Is monogamy really possible??

[The Shake]

Still, though, like bud you have this "the loss to me" thing going on as though your wife's interests are irrelevant. The thing about a marriage is that there's two people involved, not one.

Its interesting/telling that the predominant male view here perceives the income and the assets as being "his" and something that he is being forced to "give" to an undeserving spouse.

Being the primary/sole "bread winner" does not make the money yours. It belongs to the two of you as a couple - and well it should.

 

[Bud Plug]

Its interesting/telling that the predominant male view here perceives the income and the assets as being "his" and something that he is being forced to "give" to an undeserving spouse.

Being the primary/sole "bread winner" does not make the money yours. It belongs to the two of you as a couple - and well it should.

Why? On what theory does all of what I earn or own also belong to my spouse, other than that's what our family laws say? Law is not a justification for law.

p.s. Weren't you quitting this board?

 

[tompeepin]

Law is not a justification for law.

Ok Bush!

p.s. Weren't you quitting this board?

Why because that would make you happier? What do you care?

Why? On what theory does all of what I earn or own also belong to my spouse, other than that's what our family laws say?

That is the current concept of marriage in our society. If anyone does not like it then they should not get married. It works or should work the other way too. What is hers is yours and what is yours is hers.

In the US there is always an option for a prenup if that is what you wish.

 

[drlove]

Re: Sure it is complex

Again, yes monogamy is possible. "[Humans] have a big brain; we can decide all sorts of things. Just because there's biology does not mean we are destined to follow any particular biological route (1)." Yet I would propose that primal human biology is not the reason for human monogamy, quite to the contrary, and in fact makes it a struggle for many to stay monogamous.

Yes. I tend to agree - some would argue that whether one is inclined to be monogamous or not doesn't have much to do with desire to reproduce; perhaps.... I digress.

If the question at hand is "Is monogamy possible" I offer this:

Monogamy is possible if we as human beings choose to resist the urge to mate with as many females as possible, regardless of the underlying reason. However, if we are predisposed to being monogamous, then there would be no reason for married men to seek sexual companionship from escorts, yet they do.

Moreover, why is it that those who see escorts don't just see one lady in particular for all eternity?? In this regard, monogamy ignores and negates the attraction of variety. IMO, men get bored of being with the same woman for any extended period of time.

The truth is, we as men desire many women, not just one. In fact, we want as many as possible. Whether this need relates back to the issue of reproduction then becomes arbitrary and therefore moot. The point is, the need exists whether we choose to admit it to ourselves or not. That is what makes being monogamous so difficult.

To reiterate, I still contend that while monogamy is possible it is certainly not natural.

 

[The Shake]

Why? On what theory does all of what I earn or own also belong to my spouse, other than that's what our family laws say? Law is not a justification for law.

Oh my, rather esoteric today, aren't we?

Marriage represents a special covenant between two people. By seeking societal approval/formalization of their "partnership", a married couple is declaring their relationship with each other as one that supersedes all others.

When you get married, you sacrifice some of your individual rights (both legal and social) - indeed, many would argue that you sacrifice something of yourself in order to become part of a (hopefully superior) larger entity.

The idea that "the man's" success in the workplace is completely independent of his marital relationship and therefore what he earns is "his money" is selfish and absurd, particularly in couples with children. The reason why men are still the "primary breadwinners" is because women (right or wrong) still sacrifice career and financial opportunities for the betterment of their children and spouses. Indeed, that remains the reason why women still only make 71% of what their male counterparts earn.

Recognizing that reality is the justification for the law. Thank God.

p.s. Weren't you quitting this board?

Nope.

 

[Bud Plug]

Ok Bush!

Huh? What's your point? Grammatical? Logical? If so, you're out to lunch. What I said was that it is tautological reasoning to justify a law (as properly allocating rights among individuals) based on the existence of the law itself. If you are referring, rather, to Bush's apparent view that rights are derived from religious tenets, rather than man-made laws, you'd also be off-base, because I don't happen to hold with that view. People do determine social rights, but laws can often reflect the views of a minority rather than the majority. Politics is an imperfect process.

Why because that would make you happier? What do you care?

That's a strange question for someone who actually posted in The Shake's Farewell to Tools thread. I just think he shouldn't cry wolf. If he's going to quit, then quit. If not, don't write farewell speeches.

That is the current concept of marriage in our society. If anyone does not like it then they should not get married. It works or should work the other way too. What is hers is yours and what is yours is hers.

No, I don't think so. If that was right, people wouldn't fight about it when they divorce. The truth is, no young man understands the effect family laws will have on his future rights when he gets married (unless he's re-marrying!).

Plus, I can't buy into your logic. You say - "just don't get married if you don't like it" (of course, you'd have to go farther and say - "don't live with a woman if you don't like it", as the effect of family law is virtually the same). The result could be exactly as you suggest, people opting out of long term relationships completely. Is that a positive change in society? I think that long term relationships are good for society, and particularly good for raising children. My view is that laws which discourage men from pursuing these relationships are misguided and need to be changed.

 

[Bud Plug]

When you get married, you sacrifice some of your individual rights (both legal and social)

When I got married, the law was not what it is today. The rights I thought I was sacrificing have changed. Your logic might hold if people really knew what they were getting into, and their rights couldn't be changed by lawmakers once they were already married.

The idea that "the man's" success in the workplace is completely independent of his marital relationship and therefore what he earns is "his money" is selfish and absurd, particularly in couples with children. The reason why men are still the "primary breadwinners" is because women (right or wrong) still sacrifice career and financial opportunities for the betterment of their children and spouses. Indeed, that remains the reason why women still only make 71% of what their male counterparts earn.

Recognizing that reality is the justification for the law. Thank God.

That 71% figure is a load of B.S. distributed to support a political agenda. Women on average make less money than men in the workforce because they tend to have less commitment to their careers vs. other interests and therefore achieve lower levels of advancement. Women who fully commit themselves to their careers make as much money as their male counterparts. That is unless you think that construction workers and secretaries are "counterparts"! This "wage gap" point is one of those that some people think can be made true by repeating it often enough.

I can't buy your definition of "selfish" either. If you give your money to others willingly you are "unselfish". It is not necessary for those people to have a right to cut themselves a cheque from your bank account to meet that definition! Since when has the concept of property and wealth ownership been tantamount to selfishness (except among the most ideological communists)?

I also don't buy that women are inherently self-sacrificing creatures who forego personal success "for the benefit of their children and their spouses". Isn't that a form of sexism to suggest that women are programmed to be such superior beings? I would say, rather, that men are socially conditioned to feel responsible for the financial support of their spouse and children, and forego the sense of fulfillment and personal well-being that engaging in a lifetime which balances work, time at home with children, and the pursuit of personal interests brings. As other commentators on this subject have said - "Men have obligations. Women have choices."

 

[tompeepin]

Huh? What's your point? Grammatical? Logical? If so, you're out to lunch. What I said was that it is tautological reasoning to justify a law (as properly allocating rights among individuals) based on the existence of the law itself.

To demonstrate your strategy of using a truism to validate your entire reasoning as intellectually superior, and thus negate that of your opponents as obviously flawed.

If he's going to quit, then quit. If not, don't write farewell speeches.

Again you use these comments to negate your opponents statement not directly through addressing the issue but rather by attacking what you would like to advocate to others as his "incapacity to reason".

My view is that laws which discourage men from pursuing these relationships are misguided and need to be changed.

You sure miss the patriarchal dominance in society that is gradually waning, don't you? Thus your battle cry for justice for the oppressed and disadvantaged male, right?

Here is a something for you to imagine. Get married, have kids, stay at home while the wife works. Do all the housework and solely look after the kids and all she has to do is go to her job. Then in 15-20 years she should dump your ass for a younger guy and say: "fuck you! Our (marital) money is all MY money, you did not earn any of it! Now fuck off!!!" I bet you would be screaming a different tune then.

Your position is very subjective and certainly not objective. In your position it is all about you.

 

[Bud Plug]

To demonstrate your strategy of using a truism to validate your entire reasoning as intellectually superior, and thus negate that of your opponents as obviously flawed.


Again you use these comments to negate your opponents statement not directly through addressing the issue but rather by attacking what you would like to present, in a certain light, as what you see as his "incapacity to reason".


You sure miss the patriarchal dominance in society that is gradually waning, don't you? Thus your battle cry for justice for the oppressed and disadvantaged male, right?

Here is a something for you to imagine. Get married, have kids, stay at home while the wife works. Do all the housework and solely look after the kids and all she has to do is go to her job. Then in 15-20 she should dump your ass for a young guy and say: "fuck you, our (marital) money is all MY money, you did not earn any of it! Now fuck off!!! I bet you would be screaming a different tune then.

Your position is very subjective and certainly not objective. In you position it is all about you.

Ok, now I understand you. I guess I've been wasting my time. Good luck with school!

 

[tompeepin]

Good luck with school!

What school? The school of hard knocks? The one your wife sent you to?

That 71% figure is a load of B.S. distributed to support a political agenda. Women on average make less money than men in the workforce because they tend to have less commitment to their careers vs. other interests and therefore achieve lower levels of advancement. Women who fully commit themselves to their careers make as much money as their male counterparts.

No, you do not have a "political agenda", do you? Your view is "pure reason" or just plain "common sense", right?

http://tom.quack.net/wagegap.html

"Despite the refinements in this study, the other half of the overall wage gap, or 10 cents for every dollar, remains unexplained."

 

[The Shake]

That 71% figure is a load of B.S. distributed to support a political agenda. Women on average make less money than men in the workforce because they tend to have less commitment to their careers vs. other interests

Yeah - like being wives and mothers. That's the point.

 

[The Shake]

When I got married, the law was not what it is today. The rights I thought I was sacrificing have changed. Your logic might hold if people really knew what they were getting into, and their rights couldn't be changed by lawmakers once they were already married.

My logic holds - you just don't like it. Society changes and evolves - deal with it.

I can't buy your definition of "selfish" either. If you give your money to others willingly you are "unselfish". It is not necessary for those people to have a right to cut themselves a cheque from your bank account to meet that definition! Since when has the concept of property and wealth ownership been tantamount to selfishness (except among the most ideological communists)?

Again, you're missing the point. It's not your money (or property). It belongs to you and your wife. It's not selfish to want to retain as much as that as possible if your marriage ends - but it is selfish to believe that it is solely yours to "give" (or more aptly be forced to give) to her.

I also don't buy that women are inherently self-sacrificing creatures who forego personal success "for the benefit of their children and their spouses".

I agree. But we're not talking about "women", we're talking about wives. In situations where the wife has not foregone her opportunities for the betterment of the marriage and/or the children, there is typically a different economic balance in the relationship and less need for spousal support.

Isn't that a form of sexism to suggest that women are programmed to be such superior beings?

It would be - if I had suggested that. I didn't. I said that it was the reality of most marriages. Whether that is by programming, pure choice, randomness, or all of the above - the facts of the situation exist.

I would say, rather, that men are socially conditioned to feel responsible for the financial support of their spouse and children, and forego the sense of fulfillment and personal well-being that engaging in a lifetime which balances work, time at home with children, and the pursuit of personal interests brings. As other commentators on this subject have said - "Men have obligations. Women have choices."

That's a very astute assessment and one which we agree on. Where we differ is on our belief that those obligations end when the marriage does. They don't - and shouldn't.

 

[Bud Plug]

http://tom.quack.net/wagegap.html

"Despite the refinements in this study, the other half of the overall wage gap, or 10 cents for every dollar, remains unexplained."

Thanks for the link, although there are more recent articles on the subject.

Some interesting things in the article which you did not highlight include: a) women who do not marry earn virtually the same money on average as men, (that statistic is particularly illuminating because it demonstrates equal earning opportunity in terms of both job advancement as well as wage parity within the same position) , and b) women actually earn more in some fields based on the same qualifications and experience as counterpart men. These observations do not support the notion of pervasive wage discrimination. The fact that the researchers could not account for all of the wage gap calculation means nothing more than further study will be required. In fact, the researcher reasonably suggests that the rest of the gap may be explained by timing issues resulting from women leaving the workforce to have or raise children or for other reasons. These wage statistics are not indicative of wage discrimination and the study does not suggest that they are.

What is also interesting is that people like The Shake continue to throw the 71% figure around despite the existence of this analysis.

In terms of agendas, everything ends in politics. But let's at least start with accuracy before we get there.

 

[The Shake]

Some interesting things in the article which you did not highlight include: a) women who do not marry earn virtually the same money on average as men, (that statistic is particularly illuminating because it demonstrates equal earning opportunity in terms of both job advancement as well as wage parity within the same position)

clip

In fact, the researcher reasonably suggests that the rest of the gap may be explained by timing issues resulting from women leaving the workforce to have or raise children or for other reasons. These wage statistics are not indicative of wage discrimination and the study does not suggest that they are.

That's entirely my point.

Similarly educated men and women enter the workforce with relatively comparable financial opportunities. A gap between those prospects emerges when a woman marries and, particularly, when she has children. The same reduction in opportunities (typically) does not occur for her husband. If the marriage fails, spousal support recognizes those financial sacrifices and addresses them accordingly.

 

[Bud Plug]

In situations where the wife has not foregone her opportunities for the betterment of the marriage and/or the children, there is typically a different economic balance in the relationship and less need for spousal support.

Hope you're not heading for a divorce, because you're definitely wrong about that. If your wife has the education and training to be a mail carrier, and has consistently and successfully pursued that career without interuption of children or support of you and your career, and you are Bill Gates, you will be cutting some very significant spousal support cheques! It has everything to do with the lifestyle she enjoyed in the marriage and your ability to pay for it, and nothing to do with whether she continues to achieve her own earning potential.

 

[The Shake]

Hope you're not heading for a divorce, because you're definitely wrong about that. If your wife has the education and training to be mail carrier, and has consistently and successfully pursued that career without interuption of children or support of you and your career, and you are Bill Gates, you will be cutting some very significant spousal support cheques! It has everything to do with the lifestyle she enjoyed in the marriage and your ability to pay for it, and nothing to do with whether she continues to achieve her own earning potential.

I specifically referred to cases where there is "less economic imbalance".

I'm sorry, but the situation you've described is exceedingly rare, and its silly to use it to prove your point.

 

[Bud Plug]

If the marriage fails, spousal support recognizes those financial sacrifices and addresses them accordingly.

That would only be true if the law provided for spousal support to be capped at the spouse's earning potential, taking into account the career advancement opportunities sacrificed while raising children. It isn't. The law doesn't address her lost opportunities "accordingly".

If a woman marries a much more successful and productive man, she will gain that lifestyle "accordingly", although that is not a measure of the future that was foregone by her by marrying and having children.

 

[Bud Plug]

I'm sorry, but the situation you've described is exceedingly rare, and its silly to use it to prove your point.

Sorry, you're wrong about that. But, even it were true only rarely, it demonstrates the unfair way in which the law can operate.

 

[tompeepin]

Hope you're not heading for a divorce, because you're definitely wrong about that. If your wife has the education and training to be mail carrier, and has consistently and successfully pursued that career without interuption of children or support of you and your career, and you are Bill Gates, you will be cutting some very significant spousal support cheques! It has everything to do with the lifestyle she enjoyed in the marriage and your ability to pay for it, and nothing to do with whether she continues to achieve her own earning potential.

No one said that there weren't inequities in the "system". However I dare say that they are not the rule, but rather the exception.

Also this is like a business partnership. If your partner fucks the dog, terminate the partnership asap. Don't keep earning and let your future earning be in jeopardy. If you do ... well your dog fucking partner might just get more than they are entitled to in the end. And whose fault is it? I know a guy that this happened to. I told him in the first year of his common law arrangement. "SPs will be cheaper in the long run." He did not listen, and guess what 10 years later?

Life is full of risks, including financial ones. Your business partner could fuck you over too. But how could you walk away and say that the money was solely yours? You took a risk. If you aleady have lots of money that could be a risk, have a prenup drawn up.

 

[booboobear]

. Still, though, like bud you have this "the loss to me" thing going on as though your wife's interests are irrelevant. The thing about a marriage is that there's two people involved, not one.

I agree with you, there are 2 people involved , no disagreement there. I just believe though that a marriage is comprised of a myriad of situations and day to day living. If you destroy a marriage especially one with kids involved I don't just worry about this loss to me because technically I would deserve the loss. The children would suffer a loss and so would your wife.
I think the loss to all parties might not be worth the fact that you were honest about your cheating . Once your honesty destroys the relationship it's gone forever. If you don't tell you still have the opportunity to change.