Has Modern Marriage turned into nothing more than Bookkeeping?

[Quigly]

With Real Estate prices and cost of living being so high. A lot of women feel like they never had a choice in life. They end up hooking up and marrying some guy that has money for a place to live, Then later cheating on him with someone she actually does like. Many guys are happy to play the money game sadly expecting bookkeeping and love to be the same thing. .

Is the cost of living and Real Estate turning modern marriage into nothing more than a dull Emotionless bookkeeping experience for women?

Is this the reason for the rise in open marriages?

[MrOracle]

The idea that marriage is primarily about love and happiness is a Disney fairy tale, literally invented by Walt Disney because of his estranged father and his uncomfortably close relationship with his mother distorting his values.

There are LOTS AND LOTS of books about people's lives prior to 1937, and if you read 100 or so of those books, going back hundreds of years, you would discover that marriage has historically ALWAYS been a primarily a BUSINESS and SURVIVAL arrangement, with the HOPE (but certainly no guarantee) that some love would develop. The whole concept of "happily ever after" is literally a Disney invention, designed to play on the fantasies of little girls. But Disney made the mistake of believing that those little girls would grow up and become more realistic, just like little boys abandon their dreams of flying (Ala Superman) or having gunfights at the OK Corral.

Instead, TikTok is full of women in their 30s and 40s talking about "I want to be treated like a princess" and "I want my happily ever after."

Marriage is an acknowledgement that life is difficult, and substantially more difficult if you go it alone. The purpose of marriage is to have your own family and to work together as a TEAM to overcome the hardships of life together. No one (but Disney) ever said that marriage would solve your problems or keep bad things from happening - bad (and good) things will always happen no matter what. But it's much easier to deal with hard times if you have a team to help you.

[Quigly]

I see, so marriage is suppose to be a desperate act of survival and not a choice that one would make for their happiness?

But, that doesn't make sense.

You are saying only for the woman should it be a desperate act of survival.
What about the man? If he has money, it's not a desperate act of survival for him.
If it's a desperate act of survival for her and not him why should he expect her to be happy in such an arrangement?

[Quigly]

Additionally, Should people making above a certain amount of money be banned from taking part in the institution of marriage since it's something poor desperate people do for their survival?

[MrOracle]

Okay, prior to the 1950s or so, when we had massive medical breakthroughs, largely funded by war dollars funding research to help wounded soldiers, as well as the US's post-war economy, when you got sick, if you didn't have someone to care for you, there was a good chance you would die from things that nearly no one dies from today (and this applied to both men and women). The same if you were injured - most people lived in rural areas, and if they got seriously injured (quite common on farms), if they didn't have someone in their household who would miss them and come looking for them, they could easily die of their injury or from exposure right on their own property. These are just a few of many examples. You may call that a "desperate act of survival" but this was just normal life, for most people. Even for those who lived in cities, if you lived up 5 flights of stairs in some city, and you got hurt and couldn't retrieve food, you could easily starve and die. Water quality couldn't always be relied upon, etc.

Plus, people understood the value of family - and having someone who would take care of them when they were older. Everyone today has been raised with extremely liberal values, which specifically and intentionally DEvalues families and encourages people not to have them, so you've had nothing but anti-family messages from everywhere. This means you'll probably have no children, and your family line will die out.

[Quigly]

Are you for Banning wealthy people from the institution of marriage since it is an institution for poor desperate people?

You think marriage should be a desperate act for women and not men?

[MrOracle]

Please refrain from suggesting that I've said things that I haven't said. Obviously I didn't "ban" wealthy people from marriage. But even among the wealthy, marriage has traditionally been a business arrangement. Marriages have ended wars, have created countries, or have gotten leaders richer and more powerful by joining the royal family to other powerful families. History books are full of this stuff, and fiction, such as Game Of Thrones, is a huge story built around the entire kingdom's focus on who is married and related to who (the source novels were heavily inspired by real European history).

I don't characterize marriage as a "desperate act", but being married to a quality partner certainly makes the struggles of life easier for BOTH partners compared to having to go it alone and deal with all of life's struggles yourself. And, as I've said, if you hope for any future for your line, you need children, and children are SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantaged if they don't have both parents in the home.

[Quigly]

I am asking questions based on your original response to my post. Which is clearly visible.

You said "marriage was a Disney fairytale and never really about love and happiness.
Just a business transaction."

" It was about acknowledging that life is difficult. But being married to a quality partner certainly makes the struggles of life easier for BOTH partners compared to having to go it alone and deal with all of life's struggles yourself."

My questions to you based upon your response:
is it about survival for a woman while not for a man?
Do you believe that wealthy men should be in the institution of marriage when it's not about life being difficult for him?
Other than the institution of slavery, how does the wealthy man benefit from marriage?

[MrOracle]

Just because you have money doesn't mean that you don't need people close to you who actually CARE about you. Sure, money makes some things easier, but it makes other things more difficult.

Wealthy men often rely on their wives to manage their social calendar - and not just the SCHEDULE, but the PEOPLE - and this is because women are usually better at this, and her being able to network with other wives often means having access to important information he might have never learned any other way.

But, for at least the third time, you've completely ignored everything I've said about having a FAMILY. Nearly all wealthy men have or desire to have a family - a legacy to pass along their success to. That's certainly a value most wealthy men seek and find in marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the FIRST person to point out that marriage in the modern west is full of problems due to massive social problems pushed for by the Marxist left for the last 60 years, etc. And, yet, most wealthy men are married and have children, and wealthy men tend to have the lowest divorce rate. Clearly marriage works for them, and has value for them.

[Quigly]

Back to the original context of the discussion.

Which is with Real Estate prices being so high has it reduced marriage to nothing more than Bookkeeping?

I have no doubt a wealthy person could use a woman for a lot of things. If she didn't have a choice and just shacked up with a guy for a place to live. That would be slavery, wouldn't it?

by the way, I don't see wealthy people being far more successful at marriage.
Steve Jobs certainly wasn't
Bill Gates wasn't successful at his marriage.
Jeff Bezos wasn't successful at his marriage.

You don't seem to connect with reality very well.

[MrOracle]

You can pick out individual examples of course, but if you look at the upper class as a whole, they have the highest marriage rates and the lowest divorce rates.

[AjayOnTheInternet]

No, just test your girl before you marry her. If she wouldn't stay with you broke, she shouldn't be with you rich.

[Quigly]

Could you elaborate?

Many woman that cheat on their wealthy husbands do so with a guy less fortunate. It's not about money to them.

[AjayOnTheInternet]

You said, "They end up hooking up and marrying some guy that has money for a place to live".
You don't marry a girl that does that, so you test her before marriage.
If she cheats it's because she didn't truly love you, or you lack something the other guy has. Guys that are successful can often get caught up worrying about bringing in money and having the nicest stuff. Women want emotions, and don't love materials. They tend to fall emotionless or distant to the woman, leading her to someone else.

[Quigly]

She doesn't do it before the marriage, she does it afterward. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Test Her Out"

Of course she didn't truly love him, she married him for the money. Many Guys play the money game foolishly expecting there to be something more to the marriage than just money.

[AjayOnTheInternet]

When I said test her before marriage, it refers to. Putting her in a position, that tests if she would leave, if you went broke. For example, telling her your losing the house from taxes or some bs. If she is willing to go stick it out with you, she's good. If not, let her go.
Or say you lost your job and gotta go back to minimum wage. It'll show you what's more important to her, your money or you.

[Quigly]

If course, she is going to be there until the day he actually loses the home. Doesn't mean she is legit.

It's not really the money that she is after, it's just a place to live. There is a difference. She isn't actually a gold digger, she is a girl without choices.

[Nikki1989]

Oh dear, it is amazing how dumb and misinformed men are becoming these days. Do yourself a favour and stay offline.

[Quigly]

Aaawweee, you're such a victim of reality. How terrible it must be for you to suffer the day.

If women have such choices in life, where is the patriarchy?

[BigDog1989]

And the supreme court took away their right to choose, as well. Republicans did, or as i like to call them, republicucks

[Quigly]

So, you don't think the cost of living takes choices away from people?

[BigDog1989]

The cost of living does not. It's THE COST OF LIVING

[Quigly]

So women don't need to earn as much as men since the cost of living doesn't take their choices away?

CEOs don't need to have so much money cause less doesn't take their choices away?

Is that really the position you are suddenly taking? Sounds kind of a foolish statement for a person of your political persuasion.

[BigDog1989]

Women don't earn as much as men, FOR THE SAME JOB
CEOS DO need to have a lot of money so they can MANAGE A BUSINESS

[Katie1964]

Not for us.

Sorry you feel this way.

[Quigly]

I am asking a question not voicing an opinion

[msc545]

Women are the bookeepers, not men.