Cheap sex is making men give up on marriage

[AJ Dual]

A person I know has a 30 something son.  His girlfriend got pregnant.  He wants to get married, but she is reluctant.  Apparently, her parents were divorced and she was put through a lot as one of the kids.  His parents have been married for decades. 

My take from that is part of this might be the kids of divorced parents being reluctant to jump into something that made their parents and them unhappy. 

I don't know... I suspect it's more of a wash, if you could compare that number of couples or individuals 'avoiding marriage' to people staying married, because kids coming from divorce who did get married might be just as likely to stick it out and not want to create a ton of havoc simply because they're not "happy" or "in love" anymore.

Although I can agree coming from a divorced family could also "normalize" divorce too for currently married people. It certainly removes the potential for social pressure or stigma from your parents if they are divorced too.

[MillCreek]

Single custody is almost unheard of, and the courts try very hard for 50/50.  If custody is 50/50, there will rarely be child support. 

You may well have joint or 50/50 custody for things such as decision-making, but the child(ren) still primarily reside with one parent and thus have primary residential custody.  And in those situations, there is child support awarded.  This is the typical arrangement for Washington, for example.  I get involved in these situations at work, and for the past several years, I cannot recall seeing a situation in which the child(ren) evenly split the time living with the two parents.

[dogmush]

You may well have joint or 50/50 custody for things such as decision-making, but the child(ren) still primarily reside with one parent and thus have primary residential custody.  And in those situations, there is child support awarded.  This is the typical arrangement for Washington, for example.  I get involved in these situations at work, and for the past several years, I cannot recall seeing a situation in which the child(ren) evenly split the time living with the two parents.

It must be a state by state thing.  Most of the custody arraingments I see, assuming the parents are within 50 or so miles of each other, are like 3 days a week at one, and 4 days at the other.  (mon-thurs, and fri-sun, usually)  Extra time is made up on holidays and or summer vacation.  Perhaps my snark was unwarranted and Florida really is on the leading edge of divorce equality.

[Scout26]

It must be a state by state thing.  Most of the custody arraingments I see, assuming the parents are within 50 or so miles of each other, are like 3 days a week at one, and 4 days at the other.  (mon-thurs, and fri-sun, usually)  Extra time is made up on holidays and or summer vacation.  Perhaps my snark was unwarranted and Florida really is on the leading edge of divorce equality.

Not only is it state-by-state, but also divorce-by-divorce.  In Illinois, custody is always "joint", unless one parent is an addict, in jail, or some other reason they shouldn't be near their kids.  However, the parenting time is normally sent to a 3rd party lawyer for mediation, before the rest of the trial, to see if you can come an agreement (and the mediators push hard for agreements, stating that if you don't agree they will enter a motion as to what they think it should be be.)  Otherwise, you can argue your reasons in front of the judge and he won't be happy and can do whatever he wants as far as dividing up time, holidays, costs, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know... I suspect it's more of a wash, if you could compare that number of couples or individuals 'avoiding marriage' to people staying married, because kids coming from divorce who did get married might be just as likely to stick it out and not want to create a ton of havoc simply because they're not "happy" or "in love" anymore.

I think you're assuming that an unhappy marriage is just as difficult for the children as the divorce would be, and that the marital problems won't be worked out within the marriage.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I think you're assuming that an unhappy marriage is just as difficult for the children as the divorce would be, and that the marital problems won't be worked out within the marriage.

Having been the joyful child of multiple failed relationships, I can safely say that when it's not working, it sucks for the kid major big time.
That split was the best thing ever.

[Jocassee]

Aside from all the things mentioned herein, my biggest concern is that a huge number of millennials (and whatever comes after millennials) are not actually seeing healthy long term relationships being modeled *by anyone*. Not parents, friends parents, people at church. It ain't being done. And I'm not talking about long term non-marital monogamy, either. I'm talking about multiple, often double digit numbers of people who drift in and out of their lives.

Needless to say, many of these kids are not well adjusted or suited for productive society, nor will their children be.

[Perd Hapley]

Having been the joyful child of multiple failed relationships, I can safely say that when it's not working, it sucks for the kid major big time.
That split was the best thing ever.

OK, but don't a lot of people say just the opposite; that the divorce was "the worst thing ever," and they wish their parents had stayed together?

[Pb]

This is an excellent book about the topic:  "Men on Strike"

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

[AJ Dual]

I think you're assuming that an unhappy marriage is just as difficult for the children as the divorce would be, and that the marital problems won't be worked out within the marriage.

Having been the joyful child of multiple failed relationships, I can safely say that when it's not working, it sucks for the kid major big time.
That split was the best thing ever.

I guess I'm not talking about an "unhappy marriage" in the context of fighting or alcoholism or abuse etc. in that case, splitting up and getting out, and giving the kids some stability is definitely better, or at a minimum orders of magnitude "less bad". I'm talking about just "meh" where you're not happy or in love, but everything is fine, or both spouses are doing a decent job of hiding "quiet desperation".

OK, but don't a lot of people say just the opposite; that the divorce was "the worst thing ever," and they wish their parents had stayed together?

I'd say when it's miserable/fighting/abuse constant stress and tension and the kids get more calm and stability out of the split than staying, it's "better".

It's in my scenario where there's nothing "bad", just no joy or nothing "good" going on, and everything is boring and civil and functional, that the divorce is the "worst thing ever" to the kids. 

So I'm wondering if there's kids of divorce who are now married, and aren't "happy" but won't divorce because being unhappy, but nothing majorly wrong being too frivolous to create the chaos of a divorce. The parent or both parents "taking one for the team" and forsaking their own happiness to give the kids stability and security.

[Perd Hapley]

FWIW, I'm not advocating that anyone remain in a situation where they're actually being abused.


I was just listening to some of Albert Mohler's "Briefing" podcasts, and he mentioned a study that said high school kids were also giving up on dating. Well, not really, but they apparently don't go out as much as kids used to. And, across the ocean, ethnic Europeans aren't replacing themselves. This kind of thing is why "the death of the West" has become a stock phrase.

[BlueStarLizzard]

*shrug*

There are so many different scenario's that contribute to what is an unhappy marriage, especially because you have two people involved and there are a lot of types of abuse, some of which are largely invisible and those are some of the worst.

Obviously, if the two people married cannot even function in the same house, it's better for everyone if they split regardless of who's at fault. This is what I grew up with.

However, I also do think that sticking in an unhappy marriage, even one which is too all outward appearances is functional isn't the answer either and I don't think it's really better for the kids. Kids pick up on these things and learn from these things. Yes, divorce is scary, but growing up and thinking that a "good" marriage includes being quietly miserable isn't really a great thing either.

Ultimately, though, we are looking at this from the wrong side whenever we discuss marriage from the perspective of divorce. I don't think trying to go backwards in how we as a culture deal with divorce is any kind of answer. I think we need to spend more time on promoting good matches to begin with.

[Perd Hapley]

Obviously, if the two people married cannot even function in the same house, it's better for everyone if they split regardless of who's at fault.

I'm not talking about your personal history; just the situation you've outlined above - I will suggest that the best solution for most troubled marriages is for the couple to seek some kind of help in being more giving to one another. The best kind of help is found at the foot of the cross. And no, I'm not talking about just going to church, or other such outward things. And, yes, I know that so-and-so tried it, and it didn't take in their case. I know.

(And to repeat myself, I'm not suggesting that abused women should keep going back for another boxing match. That's why I said "most troubled marriages," not all of them.)

I think we need to spend more time on promoting good matches to begin with.

I agree on the goal you've set here. I'm going to suggest the way we get there is to model good matches for children, so they know how it works. (Yes, that can be difficult, but I don't think there's another way. Some things don't have a short-cut.) Then, encourage the kids to do the standard "get a diploma/degree, get a job, and get married before you have kids" routine. That makes them better "matches." Again, those things aren't always easy.

[zahc]

Then, encourage the kids to do the standard "get a diploma/degree, get a job, and get married before you have kids" routine.

Why? because it's been working so well? It hasn't been working well at all. Based  on the actual data, rather than conventional wisdom, we should be encouraging young people to get married earlier and younger.

[Perd Hapley]

I didn't say people should wait to marry. I said they should have kids after they got married. Who said they should put off marrying?

[White Horseradish]

Then, encourage the kids to do the standard "get a diploma/degree, get a job, and get married before you have kids" routine. That makes them better "matches." Again, those things aren't always easy.

HS diploma is pretty much worthless these days. It's only enough for the kind of job that won't really support a family.  A degree means a ton of debt and uncertain earning potential.

This is the standard routine of 50 years ago, and it doesn't work very well now.

I didn't say people should wait to marry. I said they should have kids after they got married. Who said they should put off marrying?

You did. You have two things in your list before "get married" at least one of which takes multiple years.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh boy. Have you guys really never heard the "three rules" to avoid poverty? They're based on research, and they go something like this.

1. Get at least a high school diploma.
2. Get a full-time job.
3. Get married before you have children.

That's all I'm talking about. According to those who did the research, the vast majority of people who follow those rules are able to avoid poverty. It's true that the Brookings Institute (who originally wrote the rules) adds that you should not marry before the age of 21, but until I looked it up just now, I wasn't aware of that.

Oh, and no one's ruling out a vocational education, either. I didn't expect that "diploma/degree" would be interpreted so hyper-literally.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

[Mannlicher]

I have three ex wives.  I also raised the two children from my first wife as a single Dad.   14 years.  That was easier then living with the then wife, who was a bi polar nightmare.   
When a relationship turns toxic, which happens with appalling frequency,  it's better to bail than to try to fix it, or live with it.
I have been married now for 25 years.  Very compatible, very happy.  If for some reason I were to find myself single again,  I doubt seriously if I would look for another permanent mate.

[RoadKingLarry]

We're passed 35 years. If the Mrs. punches out before me, which is a possibility with her health issues, no way in hell would I consider remarrying.

[just Warren]

no way in hell would I consider remarrying.

Well, damn.

[RoadKingLarry]

Who needs all the drama...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/643384/Sex-robots-dolls-brothel-prostitutes-buy-video



 

[wmenorr67]

Ejected last October after 20 plus years.  Don't see myself doing anything that involves paper every again.

[Scout26]

22 years when the ex- walked, 26 years before it was final.  Not doing that ever again...

[wmenorr67]

Well mine was on life support for the 4-5 years.  More like living with a roommate that put out occasionally than a partner and wife.

[Scout26]

Mine was on Lifesupport for 18 years.   Want to know why my kids are 7 years apart ??  Guess...  And then when it looked like I might die, she was afraid that she'd be stuck lots of medical bills (We had good insurance, so cover the $2500/year deductible and that's it.), and I had (still have) a metric Revload of life insurance, plus I had (still have) disability insurance.  I think the difference between what I was making working and what I got on disability was $10 per month.

She still can't manage money...