In this thread I'm using marriage not in a political or religious way but in a general one. Marriages, civil unions, or if you have bin living with your girlfriend for fifteen years its all basically the same. Also this thread is based on an American perspective but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to Canada, Australia, England, or where most of us are from. I don't think this will apply to lets say the people of Iraq where the role of marriage is drastically different. This is not a thread about homosexuality or their legal rights of marriage.


The concept of marriage predates all reliable recorded history so it is safe to say the idea of marriage has bin around since the dawn of man. Marriage has always bin an integral part of society but it has changed drastically throughout time. The divorce rate in America is projected to be between forty and fifty percent. This also combined with a general disinterest in getting married shows us that the role of marriage in society has changed. Although marriage has changed drastically throughout the ages to the primitive claiming of wives to arranged marriages and so on it has always bin somewhat of a social standard. Like it was absolutely expected of everybody to go to school(or before that was mandatory be trained in a craft), get a job, have a house, get married, and have a family and to not do so was looked down upon. In the last few decades this has changed however and it is no longer expected to get married. To understand why this has changed we must look at what has happened in the last few decades to change this:

Women's Rights: Perhaps the most important factor. Once upon a time women could not support themselves on their own so getting married and being supported by a husband was their only option. In modern days however women can have jobs, own land, and have all the same rights as men. So marriage is no longer the only option for women. This also effects a man's desire for marriage in a less apparent manner. In olden times men had a certain ego attached to marriage, you were in complete control of your wife and the home. Because these things no longer really exist the pride of marriage is diminished.

Premarital Sex: Although this has always existed in some way it wasn't usually as socially acceptable or wide spread as it is today. Basically sex was viewed almost as a reward for getting married. So in theory in those days you would look to get married as soon as possible to get that reward. Also the taking of a woman's virginity was another pride of men another claim of property if you will. Nowadays premarital sex is common place so that extra incentive is no longer there.

Religion: Marriage was not only a social standard but was in many ways a religious one as well. Also religion kept sex sacred. Of course as history tells us religion itself was a standard and expected. Today not only is being non religious or Atheist exceptable but society has less of a focus on religion in general even amongst the religious themselves(example being church attendance compared fifty years ago to today). Religion gave another reason to get married and without religion you loose another reason to get married.

With that said we must ask why is marriage important to society in the first place? Theres a bunch of reasons but the most important one is child birth. The necessity for children is obvious. To have children you must first have a mate and since marriage is a lifelong commitment one would generally want to have children with that person. Although children can be raised successfully with only one parent, divorced parents, etc. it is generally believed that having married parents is the best environment for a child, or at least an adult male and female influence that fill a mother and father role(thats another discussion however). There is also a general disinterest in having children in similar ways as there is the disinterest in marriage. Again it is no longer a social standard or expected to have a family, its expensive, time consuming, etc, etc. Birth control methods also prevent a lot children from being born.

Although it is commonly believed overpopulation is a problem Mr. Walker's studies suggest that underpopulation will be a concern in the near future. I will let him explain why if need be but a lot of it has to do with all of what I wrote above. In short marriage is a vehicle for child birth and without child birth the human race goes extinct.

For the sake of this thread I compiled a poll mostly amongst young people about marriage and what I found was that many people listed divorce, the bachelor life, not wanting to be like their parents or friends who are married,non desire to have children, and frustrations with the opposite sex as their reasons to not wanting to get married. The poll group consisted of 400 teens ranging between 14 and 18 at my highschool in freshman year(i had to do a paper), 25 of my friends and family ranging between 16 and 25, and about 50 random people over the internet. Not really the best sample group for a poll but I think enough to show that young people don't really want to get married...about 40% said no to marriage ever. You know what they say, you have to get them while their young. Of course they could change their minds but in the past young people were more eager to get married.




So lets assume that marriage is a social necessity how do we restore its importance? Reversing the effects of women's rights, premarital sex, and lack of religion isn't a real possibility and would be huge steps backwards. The social standard and expectancy is no longer there so how do we get people to want to get married and stay married?

I think if we preached the greatness, happiness, and power of romantic love then we could get more people to seek it which would eventually lead to more marriage, which leads to more babies, which leads to humanity's survival. Encourage love...not to women but to men, like I always wanted to see someone make a romantic movie that wasn't a chick flick tailoring to women. In short make romantic love cool.

So discuss, debate, what you think the future role of marriage will be, if it is necessary, how it can be rejuvenated, or whatever you want.

While I have no religious beliefs, my opinion of marriage (as opposed to cohabitation) is that it still carries an aspect of sacredness about it.

Some might see marriage as a social convention only, but that is in essence then cohabitation and the ceremony of marriage, rather than being for the couple to express their loving commitment to each other is reduced to a simple social gathering with no other meaning than to effectively 'show off' that the couple are cohabiting.

Therefore my opinion of marriage is that there will be some to whom it will always carry this sense of sacredness, and for those - religious or not - the ceremony will have special significance. I can see the ceremony being performed more and more outside of religious service, but still with special significance to the couple whose celebration it is.

My opinion only, of course.

My opinion of marriage is distorted because of my personal history.

My parents were divorced before I was five. There were nasty legal custody battles that dragged on and off through the years.
I can remember being stuck in a courthouse for many hours as a kid, when I would have much rather been doing something else.

Then I had to witness my parents remarry other people, watch the years of fighting with them,
and these marriages also ended in divorce before I moved out on my own.

My advice is to date at least five years before marriage. Hopefully you can have good insight into your partner's character by then.

And get a good pre-nuptual agreement!!! Everyone thinks "till death do us part", but that isn't how it works in the real world.

Marriages and divorces are both expensive. Plus, the goverment may pay you less benfits and tax you less if both of you are single.

I think marriage is a wretched thing, primarily for the reason why you want to bring it back into fashion; and that is children. I wish to live in a world where children are not born from mothers. Pregnancy is the most abhorrent and saddening thing I can possibly think of. To hear of a pregnancy is like to hear of a death. It means the end of two peoples lives. It is the ruination of character and a silent declaration of redundancy. It is the forced subversion of one's mind to care for something more than yourself. It is the end of love and the beginning of contempt. Worst of all, it makes you grow up; and that may be one thing worse than pregnancy itself.

If you truely loved someone in the first place why would you need to get married? Why would you need children? They are nothing except crutches and boundaries causing stress and frustration that need not be there. Family is for fools, so let the fools populate the world.

I told my brother that if he ever got married, I would think of him as one half less of a person. Then I told him that if he ever had kids, I wouldn't think of him as my brother or a person; and I meant it.

Quite respectable. It is nice that those who do not find sacredness in God can find it in other things including things like art and architecture, even inspiration in nature.

Hmmm I have 'lived in sin' for a long time and don't want children - but this seems rather extreme and devoid of much real life experience. Pregnancy can be the beginning of a wonderful emotional new life. So can marriage. You could say that any responsibility is the 'forced subversion of one's mind to care for something more than yourself' Many of the most rewarding times in your life are when you take responsibility and step up to the plate. Caring for one’s self above all else can be a recipe for self-delusion, self-obsession and depression.

I suspect your brother will ignore your advice in the long-run. I can't imagine anyone sitting back at 35 wondering whether to have kids with their wife/partner and taking anything about your conversation into consideration.

I think the answer is to use history and statistics in order to promote logic and reality about the importance of love and marriage.

Human beings are naturally monogamous, a fact that idiot anthropologists with play in your pants twisted theories have managed to obscure for some time now.

Jealousy is a natural human emotion for humans, one that clearly indicates that the species is monogamous. It is a natural reaction to a threat to a healthy functioning monogamous relationship.

I am too old to be fooled by crap. Take the huge very vast majority of cheaters and have their significant other finally cheat on them and their reactions go off the charts. Take a polygamous who has one of their cattle spouses cheat on them and the cheater is lucky if they do not end up dead.

The need for monogamy is so powerful in the species that it transcends sexual orientation. Gay lovers who are lied to and cheated on are every bit as prone to react as viciously and violently as heterosexual ones. This need for a monogamous relationship to be recognized as more than a financial arrangement, that marriage is a necessity for a healthy long term monogamous foundation and good mental health, is what the gay community has been trying to convey to the heterosexual one as best they can and what finally swung me over in that direction away from civil unions once I understood.

Individuals are at their best and most functional when they have monogamous relationships that are supported by our society. Civilizations are at their best when they do this also.

Praising and glorifying love, romance, and monogamy are the only logical things to do.
The more we do it the better the world will be for all of us.

Because I am a virulent optomist, I believe that at some point in the future, humanity will regain its desire for people to have



I was going to respond...but as I began to type I realize I have no kind response to offer you.

I think marriage is the business of the people who want to do it. Who they marry and for how long is their business. Marriage is and has always been a contract between two people who want to co-habituate and raise children. It might be arranged my parents or the couple depending on the culture. If we turn the clock back on women's right then you reduce them to property. Women use to be the property of the fathers who later gave them to a husband as property. People could go back to buying a women with horses, pigs and cows.
I think if you want to reduce the divorce rate you should do it through education. Kid and a lot of people don't know what they are getting into when they get married. You become responsible for another person and any children. It takes hard work monetarily and emotionally. People shouldn't stay in a bad marriage for the kids because it just messes the kids up worst than a divorce.

That is the funniest post I have read in ages .

Thank you Wootlops, just when i begin to doubt the intrinsic good of human nature an optomist like yourself comes along and cheers me up. Sincerely, you have made my day.

You have also confirmed my belief in the precepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest.
My wife and I were never able to have kids, but you have given such a life affirming statement that i actually feel good about that, now that i realise i might have contributed such death and suffering to the world. I have managed to live without crutches or boundaries, stress and frustrations.

Here i was thinking this was gods gift to me, and actually it was the fact that i never had kids to depress and down tread me.

My mind remains unsubverted (gee i hope all those other kids(not my own) that i love and care for don't count do they? I wouldnt want to be subverted)

Sadly, I am not your complete disciple, because i have reamined married and true to one woman for over 30 years.

Thats ok though, because at heart im a masochist, and i really deserve all the hardship and self denial that relationship has brought me.

Yep Yehaaaa!!! youve just made my day. Now I can take my wife and dog (dogs dont really count as repressed/sublimated substitutes for kids do they?) out for a walk on the beach with a clear conscience,;and a willl and heart able to concentrate on its own singular needs and desires.

All the best in your life also.

I agree that anyone who regards "breeders" as inferior beings is revealing how inferior they themselves feel to have to put others down because they made different choices.

I think marriage is a womans invention.

It's a word from the Amazons, meaning; "Wallet, to take and have."



I laugh in the face of danger! Then hide until it goes away! *hides*.

.... okay... i udnerstand were ur coming from.
BUT marriage should be sacred..
Anymore eople date for three weeks ebfore getting married...
Also Marriage is between two people who love each other..
I actually think Gay Marriage is making the sacredness of Marriage more Sacred. so yea...
Let it run its course

Originally, of course, the balance of gain /loss was much more equal. Until recent times (And im talking within my life tme here) sex was usually unavailable to men outside marriage, except through prostituion. The availability of prostitutes varied greatly, and in many parts of western society they were virtually unavailable. Thus marriage gave men virtually on call and unlimited access to sex, in return for the protection and provision for a woman and children. In fact it gave most, the only access to sex, available.

It is true that, in modern western societies, the ready availability of sex has made marriage far less an attractive proposition to men, but then financial, social, and political independence/freedoms have made it much less appealing/necessary for women also.
Now, the only ones who really require a marriage commitment of say 2 decades are children.

Woops, I notice cadetak basically said this in the OP, but i think it bears out how much certain values may be changed, through changing economic and social circumstances.

How do you propose that this can be changed? Going back on women's rights and restricting sex to marriage isn't going to happen. How do we make marriage an 'attractive proposition' again?

Marriage is a different concept altogether today. It's more of a legal term than anything:

Homosexuals fighting for the right to marry...they can marry with or without permission from the government in all reality, but for them I think it's largely just the principle of the thing...that and they want the legal rights of a married union.

In Quebec marriage has been changed a bit in the last few decades. Normally a woman takes on her husband's name. Now in Quebec we have Lemieux-Morin and Allard-Plante etc because there is a large fee associated with the name change. Now everyone hyphenates it, I can't wait until Lemieux-Morin and Allard-Plante marry...lol...Lemieux-Morin-Allard Plante. There's a laste name!

Common law "marriages" are another example of how marriage is simply a legal term. In this case, there is no wedding, religion plays no role, but in the eye of the LAW (not lord) the couple is married.

Right Test Subject. Marriage can be a social construct, a political unit, or simply people committed to each other. The last definition definitely does not require recognition by the government but I understand why some would want that especially if it means that is the only way you will be able to visit your loved one if ever they are admitted into the hospital and are unconscious.

That is very possible. Homosexuals are the most vocal non-religious group in the USA proclaiming that marriage is far more than just legal rights, a partnership to raise children, and that national recognition of a monogamous relationship is so very important in order to have a good life.

They apparently value greater than gold what others seem to just wish to throw away.

A couple of things might help. Creating legal and economic advantages for marriage rather than abolishing these. The state continuing its interventionist policies into the rights of children so that it is strongly encouraged that children must be raised by at least two people.

While there is no doubt that equal rights is an important improvement for us al,l there also needs to be a recognitiion that we are equal, but different, through biology and evolution(or through creation)
Thus, traditonal womens roles need to be as well paid and as highly valued by the community, so that rather than just having women move into mens roles we have more men moving into womens roles. For example in my state there are no male kindergarten(preschool) teachers in training, and only a handful of male primary school teachers. Yet modern studies show that boys and girls need male and female authority figures and role models for successful develpment and social adjustment.

At the moment, starting with the scandinavian countries, western countries have created economies where, not just for luxury, but for sheer economic survival families need 2 incomes(one to pay the social wage in taxes etc and one to support the family.) A family/marriage with both people working different jobs away from the home has a lot more stresses on it than a traditional family, and is less likely to survive. Incidentally children are less likely to be well adjusted and developed, in a family where considerable time and effort is not put into their upbringing, socialisation and education.

If society paid a viable wage to a parent who stayed home and raised the kids, and paid women equal pay in the work force, then either a father or a mother could stay at home with the kids, If you dont want kids enough to do this, or dislike that lifestyle intensely, then it is probably better if you dont have them in the first place. Kids deserve to be loved, and needed.

I'd go with the economic advantages and 'paying' stay at home at parents, thats a good idea as long as its not too extreme. Having men fill traditional women's roles is a bit harder to do because of the male ego...especially kindergarten teachers and stay at home dads. Some people still smirk over the idea of male nurses.

I think it is only important to have one stay at home parent in early childhood. I'd say once the child hits school age both parents could work because the kid will be at school anyways. This way a parent doesn't have to permanently give up a desired career. I was mostly raised just by my dad and he got off of work at around five I gotta out of school at 2:30 and inbetween that time I would either be with my grandma, cub scouts, practice, or something anyways.

Yes that would be ok, except where there was more than one child, which would extend the stay at home time for a bit longer. I think males do need to be taught that caring and sharing are just as impt attributes as competitiveness and toughness. In modern society the "feminine"attributes are much more positive and valuable than the old fashioned male ones. But i never considered it mightbe male ego that kept men out of those jobs. I thought it was just tradition combined with historically pooor pay for "womens" work. You might be right tthough.

Its stupid for a bloke to smirk at a male kindergarten teacher. Its one of the most impt jobs in the world, and at present young kids just arent seeing many male role model.

The attitude says a lot about how far some men have to go to catch up with modern realities.

Also men need to know, and display that they have the personal qualities for jobs like that or before long there wont be any male jobs left.

When we bought our new house, a year ago, the real estate office, the bank, and the conveyencing office were all completely staffed by women. Not a man among them. (actually 2 out of the 3 had been young ladies i taught years before.)

If men limit themselves to old fashioned roles they might soon find themselves without a job at all.
They need to be just as assertive about their capabilities to do "womens" work as women have been about doing "mens" work.

I think unfortunately, attitudes in society have changed... but not in the way some might guess. We've become a throw away society and that includes marriage too.

People seem to have this notion of love, commitment, romance, and much of it is extremely unrealistic. Marriage is HARD work, and often painful work--even the best marriages. You rarely hear people talking about that in a realistic way.

I was married for 12 years, my ex decided he wanted to be married to someone else because 12 years of marriage just wasn't what he envisioned... it was hard, he assumed that it was all my fault or that we'd made some grand mistake in deciding to get married in the first place.

I've remained single the last 6 years, I don't know that I'll ever get married again, and if I do, I'll have to make very sure that partners expectations are realistic... My ex however (last I heard) is about to bolt from his second marriage, leaving behind a foreign wife and very young son. Why? I can only assume that it's because that marriage didn't meet his expectations either. He wants a fairy tale, and marriage is anything but a romantic fairy tale. I think people's expectations are just skewed.

Before the common era we live in now, marriage was almost always a business agreement... in some cases, the couple learned to live with and love each other and worked on a true partnership. We're in a time now where that is NOT the case. We want a fairy tale that's never existed... hence, so many confused people that give up on what they've got when it all the sudden feels less like love and flowers and more like work.

i got married this time for the tax breaks , this parntnership is a living breathing endeavor not a piece of paper it relfects the two pfolks that are in the union.. In my case having a failed marriage under my belt has served us well ....good grief marriage is a societal construct, there is nothing natural about it.... IMO ... i see no value in ascribing to set of rules that do not speak of 'us' as two people with our own histories and uniquness that have merged toghether and define this thing we call "us"..( the one size fits all doesn't work).the marriage construct as defined doesn't allow for change ..... there in is why is doesn't work..In my pov many end up living for the vows and very little on the growth and evolution of the two who are creating the us....we have devised a system that doesn't allow for growth. in reality...this goes against the basis essence of us as humans.....

i do enjoy a very happy quality partnership now (14 years) the work is in allowing another to be who they are and that includes flaws and when we can't we find a way to make a win win for both.... We do not have on going issues because of this principle..when we insist another has to show up as we need them to or expect them to we generate our own issues..... a realtionship has to be first and fore most about the two who are living it.....

I am dear freinds with my ex actaully so is my hubby (we are a extended family) my hubby now embraced this idea and fit into the situation... We felt the best thing was to be there for our son and help him adjust so as a team this is what we all did......

relationships never really end they just change form.....

Right MMW courtly love is actually a literary invention and actually leads to infidelity once someone is already in a stable relationship but still craves it. It is a beautiful concept and very seducing one at that but is hard to maintain in the real world when attempting to reconcile it with a long lasting relationship. Working things out takes work and both partners have to be committed to that work in progress.

And the business of marriage is a valid point in how our ancestors viewed the custom as such. Here is a brief insight into that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_ring

clovis when you define partnership on your terms you will see that love and romance doesnt die it actaully grows...don't give up hope, we get out what we put into the union.... few understand this....few see this in fact...
why is it called 'work ' to delight in your relationship.. what is more fun then nurturing your relationship....it is not as you wish it to be change it...

You misunderstand SS but I can see how you were trying to help. And not all work has to be something negative and many can delight in their work. Of course love and romance does not have to die but it is not courtly love which is more about ideals than reality. Considering I first got with my wife in '92 and married in '99 I think we are doing well. Ups and downs yes but with each we become stronger.

the courting phases has it place certainly its just darn exciting but ..I do agree many seek this phase and do not undersntad that its the connecting essence of love the frame for which we will write our story.... ..IMO...


the 'downs' of my partnership are the opps we have used to let go of the limts that blocked loving each other more deeply......... i see them as the contributing factors for such a amazing love story that we have written that suits us that is us.......as you can probalby tell this is one of my favorite subjects....... I say its the the imperfections that have given way/made possible to the perfections in our union...


we genuinely adore each other as people , we are great freinds also ,I think cultivatng a freindship helps alot....
I am glad you see I was trying to help..


I was lead astray by well meaning adults myself with their ideas on love but as defined within the context of marriage , perhaps we would want to take the time to look a this and perhaps redefine based on what we now know.......

Bella, I think some are naturally monogamis and some aren't, but this iis based in observation not data. and very well could be an influenced pov on my part......I am intereseted in any links you would recommend my dear.......

Hyperactive who i hold in the highest regards thinks humans are serial monogamists also..lol

i do concur a wonderful thing to do is celebrate love and unity for the delight it is if you choose marrige great if you don' great bieng married or not bieng married is no measure of the quality of a relationship ....the inspiirng models of relationships in my own life are from unmarried people that love each other and it just shows, enough to ask how are you doing that...In truth i know only one other couple that is recently married but lived together forever who are genuinely happy and inspire me...yet their marriage is not based on anythng but what is best for them....i saddly know many who are miserable or have been hurt by marriage and therfore are bitter and unhopeful.....


i do not think jealousy is natural it seems to be a derivative of the ownership/my property aspect of the construct of marriage..It kills relationships faster than anything IMO....perhaps you meant envy....

my hubby is very handsome, charmning and noticed by the female and male population all the time...

I am tickled pink by this and very honored he is a delight to the eyes he certainly is to mine lol...

This is true and yet also untrue. Marriage, like having kids, or looking after elderly parents with dementia can appear to an outsider to be hard work(and yes it can entail physical hard work and the need for physical and mental discipline) and yet hard work is really only a state of mind. Genuinely, its not hard if it doesnt seem hard, and not even work if it doesnt seem like work.

And what can make it not ,work, not hard , but an experience of triumphal joy?

. For me the answer is old fashioned love. The love that blinds, if you like, or rather opens one's eyes to true values and priorities , which makes every experience something to enjoy and treasure etc. If you dont know what im talking about, you wont understand no matter how much i explain.

I can only say i've been married/ in love with the same woman for well over 30 years. Her parents were married for over 60 years, mine are still married after nearly 60.
In my case i am not blind to my wife's faults ( although i would never mention these to her) or the the sacrifices and hard work involved in marriage, but just as my wife is as beautiful as she was 35 years ago, when i met her, marriage has never felt like hard work. It has always been a joy and a pleasure, and thus something i would never consider giving up.

When we looked after her parents with dementia, bathing, lifting and caring for them every day for over 5 years, with perhaps 4 or 5 hours sleep a night, many people told us how wonderful we were do do something so difficult. In fact it was never difficult, there was no alternative. We did it from love, and as a consequence, gained not only joy, empowerment and many other blessngs from it, but were energised and strengthened by the task. It was like the saying that god will give you the strength needed to do a task.

Surely many married people, and many parents, must feel the same way. You might have to do a lot, but it never really feels like hard work.

And so to me(and i must admit that, to me, the princess bride ranks as one of the top movies ever made, Love comes first. Love is a real and powerful force. If it can be harnessed physicall and emotionally/ pschologically it can transform any experience from a negative one to a positive one.

And true love does endure, and can easily do so for a life time. Not only love of partner but love of family, love of self, love of those around you, and love of god (if you are a believer) WILL transform every element of your life. Life without love in it, is a pale shadow of what it is meant to be.

my brother and his wife have been togeather since they were 15. this month will be their 19th or 20th wedding anniversary. ( crap I gotta get a gift !) they have been togeather 26 years.

they have had bad times and good. They don't always like each other , but they do love each other and each is the others best friend. Laughing is what both of them say is the best thing they have in common.

Male ego plays heavily here in my opinion. Men are almost instinctively against the idea of marriage. In the old days getting married was a social standard and so it was a thing to pride yourself upon, also husbands were in complete control of their wives and children, for a man it wasn't about wanting a child but more like producing a heir and back then having children was also a social standard. It wasn't necessarily about love in the old traditions.

Before you met your wife could you say that you were looking forward to getting married?

After going through a hellish divorce, I'd be the last person you'd expect to be on the side of marriage. Being one half of a team is extremely hard work - it's not something that should be jumped into lightly.

However, I agree with Leo. It's a sacred thing and an outward display of your commitment to be with someone.

Oh definitely yes. But then i lived in the olden days lol, You had a girlfriend, got engaged, and then got married. Everyone did it, and from the examples of your parents, you expected it to last forever. It was a right of passage like turning 21. There were all the rituals asociated with it, like sneaking out of the wedding and getting away so no one knew where you were going, and then getting to your bridal boudoir and finding your bed sheets all strewn with rose petals or confetti, because some one had managed to work out where you were spending the night.
The availablility of sex with someone you loved was something to look forward to, but more importantly marriag ewas a sign to family and friends that you had become an adult, and were ready to start your own house and house hold.

You always had a special friend with you which was nice. Yes i really looked forward to getting married, and it was an important part of my life plan (but back then this was what everyone wanted and expected, and anyone who did not get married was looked on with varying degrees of concern or pity)

It is incredible how nuch lives and attitudes have changed in, what to me, is a very short period of time. I simply cant comprehend peole who dont want to get married, as long as they are not in too much of a hurry and find the right partner for themselves.
While certain sections of society historically have married for reasons other than love, love is a special glue which binds people together and most people in most societies(particularly from my era) would not have dreamed of marrying someone they did not love romantically.

I disagree about men, and love,.but then i have to. lol I'm a male and love is the most important force in my life. Men are completely as capable of love as women. They just get socialised out of the idea' while in the past, women were socialised into it.

An understanding of love, its importance, and the ability to recognise and cultivate, it was one of the great skills my parents passed on to me both by personal example and by explicit teaching.

Great words Mr Walker and I agree that it is because of the role models of our parents that we learn how to love and consider marriage between two people as a matter of tradition. Oh some still live in the olden days and well even though modern society through the media have damaged many traditions, in my case it took me a time to reconcile the olden days with the modern era, I have come out as a strong believer in the olden days as being the best model for myself personally and society can do as it wishes. Indeed it is work but as you stated it is a work of passion when you see and know the results of it.

. great post and so true... i forget about this ... making light of things , not taking oneself to seriously and finding the humor in everything .is glue for any relationship....

Oh trust me.... I've been divorced for 6 years, was married for 13. When I got married at the too tender age of 22... the thought of being married never crossed my mind... he asked, I said "ok". (should have thought that one through a little cleaner). Now, it is ALWAYS the guys that bring that topic up first. Always. It's certainly never me. I could be happy not being married again very easily.

I had one guy ask me on a FIRST date if I wanted to go look at wedding dresses... HUH?! The bad part? He wasn't JOKING! (needless to say there was not a second date. LOL)

I agree with MMW, I am the one in the relationships who isn't interested in marriage.

There is one of your problems right there. We've spent so long turning men into 'nice guys' that they think they either cannot or do not have to fight for their relationships to succeed. The knight in shining armor always had to fight the dragon or evil stepmother before he could rescue the princess. I have no idea how to undo over a century of turning men into nice guys. Getting more men in education, which was dominated by men in the US before the Progressives got their hands on the education of children, would probably help.

Other than that, our governments could stop creating situations that encourage women to not marry. I'm thinking specifically of the US welfare system prior to the 1990s reforms. Single mothers were rewarded for having more children out of wedlock and were punished for marrying, attempting to educate themselves, or finding a job. Generally, throwing money at problems is going to have many unforeseen consequences.

lol knights were nice guys, and they could fight, but i think i understand what you mean.

However, our society is utilising the particular skills of women(from fine motor skills to cooperative rather than competitive work environments.) Strength and stamina have been replaced by multi tasking and flexibility/adaptation . These are things women have evolved to be better at, or are actually gentically more gifted at through evolution. For example mens physical eyesight, including detection of movement and long range vision, as well as a centralised focus of attention on one thing, is a result of millions of years of hunter lifestyle. Womens better colour vision, ability to see a wider range of human emotions and their ability to multi task are all responses to a similar period of gathering and communal behaviour, where it was important to recognise emotions as well as be able to detect different plants and the signs of food supply.

Either that or god created us differently for different and specialised roles

Some physical differences we cant do much about, but we can restructure male identity into a more positive model, more appropriate to modern social conditions. We can teach them how to better utilise everything from high testosterone levels to high adrenalin and stress levels so that men can adapt to changing social and work requirements.