3 ms·

The counterargument says that a marriage is basically an agreement where the woman agrees to lend her womb to a man in exchange for him supporting her and her c

by jibiki 17y ago

The counterargument says that a marriage is basically an agreement where the woman agrees to lend her womb to a man in exchange for him supporting her and her children. That's way too sexist for me (if that's what marriage is, then we should change it,) but I'm still not convinced that a man should be allowed to leave and only provide half the minimum support for his children. It seems like the woman is seriously getting screwed in that situation: she has to raise the kids on her own AND find > 1/2 the money to support them. Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to.

Notorious_PWN 17y ago
Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to. If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.
- jibiki 17y ago
  > If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him. The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan. In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)
  - Notorious_PWN 17y ago
    In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...) I agree with you. I think men and women are, innately, about equal in terms of stupidity and bad intentions. They diverge for cultural reasons. Men (in general) are rewarded more for individual accomplishments but also are punished more severely for misbehavior, and both of these discrepancies are morally wrong. What this leads to is a country in which the women, on average, are more spoiled and less ambitious than the men. Most men have a spell when they get burned by their bad tastes in women-- before their tastes mature, they go after the popular bubbly/slutty chicks everyone else wants, and most of them get their asses handed to them. Thing is, for men, these sorts of spoiled/immature/stupid traits get burned out of them when they're young, because they grow up knowing that they have no one to blame but themselves. That doesn't happen as much for women.
  - HSO 17y ago
    Or, perhaps, government should simply let them figure it out by themselves. And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up.
    - jibiki 17y ago
      > And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up. I did not know that. Admittedly, I don't have any examples that work quite as well. Maybe medical malpractice... or is that just a breach of contract?
- randallsquared 17y ago
  I think the standard suggestion amounts to women generally wanting to find a strong/smart fellow to contribute genes, and then a reliable sucker to raise the resulting children. So "bearing children with" and "having a relationship with" might have very different types of men as an ideal.
  - albertcardona 17y ago
    You have just described the academic paper "Women's Mating Strategies" by Elizabeth Cashdan, Evolutionary Anthropology 1997.
    - Notorious_PWN 17y ago
      Halfway through the paper. Recent research suggests that the difficulty of having it both ways is not always insurmountable. Women may try to get investment from one man while mating with another who is desirable in different respects. Baker and Bellis have found that when married women have affairs, the matings with the “extra-pair” male occur disproportionately during the woman’s fertile period. This finding suggests that one goal of short-term matings for women is to secure “good genes” from another mate, and that women may use deception to play a mixed sexual strategy. This is why I hope there's a hell, or some other form of karmic retribution. These sorts of women need to burn. Anyway, what is truly hilarious is that women who sleep with "alpha males" aren't giving their children good genes anymore, because narcissistic and psychopathic men are generally unsuccessful in the modern world (with some exceptions, but not enough to make these desirable traits). They're actually placing a genetic curse on their bastards.

by jibiki 17y ago

Notorious_PWN 17y ago

Nobody gets married with that understanding, and nobody wants to. If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.

jibiki 17y ago
> If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him. The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan. In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)
- Notorious_PWN 17y ago
  In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...) I agree with you. I think men and women are, innately, about equal in terms of stupidity and bad intentions. They diverge for cultural reasons. Men (in general) are rewarded more for individual accomplishments but also are punished more severely for misbehavior, and both of these discrepancies are morally wrong. What this leads to is a country in which the women, on average, are more spoiled and less ambitious than the men. Most men have a spell when they get burned by their bad tastes in women-- before their tastes mature, they go after the popular bubbly/slutty chicks everyone else wants, and most of them get their asses handed to them. Thing is, for men, these sorts of spoiled/immature/stupid traits get burned out of them when they're young, because they grow up knowing that they have no one to blame but themselves. That doesn't happen as much for women.
- HSO 17y ago
  Or, perhaps, government should simply let them figure it out by themselves. And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    > And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up. I did not know that. Admittedly, I don't have any examples that work quite as well. Maybe medical malpractice... or is that just a breach of contract?
randallsquared 17y ago
I think the standard suggestion amounts to women generally wanting to find a strong/smart fellow to contribute genes, and then a reliable sucker to raise the resulting children. So "bearing children with" and "having a relationship with" might have very different types of men as an ideal.
- albertcardona 17y ago
  You have just described the academic paper "Women's Mating Strategies" by Elizabeth Cashdan, Evolutionary Anthropology 1997.
  - Notorious_PWN 17y ago
    Halfway through the paper. Recent research suggests that the difficulty of having it both ways is not always insurmountable. Women may try to get investment from one man while mating with another who is desirable in different respects. Baker and Bellis have found that when married women have affairs, the matings with the “extra-pair” male occur disproportionately during the woman’s fertile period. This finding suggests that one goal of short-term matings for women is to secure “good genes” from another mate, and that women may use deception to play a mixed sexual strategy. This is why I hope there's a hell, or some other form of karmic retribution. These sorts of women need to burn. Anyway, what is truly hilarious is that women who sleep with "alpha males" aren't giving their children good genes anymore, because narcissistic and psychopathic men are generally unsuccessful in the modern world (with some exceptions, but not enough to make these desirable traits). They're actually placing a genetic curse on their bastards.