This is the question I have been asking men around California that I meet at various blogger and pundit meet-ups for dinner. One dinner guest I sat next to the other night told me he had gotten married last week. We were discussing marriage at the table and I turned to him and asked why he had gotten married. “Can you name one reason a man should get married?” I asked, trying somehow to be polite, but probably failing miserably.I am happy to oblige. In fact, I can even provide five reasons that start with the letter C.
He thought about it for a minute and said “because the woman wants to and he will lose her if he doesn’t.” That sounds more like blackmail to me than a reason. Last night, at another event, I asked other men if they could name five reasons a man should get married. There was silence and then a discussion about the war against men and if that was true or not.
- Christianity: extramarital sex is sinful and it is better to marry than burn.
- Children: children require a marital structure for a healthy and stable upbringing and men who want to continue their line are well-advised to marry. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
- Civilization: we have an obligation to those who founded and built our civilization to continue it. Marriage is a vital foundation of civilization.
- Contentment: a happily-married man is more content, more healthy, and likely to live longer than a never-married man, a divorced man or a widower. And even an unhappily-married man has the benefit of viewing death as a sweet release.
- Courage: marriage is a real risk, both emotionally and financially. It is stupid and dishonest to pretend otherwise. Men are not women, to live life in a risk-averse manner, and shunning even the possibility of marriage due to the risks it poses is a cowardly, even unmanly, stance. This is not to say that all marital risks justify the taking, of course, that would be ludicrous.
And remember, marriages do turn out well, and not infrequently. You may find your wife to be your Biblical helpmeet or your life-partner in crime. Women may blow up most failed marriages, but they end 80 percent of 40 percent of all first marriages. That means your marriage has a 2 in 3 chance of avoiding even the possibility of the androsphere's horror stories.
42 comments:
The institution of marriage in and of itself is good. But when you have birth control, extramarital sex, no fault divorce, the judicial system stacked up against the man, men acting like women and women acting like men...that's a recipe for disaster.
Dating is fun and games...marriage is serious business and should be taken seriously. Don't get married just because you're ego is so wrapped up in a woman that you'd fall apart if she left. Chances are she'll leave anyway with that attitude whether you are married to her or not.
I would prefer to get married...but I'd rather be single if no woman who is worth getting married to crosses my path.
*your....before the grammar police comes
Do you agree with Ron Paul that the government has no place in marriage? And if so, is there any reason to not simply live out the idea by only making a commitment before God and the church and ignoring the government's role altogether?
Yes. No.
@Booch
And if so, is there any reason to not simply live out the idea by only making a commitment before God and the church and ignoring the government's role altogether?
I agree with your sentiment...but isn't there the issue of common-law marriage? Even if you bypass the gov marriage license, the gov may still consider you legally married after you have been together for x months (or some other such criteria like cohabitation).
Good article. It's good to see people fighting for marriage and recognising how important it is. I'l link to this in my next Best of the Manosphere on the topic. My first one:
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/manosphere-importance-of-marriage/
@PC Geek
In the U.S. it differs state by state. But regardless, my impression is that if a man is in some sort of long term relationship involving shared assets, if the woman wants to take the man to court and screw him, she can. And her ability will be based on factors like who the judge is as much if not more than it will by the law. So not getting legally married is not a work around for point number 5, but it's probably better in most cases.
Beyond that, for me as a Christian, as I read the Bible, involving secular government in any sort agreement among people who are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven is sinful. With the exceptions of those cases where it is necessary (such as getting a building permit).
Excellent, Vox. Thank you for this.
I'll find out in a week whether my baby is a boy or a girl. Lately, I've been hoping more for a girl, because I have great trepidation about what sort of future a young man has in this world. But you are right: men are not women, and they should not be risk-averse. With this in mind, I think I could be more sanguine about the future of my son.
On the whole Christianity thing, it's best to concentrate on LEGAL Marriage VS. CEREMONIAL Religious Marriage. Marriage may be good, but "marriage" (mirrage?) in its current form is an abomination. It's corrupted.
As for getting married because, men are supposed to be risk takers: only a fool puts all his money on the double zero.@Booch Paradise: Yes, the goverment should absolutely stay out of marriage, and frankly building permits are mostly a bunch of shit too. The goverment should not be able to tell a man what he can and can't build on his own land.
I don't know about all states, but in Colorado, we still have common law marriage, which doesn't require you to submit yourself to licensing by the state. Of course, they still claim jurisdiction if you end the marriage.
(Yes, I am married)
"On the other hand, living in fear is no way for a man to live his life."
Risk averse men remind me of Nietzsche and the 'last man' trope that is bandied by the right, weak willed, limp wristed, haters of pain and lovers of conformity.
Are MGTOW and Peter Pan types that eschew marriage an expression of The Last Man?
BTW, Vox, Reason #4 appears to incomplete.
Dr. Helen just gave her blog an update:
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2012/10/27/yeah-shaming-single-men-will-really-work/
@alphamission
Agreed on building permits. However, I don't recommend trying any sort of major construction without one, nor do I think that doing so would be the Biblical thing to do.
1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right"
As there is no law requiring a legal marriage for cohabitation I don't see not getting one as a violation of this verse. BS building permits on the other hand would be something that this verse would require Christians to submit to.
Well since marriage doesn't exist anymore, what we are really talking about is some dubious financial entanglement with a harlot. And if you have to look for reasons, it's just because you are trying to justify an emotional decision. An ancient whoremaster like J. Howard Marshall didn't need any reasons. For the rest of us there are only reasons against.
Stickwick said...
BTW, Vox, Reason #4 appears to incomplete.
Oh, sweet irony...
Vox: I think you've got it wrong. Keeping in mind that the proper comparison is between getting married and a long-term committed relationship:
1. Suppose the country was taken over by the Libertarian Atheist trolls of the world, and Marriage as a legal category was eliminated. People could do whatever they wanted at their churches and tell others that they were married, but the law was silent on the matter. Would a church-married Christian couple be sinning because they were not legally married? If so, I tend to think that as the modern legal institution of marriage hardly merits the name, Christians need not be part of it to be in a state of grace.
I suspect that it did not occur to the ancients who laid down the rules that there might come a time when there was something called "The institution of marriage" which was no such thing. If it had, they might have been a little more careful about prescribing marriage as a remedy for sin.
2. I agree that children do best with a stable, two-parent family. If getting married creates an incentive for wives to sever the family to obtain filthy lucre, then marriage is not an advantage for those who would have children.
3. Marriage is vital to civilization. Marriage 2.0 is not. Whether getting "married" in the modern sense tends to improve the prospects of the institution of actual marriage seems to be at least an open question. Can you give any reasons why it would?
4. Roissy has cited studies that men are better off with LTRs than marriage. I sometimes find his sociological writing a bit suspect, but this has always been my impression as well. The men in marriage-like LTRs are happier than the ones who are married. And marriage-like LTRs with children seem to split less than marriages with children.
5. Courage is not a virtue in itself. Or rather, the difference between courage and foolishness lies in the end for which risk is faced. In any case, to say "One of the reasons to get married is to demonstrate courage" is silly (maybe this isn't quite what you meant). I agree that refusing to get married due to the risks is cowardly, but only if there are benefits to getting married, and one faces down the risks in order to get the benefits. If there aren't benefits, refusing to get married because of the risks is simple prudence.
I married because although she had flaws, she has the heart of Christ. Yeah girls. I won't go into why I know it. But it's the God's honest truth.
Just a thought on marriage and benefits. All kids know without a doubt the man who lives in the house and interacts heavily in their lives is Dad. Son's, respect Dad. Daughter does too because she is treated as a son with unvarnished truth.
Thanks for the interesting post Vox, you make some excellent points.
I don't think it should be ignored that lots of marriages actually do work out alright. Not perfect, but what do you expect when two sinners live together.
If 40% of first marriages fail then 60% don't, and there is plenty of data on what makes a marriage partner a bad bet. You are right, life is risky and there are no guarantees, but marriage can be made much less riskier than 40% fail rate just by being careful who you choose.
I do understand why some men regard the risk as too great, but I think in many ways the manosphere probably over states the risk, although I don't think they overstate the dangers. Still, life is a series of trade offs and can never be risk free.
Nice post Vox. I don't regret getting married. Family vacations playing board games with Mrs and kids on vacation. Priceless. Younger kids laughing at big brother wiping out on the snow. Yes you understand.
Jason, yes it is a risk, but worth it if you choose well. Peace out.
Courage or lack thereof has nothing to do with men's avoidance of marriage. It's a cost/benefit analysis that comes up WANTING for men, so we opt not to take the huge risk with a low reward; it doesn't make SENSE to do that...
Lol and the best reason lawyers need to get paid! Without the blood of men to lubricate the slaughter machine those attorneys might not be able to pay on their student loans.
And what real man wouldnt stand up and take a turn on the 50% Russian roulette?
+1 to cost/benefit analysis.
Also, the "If 40% of first marriages fail then 60% don't" argument is flawed because it only looks at percentage rather than percentage+effect. For example, imagine playing Russian Roulette for $10,000 with 1 bullet and 5 empty chambers. Not a good bet, right? Okay, now increase the number of empty chambers to 99. Guess what - still not a good bet. Sure, you have a 99% chance of "winning" but the result of a loss is so disastrous that even a 1% chance of losing makes the bet unattractive to all but the stupid or the reckless.
"I want to know if it's meant anything," Forlesen said. "If what I suffered--if it's been worth it."
"No," the little man said. "Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Maybe."
Gene Wolfe, "Forlesen"
@ Anonymous @ 10:36,
that's a bad analogy, or bad numbers. using your Russian roulette gun, the gun @ 40% has 2 bullets in it. the gun with 5 empty chambers has one bullet in it or is at 16%. your other gun does not even exist, and even if it did, it does not figure into the argument because no marriage today has a 99% success rate.
percentage + effect? this is pointless because your screening criteria applies to both. there is always a result/effect from every decision or action we make. if you do not get married, there is an effect, and it can be catastrophic just as if you do get married.
an unknown, but likely, 60% chance at a successful marriage is better than a known 0% chance if you choose not to get married.
frenchy
Just having a true shit moment. When I asked for mercy. I got it. I just want to pay it up.
Only the strong survive.
@Dr. Helen's post: "I wonder in today’s anti-male climate, whether there are financial and legal reasons that a man would want to marry."
_________
VD, your reasons are all good and I agree with them, but your five have to do with honor. Dr. Helen asked for financial and legal reasons, and I see very little in terms of finance or law, baring marrying a millionaire/billionaire woman.
Marriage, for me, is a major no-go.
I was born in a ghetto. I was raised in a slum. I went to war and was shot at, bombed, pissed upon and shat upon, took a piece of shrapnel to the groin that's left me sterile, all for the GI Bill and the death of Bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead, I have two years left of college, and I'm not going to roll the dice on a marriage, a marriage that would make all of my sacrifices worthless, a marriage that would cause me to tumble right back into the ghetto after CS and alimony rendered my check a stub. Is rather stack my money and leave it to my relatives, than get married, get hit with the "I want kids", okeydoke, then watch her walk away...
Trust said..
VD, your reasons are all good and I agree with them, but your five have to do with honor. Dr. Helen asked for financial and legal reasons, and I see very little in terms of finance or law, baring marrying a millionaire/billionaire woman.
This was the question being addressed:
Can you name one reason a man should get married?
@Toby
Fair enough.
Notice that among Vox's reasons there is only one that is a personal benefit to the man: contentment. Yes, it is a real benefit of marriage, no doubt about that. Women need to realize that all the other reasons for men to marry are about duty and sacrifice. It's as simple as that. If women aren't prepared to respect their man's adherence to these, they shouldn't get into the marriage to start with.
While the above points all apply to women (except perhaps Courage*), women have several reasons for marriage that are direct benefits to themselves:
1. Protection: men are much more willing to protect a women for whom they have made a significant life investment.
2. Resources: ditto with the above. A married woman need worry far less about how she will remain "competitive" in the workforce, or keep up with the demands of a modern society because she always has her husband to fall back on.
3. Social respect: a woman who can secure a man's commitment is respected and even envied by her peers.
4. Aging: A family to surround her and honor her as she ages. Aging spinsters have it tough, unless they manage to attach themselves as the Wise Aunt to someone else's successful family.
5. The wedding: Let's face it--most women dream about their wedding for years, love the drama that surrounds it, and will remember every detail of it for the rest of their lives. For men it is mostly a big ordeal to get through. (Although, if the guy is cool enough, he gets a few of his own perks. For me, it was a chance to get my old bandmates together for a jam session, and we were honored to have several other extremely talented musical buddies of mine for the rest of the music.)
*Of course we know that with the current social order, women do not risk much in marriage. They can back out of the deal with minimal cost, and take most of the man's resources with them--and not even incur much social shame these days. "You go girl! Give that loser the boot." Even among Christians these days, whenever someone in my social circle divorces, people generally rush to the woman's defense--"I'm sure he was a control freak, or he was emotionally abusing her."
Legal marriage vs. marriage in faith is a false dichotomy because of overlap.
Even if you don't have the government mandated certificate, your matrimony will be "recognized" by the courts for all of the corruptions that come with legal marriages.
Church only weddings are good because the participants are more likely to have an understanding of what marriage means, will be better suited and better matched over the course of their lives. But if you think such ritual prevents the state from getting involved should things go south, think again.
I think it is good to emphasize and seek a partner who embraces the state-free wedding, but for relational compatibility and personal reasons of faith alone. Thinking you'll avoid society's tendrils of law by opting out is ignorant. She'll get your children and her child support plus half your property whether or not you had a legal document.
If I had a son (I have 3 girls) I would absolutely advise him against marriage, especially in California. The no-fault system is stacked against him, and incentivize women to divorce. Even considering marriage is best for kids, which I wholeheartely agree with, women have no problem breaking up their children's home and eliminating their father (except she'll cash his check every month) becuase she's not haaappy any more. There's an unstudied women's midlife crisis going on and it happens between 37-41 when women blow up marriages. In today's environment, a man should NEVER, EVER marry. If he want's kids, hire a surrogate and egg donor. In California today, there's a 75% chance he'll be divorced anyway, but at least he'll have his kids.
None of these are reasons.
All of these are liabilities constructed by a fem-centric reasoning for men to comply with. Since their own solipsism is their first point of mental origin, women can't (be bothered to) fathom the male experience so they have to create reasons for for them to comply with the feminine imperative, because for them it is the only correct imperative.
Thank you for this post. This post comes as a relief for those of us who have gleaned great insight (and will continue to do so) from game, yet who, because of Christian beliefs, cannot/will not fully embrace the PUA lifestyle.
Perhaps we might develop an exoteric-esoteric classification of game? That is, those whose primary concern is to acquire bedroom experiences would be of the exoteric variety. However, those who primarily seek a reaffirmation of traditional gender roles and a rightly ordered approach to reality would be of the esoteric flavor. Of course, the latter would still garner an increased interest from women (as they most deservedly should), but this increased interest from women would be only incidental.
Perhaps this is a needless classification more befitting Scholastic theology than game. However, if such a classification has already been articulated and developed, I would like to read about it.
1. Christianity
Christian marriage does not exist anymore. When it existed, you married and you were sure it was for all your life. Christian marriage has no divorce. Now we have a glorified cohabitation blessed by Church and State.
2. Children. This is not a benefit for a man. The question was about reasons for a man to marry. Besides, maybe you don't have children. And, if your wife divorces, you can't do anything about that and this marital structure disappears overnight.
3. Civilization: This is a benefit for civilization: not for a man. The same civilization that has separated millions of men from their kids and their assets. You don't have any duty to a civilization that only sees you as a tool.
4. Contentment. A happily-married man is more content, more healthy, and likely to live longer than a never-married man, a divorced man or a widower. Being divorce rates above 40% and rates of happiness in marriage very low (if you want), this is the best reason not to marry.
And even an unhappily-married man has the benefit of viewing death as a sweet release.
What is this: a joke?
5. Courage Courage is not a benefit for a man. Courage is not a good reason to do a thing. You do it for a reason and you have courage to endure the problems and the risks. If courage was a good reason to do things, all men would drive dangerously while commuting to job every day.
Is this the best Western civilization can come up with to justify marriage FOR A MAN? Because it seem pretty weak to me. A bunch of fallacies, non-sequiturs, veiled appeals to man up and sacrifice for others. Don't sin, think about the children and the civilization, don't be a coward (nothing of this is a benefit). And the only think that is a benefit: you'll be more happy in the unlikely event your marriage lasts and it is happy.
It shows how marriage has been emptied of benefits for men for the last two centuries.
happiness in marriage very low (if you want)
I mean: if you want I provide some statistics.
For #3 in the OP...
This is an appeal to antiquity and assumes the intrinsic goodness of civilization in general or at least your civilization.
Or... Not if the world would be fine without it.
Maybe it would be better.
(Done). By the way, this is a really interesting site. Thanks for the work put into it. I'm trying to figure out things that would help me have a godly marriage (christian).
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.