4 ms·

These stats are pretty demoralizing with regards to how marriage is just seen as a get rich quick scheme. > Fully two-thirds of women and half of men said they

by jfim 4y ago

These stats are pretty demoralizing with regards to how marriage is just seen as a get rich quick scheme. > Fully two-thirds of women and half of men said they were "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%). > Of course, when the mercenary marriage proves disappointing, there's always divorce. Among the women in their twenties who said they would marry for money, 71% said they expected to get divorced -- the highest of any demographic. Only 27% of men in their 40s expected to divorce. Quite sobering.

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
To play devil’s advocate: The study found that people who are willing to marry for money at any price would on average require $1.5 million (in 2007 dollars). Most people answering the survey don’t have option to marry for that kind of money (it’s roughly the 95th percentile for family wealth) and the vast majority of actual marriages don’t involve a wealth transfer of that size. So the survey is really telling us that most people don’t marry for money, but maybe they would if you dangled the opportunity of a lifetime in front of them. It’s telling people to imagine themselves inside the plot of a Lifetime movie and asking them how they would behave.
- jfim 4y ago
  $1.5 million in 2007 dollars is about $2 million in 2022 dollars. In the Bay area, with a FAANG income, that's somewhat within reach. It's a pretty good point though that it's just a hypothetical survey, and that most people imagining that opportunity don't actually have it, so it's more of a fantasy kind of thing.
- strix_varius 4y ago
  It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Take a look at their specific California examples: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/California http://www.realworlddivorce.com/California Surgeon making $275k ends up on the hook for $87,600 annually, which totals $1.5 million over 18 years.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
    Granted, surgeons and FANG engineers can build up millions in wealth, but they are nowhere near the median person in the US. Romantic partnerships tend to be class-segregated, so most people don’t have the option of marrying up like that. I speculate that if you stratify they survey responses by income, you’d find that people of X income are going to require 10X+ for a money marriage.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Marriage being an expression and means of "love" is a fairly modern phenomenon. Looking back throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were (and arguably still are) to obtain, transfer, or maintain wealth and power. Arranged marriages are the most obvious example. Two families get together and decide <X> and <Y> will marry to advance familial interests; wishes and desires of <X> and <Y> be damned. Divorces becoming normalized and destigmatized (to some degree) is also a modern phenomenon. Lest we forget, the Church of England came into existence for the sole reason that the English king at the time wanted to divorce his queen. There's no reason to feel sad that marriage isn't about "love", because that notion is at best a recent turn of events, and at worst an elaborate lie woven by storytellers of various forms through the ages. Fact of the matter is that marriage for the vast portion of human history has never been about "love". Marriage has always been about money and power, and ultimately leaving offspring in a manner whose lineage can be easily traced back.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Can we kill this "church of england exists because divorce" meme? It's getting grey and long in the tooth. The CoE started in the 600's with Augustine of Canterbury, even though the Celts had an earlier form of Christianity in the 3rd century. The law around regarding consent in marriage started in the 11th century. Unless we want to remove consent and arrange marriages, the "love" influence of Christianity on marriage isn't going anywhere.
  - Eleison23 4y ago
    If the Church of England started in the 600s, it was nevertheless fully in union with Rome for the next 900 years. The Church of England/Roman Catholic Church was onboard with notions of exclusivity and permanence of marriage for all those intervening years. The reason that CoE's genesis is largely traced to the mid-16th century is because Henry VIII had trouble producing an heir with an eligible wife, and he was more than willing to break with the Holy See on such a momentous issue. He declared himself Head of the Church. He declared himself arbiter of the marriage laws. Henry arrogated so much authority that Rome was unable to continue in union with that Church of England, no matter how old and venerable its roots may have been.
leobg 4y ago
Where is the surprise? Marriage was created first and foremost as an institution to provide economic security. The idea of “marrying for love” has been a fairly recent one, AFAIK. And those who have married for love, or for physical attraction, often find out pretty soon that those other “unromantic” aspects might actually be much more important for the long term survival of the marriage.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Not supported by literature of any age. Marriage for love has been important for centuries. Millennia.
  - leobg 4y ago
    So has been pragmatism and the desire to improve one's standard of living. I'm not denying that people in history have desired marriage to someone out of love or attraction. But I am saying that the economical aspect has always played a big role, if not the decisive one. Being married myself, I know that what makes marriage work is not what you felt when you started. More important than marrying the person you love, I would say, is loving the person you married.

by jfim 4y ago

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

To play devil’s advocate: The study found that people who are willing to marry for money at any price would on average require $1.5 million (in 2007 dollars). Most people answering the survey don’t have option to marry for that kind of money (it’s roughly the 95th percentile for family wealth) and the vast majority of actual marriages don’t involve a wealth transfer of that size. So the survey is really telling us that most people don’t marry for money, but maybe they would if you dangled the opportunity of a lifetime in front of them. It’s telling people to imagine themselves inside the plot of a Lifetime movie and asking them how they would behave.

jfim 4y ago
$1.5 million in 2007 dollars is about $2 million in 2022 dollars. In the Bay area, with a FAANG income, that's somewhat within reach. It's a pretty good point though that it's just a hypothetical survey, and that most people imagining that opportunity don't actually have it, so it's more of a fantasy kind of thing.
strix_varius 4y ago
It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Take a look at their specific California examples: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/California http://www.realworlddivorce.com/California Surgeon making $275k ends up on the hook for $87,600 annually, which totals $1.5 million over 18 years.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  Granted, surgeons and FANG engineers can build up millions in wealth, but they are nowhere near the median person in the US. Romantic partnerships tend to be class-segregated, so most people don’t have the option of marrying up like that. I speculate that if you stratify they survey responses by income, you’d find that people of X income are going to require 10X+ for a money marriage.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Marriage being an expression and means of "love" is a fairly modern phenomenon. Looking back throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were (and arguably still are) to obtain, transfer, or maintain wealth and power. Arranged marriages are the most obvious example. Two families get together and decide <X> and <Y> will marry to advance familial interests; wishes and desires of <X> and <Y> be damned. Divorces becoming normalized and destigmatized (to some degree) is also a modern phenomenon. Lest we forget, the Church of England came into existence for the sole reason that the English king at the time wanted to divorce his queen. There's no reason to feel sad that marriage isn't about "love", because that notion is at best a recent turn of events, and at worst an elaborate lie woven by storytellers of various forms through the ages. Fact of the matter is that marriage for the vast portion of human history has never been about "love". Marriage has always been about money and power, and ultimately leaving offspring in a manner whose lineage can be easily traced back.

barrysteve 4y ago
Can we kill this "church of england exists because divorce" meme? It's getting grey and long in the tooth. The CoE started in the 600's with Augustine of Canterbury, even though the Celts had an earlier form of Christianity in the 3rd century. The law around regarding consent in marriage started in the 11th century. Unless we want to remove consent and arrange marriages, the "love" influence of Christianity on marriage isn't going anywhere.
- Eleison23 4y ago
  If the Church of England started in the 600s, it was nevertheless fully in union with Rome for the next 900 years. The Church of England/Roman Catholic Church was onboard with notions of exclusivity and permanence of marriage for all those intervening years. The reason that CoE's genesis is largely traced to the mid-16th century is because Henry VIII had trouble producing an heir with an eligible wife, and he was more than willing to break with the Holy See on such a momentous issue. He declared himself Head of the Church. He declared himself arbiter of the marriage laws. Henry arrogated so much authority that Rome was unable to continue in union with that Church of England, no matter how old and venerable its roots may have been.

leobg 4y ago

Where is the surprise? Marriage was created first and foremost as an institution to provide economic security. The idea of “marrying for love” has been a fairly recent one, AFAIK. And those who have married for love, or for physical attraction, often find out pretty soon that those other “unromantic” aspects might actually be much more important for the long term survival of the marriage.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Not supported by literature of any age. Marriage for love has been important for centuries. Millennia.
- leobg 4y ago
  So has been pragmatism and the desire to improve one's standard of living. I'm not denying that people in history have desired marriage to someone out of love or attraction. But I am saying that the economical aspect has always played a big role, if not the decisive one. Being married myself, I know that what makes marriage work is not what you felt when you started. More important than marrying the person you love, I would say, is loving the person you married.