What is man's incentive to marry?

[faithfully]

Really, I’m having a hard time wondering why any man would even enter into a marriage anymore- besides ‘love’. In the olden days, it was something expected, but these days, even if they do, if divorce happens, they loose quite a lot. Now that women can work and earn just as much as men and since they can do that AND apparently raise decent children by themselves, what is the reason for marriage? What would be the benefits of it for men, especially since there is such a high divorce rate?

I would love to hear the catholic response… especially from Catholic men.

My DH is not Catholic but rather agnostic. To the best of my understanding we are married because he loves me, and wanted to spend the rest of his life with me. Wanted me to have his children. He wanted to be a dad. And he’s an amazing father, and husband. He seems to appreciate the fact that I can earn money when necessary, and handle the children, the bills etc.

Does he have much to lose?

Sure, nothing is worth having if it’s not a lot to lose. I suppose he knows that in me, he loses nothing by being a great husband and father. He took the time to know me. He knows my style. There is basically only one activity that he would have to do to get kicked to the curb and pay the highest price short of the loss of his own life possible. The choice to lose all of that would be solely his.

I know many happily married couples! MANY!

IMO, Men that go for women that lack in self respect in one fashion or another, are perhaps too blind to realize that unless said woman remains wihout self respect she’s likely to walk away with at least half of what he has monetarily to offer.

When I see a divorce, I usually see people that were clearly messed up to begin with. One or both were usually blinded with some sort of ideal, or physical bond. Unable to see the problems usually quite clear right in front of them.

You know if women wouldn’t have sex with men outside of marriage we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Perhaps. But it takes two to tango. I imagine this is why many men walk away from the women they can conquer. They suddenly realize she’s not worth it. Sad but probably true.

Yes. Agreed.

But women who wait are now passed up as prudes. They aren’t dated ever. They are dumped. One might say “Good for her. You don’t need a guy like that” but in the long run, it doesn’t help her worth anything.

I had a reputation in high school for not sleeping around. My now husband took a pretty good brow beating over that in high school. I happen to know he responded that he didn’t want any of the “sloppy seconds” the girlfriends of the guys had to offer.

So yeah, many piggy guys will call you a prude. So? Thanks for the very clear picture of who he is. I love it when people tell me who they are. I believe them and move on.

Because it is often men who are pressuring women to have sex. Just this past week I had a fellow tell me: “I respect your choice to be chaste but honestly us guys have sexual urges and I just couldn’t live that life.”

I imagine said guy would be terrible in bed. Not to be crude. But any guy that thinks women don’t have a sex drive, nor enjoy sex is a total moron. As if not allowing any guy to enter your body to fulfill these urges wouldn’t be just as easy for a woman. That guy you were talking to, sounds like he’d be quite selfish. He couldn’t possibly be without sex? What about when/if he chooses to get married and his wife is hugely pregnant, on bed rest for the safety and health of their baby. Could he live life like that? Or would he cater to his needs? He’s selfish. I guarantee it wouldn’t be just in bed. And likely, he’s headed for divorce one day. Unless he realizes that he’s not the only one in the relationship with wants, needs and desires…

A wife is not a babysitter for the children. She’s not the bookkeeper. She’s not a servant. When a man (or a woman if the shoes on the other foot) looks to his spouse as an employee, not a partner in love, there is little chance for the marriage. That type of man has no incentive to get married. Unless of course he marries a woman who lacks and continues to lack all self respect.

Same for a woman. If she looks to her husband as a checkbook there are problems. Granted, the secular society is likely to award her part of that checkbook. But then how does a man not know he’s looked at as a check book? He should know based on how he treats women. And how they respond to him.

All opinion…

 

[AnneElizabeth]

I agree entirely with your perceptions about the non-benefits for men in modern marriages, and, like I said in my post, men do tend to marry “optimistically” for love and family, and are often disillusioned when the woman changes her mind.

I worry for my son. He does not practice his Catholic faith and has been in a steady relationship for 4 years. She is a lovely girl now, but I can see him marrying her, and then she “discovering herself” and leaving him in 10 years time. As far as I can see, only a Catholic faith and marriage evens the odds which are stacked against husbands these days.

I guess this is what I am worried about… Without religion being the true basis for marriage, it just seems to dissipate into nothingness. It has no real true meaning.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by JackieMom View Post
I think just as many single women are down to have premarital sex as are men. The idea that women are virtuous, desire-free flowers and men are just the dirty dogs trying to get in their pants is erroneous. Most people are fine with having premarital sex and see literally nothing wrong with it. I got married at 22 and we were both virgins, raring to go. I think most people do have an instinctual urge to “settle down” eventually - but it’s been complicated by factors including the normalization of premarital sex and shacking up, long educations, the high cost of living, women who can make their own living, a lack of interest in religion, and the idea perpetrated by Hollywood that you can wait until your 40s to start a family.

---

If a man does not want to commit to marriage or walks out of a marriage – because a woman is self-sufficient – it says more about him – having a “unstable/delicate/weak/needy” ego. Maybe – this is the result of generations of cultural conditioning-- of having women entirely dependent on men. First the father – followed by the husband.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why buy when you won’t have buyer’s remorse if you shoplift? I hope the answer is obvious.

Why marry? There is wanting to be able to look yourself in the mirror, not to mention wanting the opportunity to be a husband and a parent. There is only one way to do that: Have the courage to give your heart to a woman, to your children, to your family, and take the chance that something out of your control will ruin it. We are a social animal, and animal that evolved within extended families and tribes. It is against our nature, even on the animal level, to set out to live a life divorced of those long-standing ties. Biologists talk about “spreading one’s genes” and all that rot, and it is in some deep lizard portion of our brains, but the truth is that they want to be surrounded by love at Christmas and to get up in the morning with a family to work for as much as anyone else. Their study of humans from the perspective of our animal natures does not fool them into thinking that humans are animals and nothing more! Maybe according to the witness of what they say at seminar, but not according to what they live, what they want out of their lives.

If you want to be a man, you can be celibate or you can be married, but if you are not chaste you sell your manhood cheap, not to mention your soul. It takes some courage to live a decent life while others around you seem to be getting their gratifications on the cheap, but “cheap thrills” come at a steep price, too.

There are those who find no meaning in any aspect of the moral life for which they cannot find a self-serving rationale. How sad is that? Is that the legacy anyone, male or female, wants to leave behind? Does it take a deist to want better than that out of one’s life? I hope not.

Honestly, this is one of those questions that the devil asks in the dark recesses of one’s soul. Once you shine light on his “arguments”, they are shown for how false they are.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…I had a reputation in high school for not sleeping around. My now husband took a pretty good brow beating over that in high school. I happen to know he responded that he didn’t want any of the “sloppy seconds” the girlfriends of the guys had to offer.

So yeah, many piggy guys will call you a prude. So? Thanks for the very clear picture of who he is. I love it when people tell me who they are. I believe them and move on…

.

Thanks. You speak wisdom (in all your post, not just this segment). Its good to hear it so clearly. My concerns feel soothed.

I am glad too when people ‘tell me who they are’… its the disappointment in some fellow human beings that really gets me down, confused and worried.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Why buy when you won’t have buyer’s remorse if you shoplift? I hope the answer is obvious.

Why marry? There is wanting to be able to look yourself in the mirror, not to mention wanting the opportunity to be a husband and a parent. There is only one way to do that: Have the courage to give your heart to a woman, to your children, to your family, and take the chance that something out of your control will ruin it. We are a social animal, and animal that evolved within extended families and tribes. It is against our nature, even on the animal level, to set out to live a life divorced of those long-standing ties. Biologists talk about “spreading one’s genes” and all that rot, and it is in some deep lizard portion of our brains, but the truth is that they want to be surrounded by love at Christmas and to get up in the morning with a family to work for as much as anyone else. Their study of humans from the perspective of our animal natures does not fool them into thinking that humans are animals and nothing more! Maybe according to the witness of what they say at seminar, but not according to what they live, what they want out of their lives.

If you want to be a man, you can be celibate or you can be married, but if you are not chaste you sell your manhood cheap, not to mention your soul. It takes some courage to live a decent life while others around you seem to be getting their gratifications on the cheap, but “cheap thrills” come at a steep price, too.

There are those who find no meaning in any aspect of the moral life for which they cannot find a self-serving rationale. How sad is that? Is that the legacy anyone, male or female, wants to leave behind? Does it take a deist to want better than that out of one’s life? I hope not.

Honestly, this is one of those questions that the devil asks in the dark recesses of one’s soul. Once you shine light on his “arguments”, they are shown for how false they are.

I always love to listen to what you have to say Easter Joy. Always sensible. Thank you!

 

[AnneElizabeth]

---

If a man does not want to commit to marriage or walks out of a marriage – because a woman is self-sufficient – it says more about him – having a “unstable/delicate/weak/needy” ego. Maybe – this is the result of generations of cultural conditioning-- of having women entirely dependent on men. First the father – followed by the husband.

With all due respect… and I would have to say I get the gist of what you are saying and agree… but how is it then that a man is “the head of the household” when a woman ‘brings home the bacon’ and does pretty much the same thing he does? There are men who have ego problems, but then again it seems there are women who- even mostly well meaning- step into the man’s role. How can he then be head of the household, if both are seen as equals? It seems to be a modern mantra, whereas if I read Scripture, it clearly says that man is over woman. And as much as I think it important for a woman to be self-sufficient as possible, how is she not to step on his toes?

 

[Lorelei12]

I wasn’t talking about ‘benefits’, I was talking incentive. Incentive is what is going to drive a person to do such n’ such a thing. Right now I would agree that if a man is religious, his incentive to marry woudl be to do the right thing, honor God. Everyone can see these days that it is not always in a marriage one can find the benefits you speak of… AND furthermore in these modern times, most of those benefits one can get without marriage- with the freedom to leave at any time if things go bad. So, if one can get those benefits without marriage, why would a man marry? I say this because it seems lopsided to me as marriage seems to benefit the female more so than the man. (But really I know it is there to benefit the children) If a man is not religious, sees that women can handle themselves financially and raise the child without him, then why would he commit?.. Its like their very purpose for wanting to be a husband is taken away from them.

Yes, but presumably the “benefits” are part of the incentive, right?

I get what you are saying, but I am not sure I understand what the gender issue is. In what way does marriage benefit the wife more than the husband? It sounds like you’re implying that men want to be husbands primarily to be the sole provider and that somehow because a woman is even capable of doing this, he has no “purpose” anymore so why bother with marriage. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Lorelei12]

With all due respect… and I would have to say I get the gist of what you are saying and agree… but how is it then that a man is “the head of the household” when a woman ‘brings home the bacon’ and does pretty much the same thing he does? There are men who have ego problems, but then again it seems there are women who- even mostly well meaning- step into the man’s role. How can he then be head of the household, if both are seen as equals? It seems to be a modern mantra, whereas if I read Scripture, it clearly says that man is over woman. And as much as I think it important for a woman to be self-sufficient as possible, how is she not to step on his toes?

I think you may be misunderstanding what “head of household” means. It has very little to do with who “brings home the bacon”.

 

[faithfully]

With all due respect… and I would have to say I get the gist of what you are saying and agree… but how is it then that a man is “the head of the household” when a woman ‘brings home the bacon’ and does pretty much the same thing he does? There are men who have ego problems, but then again it seems there are women who- even mostly well meaning- step into the man’s role. How can he then be head of the household, if both are seen as equals? It seems to be a modern mantra, whereas if I read Scripture, it clearly says that man is over woman. And as much as I think it important for a woman to be self-sufficient as possible, how is she not to step on his toes?

It’s my opinion people get to caught up with “head of household”. Head of household to the best of my knowledge has most to do with being faithful. Keeping the family on track to meet God. Head of house hold does not mean, she must make less than him, or be less intellegent or whatever.

I used to bring home WAY more bacon that DH. His career took longer to take off. The nature of both of our interests. It’s because of my willingness to crank my way up the ladder in our earlier years so that DH could take all the necessary tasks to work towards his goal. His job is something he is passionate about. Mine was just a job that paid well.

Again, this is a man whose ego is not in his way to success, on the job or at home.

When a man places his ego above his family, then yes, his toes are going to be squished. That has nothing to do with head of household. She is to love her husband as he is to love Christ…

Really doesn’t have anything to do with careers. Egos will make careers a problem. Otherwise, IMO successfully married couples base their relationships on respect. They value opinions where there is expertise. Etc…

 

[Edmundus1581]

With all due respect… and I would have to say I get the gist of what you are saying and agree… but how is it then that a man is “the head of the household” when a woman ‘brings home the bacon’ and does pretty much the same thing he does? There are men who have ego problems, but then again it seems there are women who- even mostly well meaning- step into the man’s role. How can he then be head of the household, if both are seen as equals? It seems to be a modern mantra, whereas if I read Scripture, it clearly says that man is over woman. ** And as much as I think it important for a woman to be self-sufficient as possible, how is she not to step on his toes?**

However self-sufficient she may be, she needs a man in order to have children, and a man will only commit to children when he feels that he has a suitable life partner. Men, in general, have no interest in starting a family and then moving on in a few years. That is my experience as a man myself, and from what I’ve seen of other men.

Which get’s back to: in modern society and with modern divorce laws, and without religion, a man’s expectation of a life-long marriage is very risky, and he would be better, rationally, to avoid it. From what I’ve seen, men take the plunge romantically and optimistically, rather than rationally.

I guess this is what I am worried about… Without religion being the true basis for marriage, it just seems to dissipate into nothingness. It has no real true meaning.

It does seem (without religion) to dissipate into a husband and wife agreeing, at the time of marriage, on why they should get together, however they are both free to subsequently change their minds - with devastating consequences for the children and (if applicable) the abandoned partner. Only religion gives a framework which obliges both partners to honour their commitment.

Despite all this, I think that men marry “romantically”, and then expect our big crush to fulfill our dreams of married bliss. We tend to fall for superficial attraction and are easily manipulated. If we were more sensible in choosing partners, we wouldn’t get ourselves into so much trouble…

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Hmmmm… I don’t know how to answer you Lorelei12 or faithfully…

Perhaps I’m not sure what it means, and with all due respect, I don’t believe it means just means being faithful to God, and I don’t believe it simply means ‘bringing home the bacon’. I come from a lot of different church backgrounds- mostly Protestant-, so I’ve heard many things as to what it means. Leadership, yes, definitely. But leadership entails that one is over you… and if couples act like equal heads coming together, then I think something is off. ?? It should be clear who is the leader by the way people act and behave around that person. There should be actual submission. I don’t see that with a lot of married women these days. It may be nice, but I’m not sure its what Christ meant.

Yes I know I sound very old fashioned. I will probably get ripped for that.

Perhaps I ought to start another thread and ask men what it means to be “head of the household” in a Christian Scriptural sense. I think women tend to stretch things a bit too far in its meaning these days- even if they are well meaning in doing so… and that has me concerned. I’m just not sure, that’s all, so go easy on me!!!

 

[AnneElizabeth]

… In what way does marriage benefit the wife more than the husband?..

Hmm… I see where I might be confusing. Marriage would benefit me, as a woman as I know I could not possibly raise a child on my own. I would never want to venture into being a mother without the support of a man. And so, I tend to think of marriage as being more beneficial for a woman, because mostly out of my own ideas that I would most definitely need a man. What might be confusing all this is that I also see it that there are women who can raise children without men and do so remarkably well. And that there are men who also see this- who might think they wouldn’t have to stick around then, or they might think “what’s the big deal if I left”.

SO I guess we are talking about my own insecurities here. I would have to say my main motives for asking the thread question is because of my own concerns (what am I doing wrong, and is there anything I could be doing better) and trying to understand men, but also its my concerns for society in general. I don’t like the way things look like they are going. I don’t know many men who actually believe in God- and to put it more personally -if they do believe they don’t in the way I do. Since I see all these things hooked together I just start to worry. ← at myself.

I have also heard people- men commenting too- about the loss of roles and that there is no incentive for men to marry. So I asked.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

However self-sufficient she may be, she needs a man in order to have children, and a man will only commit to children when he feels that he has a suitable life partner. Men, in general, have no interest in starting a family and then moving on in a few years. That is my experience as a man myself, and from what I’ve seen of other men.

Which get’s back to: in modern society and with modern divorce laws, and without religion, a man’s expectation of a life-long marriage is very risky, and he would be better, rationally, to avoid it. From what I’ve seen, men take the plunge romantically and optimistically, rather than rationally.

It does seem (without religion) to dissipate into a husband and wife agreeing, at the time of marriage, on why they should get together, however they are both free to subsequently change their minds - with devastating consequences for the children and (if applicable) the abandoned partner. Only religion gives a framework which obliges both partners to honor their commitment.

Despite all this, I think that men marry “romantically”, and then expect our big crush to fulfill our dreams of married bliss. We tend to fall for superficial attraction and are easily manipulated. If we were more sensible in choosing partners, we wouldn’t get ourselves into so much trouble…

Thanks Edmundus1581. This helps.

 

[cmscms]

SO I guess we are talking about my own insecurities here. I would have to say my main motives for asking the thread question is because of my own concerns (what am I doing wrong, and is there anything I could be doing better) and trying to understand men,.

WIth all due respect, reading in between the lines of your post, it does appear this is your insecurity. When I was 30, I use to think there was a lot of time. One day around 36 I realized that even if I did marry given my age, I would not be able to have the large family I always wanted. (I never saw the point of making all the sacrifices one makes to be a mom unless I could get a lot of kids out of the deal but that is another post). So I decided to accept God’s will. And guess what…At 42 I am very happy and know beyond a shadow of a doubt trusting God’s will is the best thing I can do. Children are great, but I don’t need to have my own to have a great life.

Instead of trying to figure out men (which by the way are just like women in the sense that if you know one you do NOT know them all) why not try and figure out God’s will for you. A lot of people say ‘When I decided to do God’s will, my spouse showed up’. Personally, I think that is hogwash. When I decided to do God’s will, my spouse did not show up but joy did enter my life.

Don’t blame other women putting out for your single status.

but also its my concerns for society in general. I don’t like the way things look like they are going. I don’t know many men who actually believe in God- and to put it more personally -if they do believe they don’t in the way I do. Since I see all these things hooked together I just start to worry. ← at myself…

It does not matter what year it is. Jesus never like what He saw in society when he walked the face of the earth but He dies for us on the cross regardless. Just because the prevalent sin today is pre marital sex, it does not mean other generations did not suffer of equally sinful behaviours

I have also heard people- men commenting too- about the loss of roles and that there is no incentive for men to marry. So I asked.

Well… I would take that with a grain of salt. When I hear a man say ‘there is no incentive to marry’ deep down I think the guy is just trying to look cool on the outside because he can’t get a girl

CMS

 

[Julia_Mae]

However self-sufficient she may be, she needs a man in order to have children, and a man will only commit to children when he feels that he has a suitable life partner.

Couple things. First, women don’t need men to “commit to children.” That’s because we’ve learned that they change their minds, so we learned to do without them. A lot of us had no choice.

And, in this day and age, women don’t need men to get pregnant, anyway, not that there aren’t millions of volunteers for the job, but all you need is a viable ovum and another set of DNA. With technology, women can just have offspring with other women. Or clone themselves. (I did once read that 1 in every 200k female births was thought to be a clone of the mother. But that was highly speculative.) Of course, they wouldn’t be completely exact clones because each ovum contains one set of chromosomes that is a combination of the M and F chromosomes given at her conception.

I really don’t think it’s a question of why men would want to marry, but why women would.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Couple things. First, women don’t need men to “commit to children.” That’s because we’ve learned that they change their minds, so we learned to do without them. A lot of us had no choice.

…

I really don’t think it’s a question of why men would want to marry, but why women would.

We have a rule here in Australia - Never argue with an emu!

 

[chevalier]

You make me chuckle with your responses so far. (Thanks for cheering me up some!)

My pleasure! You’ve got no idea how great it is to have a listener.

I guess maybe my problem is that I am not thinking like a man does? Or maybe I am trying, but failing miserably?

A hunter’s got to think like the prey! And trying is a good first step, while failing miserably is the necessary first step in learning. This said, I do wonder abouth the thought process that led you to this connection. Got me a little curious. Anyway. There is a lot of fixed misconceptions going between the sexes. Assumptions tend to be the main culprit. Think outside the box, explore, ask. There’s always someone will to spill the secrets of the trade.

Men need safety too. They like the guarantee that their children are theirs. They enjoy being a father and find themselves in it (they become their dad in so doing). They enjoy the warm meal after coming back from work, which is just a figure (might as well be the flowers on the table or the fancy flimsy courtains) because some cook themselves, some work from home so there’s no coming back from work, etc. I know a guy who likes to hear female voices singing around his house (got himself quite a couple of daughters). It comes down to “home”, I guess. A woman is a home-maker in more than one sense of the word: your home is where your woman is, in short. And when you meet a woman you just begin to think would be nice to come back to, then you just begin to have those strange thoughts about the future.

Also, the same thing women have for those awful romance novels and teary movies and gossip at the mall, men have for blood and gore and various devices designed to kill people (or facilitate the killing, e.g. by making movement faster). When you’ve got your own woman, you essentially have your own cave. This raises your position with the other males and you acquire some social standing. There are people who won’t go to an unmarried (male) lawyer, or who won’t hire one, you know, An unmarried candidate would also tend to have a hard time winning the elections.

 

[Rharris10]

You know if women wouldn’t have sex with men outside of marriage we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

You can say the same for men though, no?

 

[AnneElizabeth]

It comes down to “home”, I guess. A woman is a home-maker in more than one sense of the word: your home is where your woman is, in short.

Hmmm… interesting you brought that up. I can see how this ties into things too… And not to bring in another thing to add to the discussion but there is this…

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

(note here some versions instead of “money” say “mammon” others say “wealth” and others say “riches”- I note that because its not just about dollar bills. Wealth and riches imply luxury, having things.)

And this I don’t understand when it comes to modern women. They say that they can have it all. They have a boss (from their career) and a husband (and children). They say they can juggle this fine, but I would not be able to. If I marry, I am HIS. I can’t be his and also my boss’s. ** If I set it up that way, one of them is going to be shortchanged- severely.** I would then be working for TWO masters and like Christ said, I’m going to either love one and hate the other or vise verse… Or maybe just hate them both because I’m being burned at two ends of the candle, so to speak. (Please, no jokes about being a slave to a man- master is just another word for the one over me, and a husband is the head of the household.)

It would seem to me that for a married woman working they would be serving money and not God. I believe that a married woman should be the helpmeet for her husband- all of her exists for working on behalf of her husband. That is her job. I don’t understand this modern idea that well, husband and wife are equals/partners or the idea that a woman should be able to fulfill herself outside of marriage in a career. Shouldn’t she be fulfilled in being a helpmeet for her husband? And isn’t it kind of like a slap in the face to the man if he provides and she doesn’t want to stay within the home and work on his behalf? And instead she is tied up with her own business, not fully attending to him and his needs and the needs of children? IS this really ‘egotistical’ of a man to want to wish that his wife would dedicate herself to him? (I’m not saying she should worship him as a God) Is this not how Christ wishes for us, His Bride, to do also? Is it not said that if a Christian starts to dedicate themselves to other things that are not God that this displeases Him? If we work for something other than Him, isn’t this idolatry? If we are lukewarm about serving- this also displeases, right?

I can see that I might be -with all I’ve discussed- all over the field and certainly hard to follow (and maybe even a bit nuts), but the way I see it is that all these things I’ve discussed tie in to the crisis we have today.