formal statement of commitment. And that this approach is more beneficial than marriage because it negates risk of being obligated to share half if you split?

>>82689092
>I don't think people outside of religious communities care that much about the marital status of others.
have you ever met a woman?

Okay have you scored with two really hot chics that technically might not either be prostitutes at the same time, without another dude? What levels of dude were involved are there? This is all 0 to 10 but not one of those like your dad is a 6 he's only listening in. Or like sort of a he's listening in and you owe him rent

File: 1000003431.png (666 KB, 1080x1327)

666 KB PNG

>>82689101
Yes, in fact.

>>82689101
>So, you think the best option is to wholeheartedly give yourself to a person in a long term relationship (i'm talking years and years), providing time, effort, and money Invested into it without any legal binding of commitment.
You could come up with a legally-binding commitment, that actually would be a good value proposition. My argument isn't that it isn't possible, just that marriage is atrocious.
>You think the other person should then feel obligated to be bound to you thanks to your contribution without any formal statement of commitment.
They can do whatever they want. If they value our relationship, we will grow together. If they demand that I give them a legal way to financially rape me for years in case they decide to leave for any and no reason, then I would find it so unreasonable I'd struggle to even come up with words to describe it. We'd just have to go our separate ways in that scenario.
>And that this approach is more beneficial than marriage because it negates risk of being obligated to share half if you split?
Precisely. If they want some grand display of commitment, we can arrange something that doesn't involve the "financially raping me for years" part.

>>82689140
You know think about things her way. Depending on how many hot chics you scored with at the same time. She's technically going to get angry if she got left out.

>>82689140
>>82689167
Man, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about or how it's relevant.

>>82689145
I legit feel sorry for you then. You are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of, sucked dry, and left at the drop of a hat when a better man comes along willing to commit. A stupid investment.

>>82689158
I legit feel sorry for you then. You are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of, sucked dry, and left at the drop of a hat when a better man comes along willing to commit. A stupid investment.xx

>>82689092
what i believe isn't to invalidate people who don't like marriage, i just like it because i find value with the concept
there are potential consequences but i know i'd never be a person to screw over my partner once we get married!

>>82689203
I don't see how not being married would facilitate that. If anything, that's exactly what being married would facilitate.

>>82689212
Being married makes it harder to separate, and is stigmatized socially. Men do not want to marry divorced women in fear of being divorced themselves, keeping her more bound to you. Also it is split in half. Meaning all you provide in those many years leading up, which builds up substancially, is not out the window should she leave suddenly. She may get a large chunk, but you are entitled to your half you put in. Without marriage she gets whatever you provided to her in confidence. Its a double edged sword.

>>82689245
>Being married makes it harder to separate
No, it doesn't. From the woman's perspective, you can do it for no reason and come out of it with massive financial gains.
>and is stigmatized socially
It really isn't. If anything, it's more stigmatized to stigmatize divorcees.
>Men do not want to marry divorced women in fear of being divorced themselves
There's plenty of chumps to go around. Many won't even ask the woman about her romantic history for fear of coming across as insecure.
>Meaning all you provide in those many years leading up, which builds up substancially, is not out the window should she leave suddenly.
Yes, it is out the window. If I make more and contribute more financially, it's out of the window. Not only that, it will now all go to the person who has hurt me and who I most likely detest.
>She may get a large chunk, but you are entitled to your half you put in.
She wouldn't have contributed half. So this is just meaningless meandering.
>Without marriage she gets whatever you provided to her in confidence.
I have no idea what this means.
>Its a double edged sword.
No it's not. For the person with less wealth, which is overwhelmingly going to be the woman, as I explained in the OP, divorce is a phenomenal deal.

>>82687170
One of the earliest authors to express misogyny was Hesiod. He decried women as part of man's accursed lot, which was to be afflicted by women's wrongs, but still need them. Men required women to manage the home, enable an easier lifestyle, and most importantly, bear their children. He contrasted this state unfavorably with the gods, who could create life parthenogenically: Without marriage or copulation.
For Hesiod, misogyny was a way to make sense of man's condition in the larger scope of meaning. Readers familiar with the Christian ethos will take heed to understand that the Greek gods were fundamentally indifferent to humanity. Greeks prayed, not to worship a god's goodness, but to influence the gods to spare them the hardships they could bring. This is why the gods were often identified with natural phenomena. This is why Hesiod could easily describe women as an affliction.
Anyway, Hesiod was wrong. His privileged station in society allowed him to never think otherwise. But those of us privileged to be reading this on a computer live in a society advanced enough to consider alternatives. Love is irrational. Nobody in this thread, so far, has considered the cost for most women getting married.
More than losing some money, you could be with a retard who both beats you, steals your money, and destroys your body to bear many children. It would be disingenuous to say most men suffer worse.
There are definitely whores in this world who see no higher aim than to extort a good man out of their money. That's for sure, and I won't deny you that. I've met them, and they made me sick. But apart from this extreme, there are many women unlike those who congregate here, or on Reddit stories. Whatever anecdotes you have on hand are impervious to the truth: They exist. And many people fall in love, sincerely enough, irrationally so, and marry them. Changing conditions have allowed us to see women beyond a necessary evil that we endure transactionally.

>>82689299
This reasoning is irrational and unrealistic. You have some weird victim complex of a situation you have no experience in and are drawing assumptions from it. Go outside and meet real people who have actually experienced the divorce process before drawing conclusions. its not as clear cut and biased against men as you assert. if it was why would any rational man agree to it? Divorce is expensive and a burden for both parties.

>>82689398
The reasons for marriage are many, but seen from the women's perspective (assuming she isn't your batshit gold digging caricature), it's proof that you're liable to her. If we're the representation of our influences, women are surrounded by stories of men fucking them over. Just as you know stories of women fucking men over. And being left with three kids and no income is devastating, no matter what your sex is. This is just one reason, but people in love have others.
You're right that love is incredibly uncommon. A couple that is equally liable to each other, and delivers on their wedding vows, is very hard to find. Most people shirk their responsibilities. But I'll betray myself and use an anecdote from my personal life: There's always a chance. It's been five years since she chose a balding currycel and we live happily with three pets.

>>82689398
>you could be with a retard who both beats you, steals your money
You can divorce for any and no reason. So marriage doesn't facilitate any of that. Except for stealing of money through divorce, but then it's legal, so it's not actually theft.
>and destroys your body to bear many children
Again, tangential to marriage. Look at what marriage is. It's a legal contract. We are discussing the terms of that contract. Nowhere in that contract is it stipulated that your partner is allowed to beat you or have kids with you. Also I like how you dismiss the enormous financial loss the wealthier party will suffer in case of a divorce, not to mention potential alimony payments, as "losing some money", when that's actually the part stipulated by the marriage contract. You're being very disingenuous in your portrayal.
>And many people fall in love, sincerely enough, irrationally so, and marry them.
Nothing you've presented gave a good argument as to why marriage should be desirable for a man. Just some irrelevant bullshit about misogyny, which has fuck all to do with the actual value proposition of marriage.

>>82689428
None of this justify demanding that someone grants you a legal avenue to destroy their life. It's sick and abusive. If it wasn't called "marriage" with all the surrounding tradition, more people would recognize it for what it is.

>>82689416
I see you completely ran out of arguments and are jumping to personal insults. Thanks for playing, I suppose.

>>82689482
its only destructive if you choose the wrong woman to marry.

>>82689492
no, you just said no to all of my arguments and argued with your retarded misinformed opinion so i'm giving up on a rational discussion.

>>82689497
You don't treat any other legal contract this way. You don't just grant someone full legal right to financially rape you for years with no recourse for any and no reason. Why would you treat marriage any different, if not for the cultural delusion surrounding it? At this point I'm not even asking about what possible tangible value there is in marriage that could justify any of that, as by this point in this thread it's clear to me you people aren't able to name anything of the kind, now I'm just wondering about the double standard.

>>82689517
>no u
ok

>>82689465
My overall point is that marriage doesn't need to be a good investment, or a situation with "winners". If there are "winners" in your relationship, your relationship sucks. Every time. That's a zero-sum game that defies the purpose of a relationship. I brought up Hesiod because he reduced women and marriage to these ends. We are developed enough to consider our haphazard feelings of love when we marry, illogical as they are.
You're right, I do not particularly care about the financial loss. I've seen it firsthand how your life can be utterly destroyed by marrying a whore, but to some extent, you have to know how to pick them. It's an ugly truth, but putting the unfair onus to have discretion on the single man, before marriage, will save you a lot of trouble.
But I'll humor you further. The financial risk is big, you can lose in the end. You are RIGHT. It's as bad finance as Christmas spending. But you are wrong at the same time, because Christmas spending is awesome, even if you spend more than you should. It's why kids have happy memories. My happy childhood memories were practically only on Christmas.
The guy whose life I watched get destroyed by divorce: He is the most financially astute man I know. He's retired at 55 after losing everything to a woman who cheated on him mercilessly. Yet he married again. His second wife is also a bad investment, and their current marriage is shitty, but for a time, she made him feel in love. Other people feel in love and don't have marriages as shitty, but what do I know? You can be happy knowing you're right.

>>82689550
Okay. So you agree with me, that it's a tremendously unsound contract. You don't benefit anything form it as a man. The usually touted benefits are just the benefits of romantic relationships in general. You only open up the avenue to be horribly abused and taken advantage of. And the women demanding that you sign it are somehow not labeled as horrible abusers. It's a crazy world out there. I think what people need to understand is that what marriage is today isn't the same as it was 100 years ago. It has completely transformed. It should instead be viewed as just another legal contract and evaluated by the same standards.

>>82688221
>It is not just a legally binding contract or lofty romantic gesture. It is a social, emotional, and spiritual VOW to another human being until death.
Now answers me this: are women prone to upholding vows? To me, marriage is clearly a male ideal imposed onto women, that goes against their own (women's) nature. There's a reason they initiate most divorces, they're incompatible with long term commitment, loyalty, reciprocity, etc

>>82687170
I'm Australian and already in a defacto relationship. I love her and she loves me. If you think your partner is not going to stick by you or those risks are real then you aren't against marriage you're against being in that relationship

>>82687170
You'll get married if a woman really likes you. Otherwise there's no point in teaching you. Just be content on your own.

>>82687170
You're only thinking about benefits, not the eternal bond between two souls that marriage symbolize.

>>82687170
Someone needs to pay the divorce lawyers, its a really
Lucrative business