In the animal kingdom, only some males get mates. Some males get multiple females, and some get none. Nearly all females get mates. It is similar with humans. So when I would see a married woman, I would think, "This women may have rowdy kids, but you shouldn't feel too sorry for her. After all, she probably rejected multiple men before she found her "prize", and she had fun making those kids. Since she had fun, she ought to deal with the result."

Not all women (or men) get married just for sexual pleasure. In the Church, women feel obligated to marry. Sexual pleasure might be part of it, but they marry because the Church says they have to. Outside the Church, many women marry because it is the "thing to do". Many marry because their parents want them to. Some marry because they need help financially.

So now I look at married women and think, "Maybe she married because society made her do it, and the trials the came with her marriage are partly the fault of society. She may have married a man she did not want just because of social and/or religious pressure."

Sometimes the kids you see a married woman with are adopted. She did not have fun making these kids. Maybe she didn't have much "fun" in her entire marriage.

We should be glad that people we consider mean, rude, crooked, etc. get married. We might be jealous of them if their spouse is very attractive. We might think we deserve the spouse more than they do. But we need to realize that if they were not married maybe they would be out on the street committing crimes. Having them married is good for society because because is reduces social problems.

My maternal grandmother (born in the early 1900s) got married to her first husband for love. He died. Then she married her second husband for more practical reasons. Someone had to provide for her and her children. My grandfather was a widower with children who were in need of a mother. In an age when washing took all day, when irons were heated on the stove, when the icebox was literally a box with ice, and when all food was home made, there were few other good options. Someone had to go out and work, and someone needed to keep the home front going.

Getting married was also the expectation in my mother and father's day. They were a part of The Greatest Generation.

Now I think people marry for companionship and (often) to build a family. Most women I know either work or spend a substantial portion of their lives working. You don't have to marry -- I haven't. And you don't have to have kids. Modern life is about options.

When my father-in-law was dying, he suggested to my mother-in-law that a certain old, feeble, and very cranky and spiteful man in the ward might be a good future husband. When FIL finally passed away, ward members forced MIL into an arranged marriage with this man. My MIL would do anything out of duty--anything. She would do anything that her husband or that the church told her to do, even if she didn't want to. So she let herself be railroaded into the marriage. She stayed married to him for about 15 years before he passed away. By that time he had dementia and elder rage, and would physically abuse her. My MIL, a founding member of not only the ward, but of the town built in 1923, had enjoyed a lot of respect, and was visited often by members, leaders, and missionaries (whom she always fed on Saturday morning). But by the time her second husband died, he had driven away all the members, and she died a lonely death.

Most mobsters are married. They have a wife and kids at home. Traditional family life usually. Dad doesn’t bring work home. When dad is at work he’s a criminal. He might even be hurting and even killing people.

Marriage is a complicated subject. You can still be a menace to society and still have a nice family life.

I'm not sure why your opinion about how other people organize their romantic and family lives matters. It surely isn't any of my business, why is it yours?

Often, people come to this board to express opinions which may be flawed but which express the damage that has been done to them as a result of belonging to a cult. Rather than to rebuff their expression of their flawed views (which expression is what this board is here for) by telling them that the relationships of others is not their business (the OP spoke in generalities), it might be better to help them to re-shape their paradigms to fit a more healthy world-view.

"But we need to realize that if they were not married maybe they would be out on the street committing crimes. Having them married is good for society because because it reduces social problems."

Really? You think that unmarried women will commit crimes if they can't find a mate?

You sound like George Q. Cannon, one of the early members of the quorum of the 12 apostles. He had 6 wives and 43 children. He justified polygamy for the same reason you seem to be suggesting that women and society are better off if woman marry. Here's Cannon's quote justifying plural marriage:

"Our crime has been: We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide."

Yes, George Q. and the other apostles felt like they were doing the world a favor by marrying/impregnating multiple wives. If he hadn't married his six wives they probably would have been prostitutes!

Women don't need to be married to stay out of trouble. There are plenty of hard working single women who contribute to society and make the world a better place.

Marriage is a legal contract. It used to be for the kids, but if you have a child with someone, the kid is the contract. If you don’t think so, try not paying child support.

Guys get the short end of the stick in marriage these days. The pendulum has swung so far the other way that women should consider other arrangements in the interest of fairness.

Babylon, you are off the mark on this. The pendulum has been swinging in the RIGHT direction for decades now. Women have been getting more equality, although the work is not done; and men have been getting more equality, although the work is not done.

I will focus only on the male side of this because that is the topic you raised. Fifty years ago in a divorce, the woman always got the children. Always. And usually with zero, or close to zero, custody for the father. Likewise, alimony and child support always went from the man to the woman regardless of relative earning capacity.

Today the situation is much changed. In most states the assumed custody arrangement is 50/50 and the payments go from the spouse with more income to the spouse with left. Sometimes you even hear women complaining, with shock, that the judge wants them to pay alimony to their ex-husbands. None of this was possible decades ago.

The situation with domestic violence is similar. It used to be assumed that women were always the victims and men the aggressors. In many instances that was clearly false. Now the laws, and their interpretation and implementation, are gradually moving towards a more equitable pattern. There are some states in which a quarter of DV convictions are of women, something that would have been literally inconceivable decades ago.

Social institutions that unfairly benefit men are still extremely common, and there are some that are far too generous to women. But the movement has generally been progress and it would be a mistake to ignore that.

The pendulum is swinging in the right direction now.

Another women-are-victims thread, dumb and weak, can't say no.

"Not all women (or men) get married just for sexual pleasure. In the Church, women feel obligated to marry. Sexual pleasure might be part of it, but they marry because the Church says they have to. Outside the Church, many women marry because it is the "thing to do". Many marry because their parents want them to. Some marry because they need help financially."

So women don't like men and marriage, they're pressured to do it? I suppose they also don't really want children, and the money from their husband, and him taking out the garbage.

I guess we're going to ignore millions of years of evolution. We exist because our ancestors did what it took to survive. And like it or not, the odds of children surviving, were greater if a woman had a committed man to support and defend her.

Which is why women in general, are wired to want a man.

Suzanne Venker discusses the lie that women don't need a man.

https://www.suzannevenker.com/feminism/4-feminist-lies-that-are-making-women-miserable/

Sure, in our modern world, women can be more independent, because technology and infrastructure, built mostly by men, allows it.

In addition to survival, marriage now benefits women when he dies or they get divorced, and most divorces are filed by women.

My MIL got her husband's pension when he died after only 5 years of marriage, which pissed off his family.

Dr Helen Smith explains how marriage is a raw deal for men, and benefits women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCpBa4ITEcI

And of course, the whistle brings out the dogs.

Helen Smith says men should "boycott marriage." In the name of all women, please do exactly as she suggests.

"Which is why women in general, are wired to want a man."

Mmmhmm, because all human beings are organic robots who just operate based entirely upon biological imperative. You might as well reduce us to an insectoid behavioral model, except I think you'd find you don't like being compared to a male bee.

You try to say women aren't victims, aren't dumb and weak, and can say no, then you casually remind everyone that women need the money, protection, and infrastructure men provide in order to survive so I'd like you to drop the manipulative and circular doublespeak if you're going to drop another one of your MGTOW recruiting leaflets. Just let it hang out, Free Man, because we already know what it is.

I concur with Lot's Wife and big thumbs up to azsteve.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2020 12:48PM by ptbarnum.

>>My MIL got her husband's pension when he died after only 5 years of marriage, which pissed off his family.

My pension system has something like nine different options for payout, one of which must be selected when you retire. You choose which option you want. You can get a higher pension, which stops when you die. Or you can get a lower payout with various rights of survivorship for a spouse and/or children.

It may be that your FIL's children were never due any part of his pension anyway.

Um, what about Love?

I can tell you are still a Mormon, Behindcurtain, and were never taught about Love. What a sad perspective you have on marriage.

Although, the idea that women can be punching-bags to deflect a man's anger and hatred, might be true. It happened in my first marriage, a virgin temple-marriage with an RM who turned out to be a violent abuser. His abuse was not just restricted to me, but to his own sister, a grocery store checker, some neighbors, their pets, other animals, and my brother who tried to save me.

No. Being married does not stop abusers from attacking other people. It doesn't make men honest, either. Often these anti-social traits are passed on to the children.

I don't see the need to put a distinction between men and women to generalize differences of behaviors and values between the genders. There are far larger differences between individual people from one person to the next as individuals. Everyone adapts to societies expectations and rules of them as individuals differently. But our needs are much the same. Some people are selfish and dishonest. Others are much more honest and charitable. To try to characterize these most important things by gender isn't possible. To assign roles based on how they did things in previous generations is counter-productive. A part of leaving behind Mormonism includes changing some of the false paradigms involving the sexes.

I think it is wrong to merry if love for the other person is not the primary motivator. Marriage is the only contract where the terms are not spelled-out. It's more about mutual intent and compatability than it is about fulfilling terms and conditions. Arrangements to raise children and to finance their needs does not always need to take place exclusively in marriage, although raising children in a stable marriage is the ideal. Either way whether married or not, if there is conflict between the couple, the courts will make those decisions involving the children.

Jumping in to a marriage for any reason other than for love is foolish. When people talk about the woman giving the man sex without requiring a marriage first as something negative they ignore both the man and the woman's right to explore their own sexuality for the right reasons, and in fact promote prostitution by implying that the man should give the woman something of financial value in exchange for the sex that she gives to him. They assume that the woman can not get anything from the sex other than possibly financial support and that the man's motives should be suspect if the deal hasn't been secured by some kind of a contract to give her something of value in exchange for the sex. These values are really screwed-up considering the actual natural equality that exists between the sexes (absent all of the politics). Perhaps this is not considered to be prostitution from a legal perspective if a marriage is considered to be required before sex as it is in the church. But it is definitely prostitution from a moral perspective. Sayings like "he is getting the milk without paying for it" (often spoken with self-righteous indignation) demean both the man and the woman. These are the screwed-up values of previous generations and imply that everyone is out to exploit everyone else so you better have a contract. If the man gives the woman the kind of sex she wants, she will want sex as much as he does and wouldn't reasonably think to expect anything else in exchange. When it comes down to it, men and women are equal when it comes to needs and desires for sex, and the need for financial support. The church attempts to separate everything between the sexes and then to erect their own toll booth in between when they require a marriage and preferably a temple marriage, before a man and woman can have sex.

I think that the more everyone sees equality instead of fundamental differences between the sexes, the happier everyone is. There are strip clubs where the women pay to get in to watch the men take off their clothes and flaunt their bodies while the women throw money at them. This is a good thing girls and guys. A lot of guys don't put a lot of effort in to staying fit and physically attractive while the women in our society tend to work harder at staying fit and attractive. Any guy who wants to, can lose some weight, put on some six-pack abs, and listen carefully to what the women in their lives are saying when they talk. Men have been known to cry openly in church. So these roles are not mutually exclusive We're really not all that different. The differences are a false images that people try to maintain. If society would treat everyone equally, the only differences that would exist would be the most obvious ones that god or nature intended to exist (those that draw us together and create sexual desire based on the sex of the other person).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2020 06:12AM by azsteve.

“The church attempts to separate everything between the sexes and then to erect their own toll booth in between when they require a marriage and preferably a temple marriage, before a man and woman can have sex.”

That usually includes serving a mission since the woman are indoctrinated to hold out for an RM. The church makes marriage a hall pass for sex and makes you jump through hoops to get one. All the while the gatekeepers are basing their sham authority on bogus information.

I was raised in the church, so the first big surprise for me was that marriage isn’t all about sex. The way the church is obsessed with the subject, you’d think it was. But of course, that’s just to drive up the value so more guys will go on missions. Cults manipulate. That’s how you know you’re in a cult.

get the work I like to do that was sitting there waiting for me this morning, so I've been working for a couple of hours.

I'm not going to reply to all the replies, just post my own attitude and experience.

I wanted ONLY to get married, not like my parents' marriage was perfect, but MINE WAS GOING TO BE. They built this big dream for us and it wasn't just the church. Listen to the music. I had such a romantic view of what it would all be like and I was going to find a man (who just walked in the door from doing snow removal ha ha ha in his hat--the dogs won't recognize him). Anyway, find a man who God had prepared just for me and even my PB told me so.

Age 25 and no mormon men wanted me. Nonmormons did. And THEN a mormon guy acted interested. Shock if you all know where this story is going. A gay mormon guy was interested in ME! And, shit, what a life that brought on for me.

I earned more than he did. I don't now, but I don't work full time. He has a pension, I don't. We've been separated since 1996, though he now lives downstairs (which he could have done all along). I raised the kids, I paid the bills, I got no child support and no alimony, although I was only working part-part time when he left me (3 times in one year). I was too broken to get a divorce, too broken to force him to do what he should. I gave him 100% access to his kids as long as he didn't have them around his boyfriend (who wanted me admitted and for them to take custody of my kids--over my fucking dead body).

As for my ability to find a man, the bishop of the ward (who was very nice looking himself) said I was the ONE girl in the ward he couldn't figure out why I wasn't married as I was so attractive and I earned such good money. My "boyfriend" used to take me to his missionary reunions, etc., to show me off. His gay friends couldn't figure out how HE GOT ME.

I CHOOSE not to remarry, although I've been with my boyfriend for 15 years as of January 15th. He was my boyfriend at age 20, but wasn't mormon. I went looking for him when I found out he was getting divorced. He'd like me to live with him on his terms. I refuse. I won't disappear for another man. I tried living with him (again just recently). We do better living apart.

I just figured out recently that I can divorce my husband and get half of everything including his pension. He had told me (as well as that first boyfriend) that I couldn't get ANY MONEY. They very brutally emotionally abused me. They completely BROKE ME. I probably should have been admitted, but there was no way in hell they were taking MY CHILDREN from me.

I wanted 8 children. Tried to have more than the twins, but never got pregnant again. Yes, we had sex, more than you'd believe for a gay/straight couple, and no, he isn't bi by any means. I'm glad I only had 2. They give me enough stress. I thought raising them to 18 was the job I had to do. What a joke that is.

I thought I needed a man. I didn't. My daughter tells me that I've chosen to be around 3 difficult, extremely intelligent men (including my son) and we laugh about it, but it is a serious situation.

Thank whomever, my husband fixes things like puts a metal roof on, lays my flooring, fixes cars including body work. My car was just wrecked by someone and I'm using the money to put in new flooring and he is fixing the body of the car. He doesn't do much yard work, but he is over grounds at the hospital and hates yard work now. He keeps the downstairs clean. I don't have to. Doesn't do that great of a job. You should see the dust.

I clean my boyfriend's house. He pays me now as I quit doing it as he drove me nuts. I do his yard work except mowing.

Do I need a man? Not for money. I won't divorce my husband, but he will pay the bills here once he retires and takes out a lump sum of his pension. I paid for the house all those years.

Now tell me your attitude towards women? And why they marry?

The laws haven't caught up with making it equal for men as far as custody and spousal and child support. My brothers raised their sons without any child support. My boyfriend paid spousal support and she has a HUGE inheritance. He paid child support for any time she spent with her daughter, ANY TIME. His daughter lived with him. My husband's boss pays his ex $1000 a month and she gets half his pension. And will pay his ex $1000 a month the rest of his life. Hopefully, when he retires, he can get that lowered (this year).

I was taught in mutual that I would not like sex. I was just supposed to keep my husband happy. My husband tells me that there was no way I was taught that. Oh yes I was. I was told it was my fault he cheated since he wasn't getting enough sex--if you give them sex 24 hours a day and they cheat, it is still the woman's fault in mormonism. It is my fault he is still gay, that he cheated, that he left.

Do you wonder why I don't get remarried? I'm glad I have my kids. MY kids (most days). They look like my family anyway. He cries sometimes for how he treated us, them. They were abandoned, too. He could have spent all the time he wanted with them and HE CHOSE NOT TO. He missed 10 years of their lives.

Oh well. I've said it all before. I was raised to believe I needed a man. Bullshit. They NEED me. I guess I'll go finish fixing dinner (my dinner for the next few days) and doing the dishes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2020 02:24PM by cl2.

My wife and I were maried to escape bad family trauma.
Both of us were abused in different ways.
Her's was sexual
Mine was emotional
We lived together for 56 years until she was killed by lung cancer!

As a previously married and now single person I see your comments/thoughts in a different light.

Being married doesn't save you from social problems or crime. Each of us has the individual responsibility to self care and upholding the law.

You are correct that people get married for different reasons-love, social expectation, financial gain, religious expectations, etc. Regardless of the reason, once that box is checked those two people have to deal with what trials come in the relationship and family.

Being single also has its advantages and disadvantages. Having lived both lives has taught me that both lives are beautiful.

RMM

My first attempt at marriage, to Sue Smith in the 8th grade, had a lot going for it, what with us having been in the same class ever since 6th grade! She was cute and cuddly and I was a skinny Mexican with horn-rimmed glasses! We had it all!!!

Except I never got around to asking her... Bummer, huh? We'd have been married 62 years this year!!

I like marriage! It's legally sanctioned "Going Steady"! Count me in!

I like what the Bible actually says on the subject found in corrinthians 7: "it is good to be married but better to be single." I'm not making this up! And the mormon hierarchy goes on and on about how there is something wrong with single people, and the need for celestial sealing etc.

Mormonism is a pile of crap.

This may be the greatest post here ever-

Talk about thinking out of the box. I’d love to hear you expound on any topic ——