Bruh, I dont think im ever getting married

 
laugh.gif
 When in doubt, call someone insecure
I"m not calling him insecure.  I'm just saying in a marriage, civil union or relationship, both parties are susceptible to insecurities.

*Eric Bishoff finger pointing into camera*
 
Yeah, but then you'd be in a church :x
I'm just suggesting people to stop polluting their perception about failed marriages and insecurities.  It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You're not the only one that's insecure.
Assumptions my dude.

I have no polluted perception about failed marriages or insecurities in regards to this topic. So I'd have to ignore that foolish attempt.

Churches aint the only place you can see a family :lol: :smh: Can't you do better?



:lol: When in doubt, call someone insecure
I"m not calling him insecure.
You're not the only one that's insecure.
:lol:
 
Last edited:
Depends on the reasons you are for or against marriage. A lot of people get that ****** up.

I wouldn't rule it out personally but the potential expense of the occasion and any legal issues on separation are unnecessary imo.


I know it's not compulsory but the numbers i hear when people are talking about weddings is insane to me. I'd have to be a millionaire to be cool with throwing 20 g's at a wedding :lol:
 
My wifey has as much or more education and earning potential than I do.

Don't date or marry women that don't.

Yall worried about women taking your money then don't date broke *******.

Isn't this more of a character issue?? I'm sure it's not just broke birds that are taking dudes to the cleaners.

And even if the person is of high moral fibre, educated, paid etc. **** can always get weird if the relationship has soured to the point of getting divorced.

That being said you're right in the sense that it's way better to enter the relationship with someone who has their **** together.
 
statistics are designed to keep weak minded people down...........ill leave it at that...
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/u...ver-but-the-myth-lives-on.html?abt=0002&abg=0

The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On

When Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin “consciously uncoupled” this year, ABC News said it was the latest example of the out-of-control divorce rate, “50 percent and climbing.”

When Fox News anchors were recently lamenting high poverty levels, one of them blamed the fact that “the divorce rate is going up.”

And when Bravo introduced its divorce reality show, “Untying the Knot,” this summer, an executive at the network called it “a way to look at a situation that 50 percent of married couples unfortunately end up in.”

But here is the thing: It is no longer true that the divorce rate is rising, or that half of all marriages end in divorce. It has not been for some time. Even though social scientists have tried to debunk those myths, somehow the conventional wisdom has held.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

A bride and groom in Grand Central Terminal in New York in August.Happily Ever After: How We Know the Divorce Rate Is FallingDEC. 3, 2014
Despite hand-wringing about the institution of marriage, marriages in this country are stronger today than they have been in a long time. The divorce rate peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s and has been declining for the three decades since.

Photo

Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin a few months before their breakup. Credit Colin Young-Wolff/Invision/AP
About 70 percent of marriages that began in the 1990s reached their 15th anniversary (excluding those in which a spouse died), up from about 65 percent of those that began in the 1970s and 1980s. Those who married in the 2000s are so far divorcing at even lower rates. If current trends continue, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never involve a divorce, according to data from Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan economist (who also contributes to The Upshot).

There are many reasons for the drop in divorce, including later marriages, birth control and the rise of so-called love marriages. These same forces have helped reduce the divorce rate in parts of Europe, too. Much of the trend has to do with changing gender roles — whom the feminist revolution helped and whom it left behind.

“Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women,” said William Doherty, a marriage therapist and professor of family social science at University of Minnesota, “so when you’re talking about changes in divorce rates, in many ways you’re talking about changes in women’s expectations.”

The marriage trends aren’t entirely happy ones. They also happen to be a force behind rising economic and social inequality, because the decline in divorce is concentrated among people with college degrees. For the less educated, divorce rates are closer to those of the peak divorce years.

Of college-educated people who married in the early 2000s, only about 11 percent divorced by their seventh anniversary, the last year for which data is available. Among people without college degrees, 17 percent were divorced, according to Mr. Wolfers.

Working-class families often have more traditional notions about male breadwinners than do the college-educated — yet economic changes have left many of the men in these families struggling to find work. As a result, many wait to achieve a level of stability that never comes and thus never marry, while others split up during tough economic times.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
“As the middle of our labor market has eroded, the ability of high school-educated Americans to build a firm economic foundation for a marriage has been greatly reduced,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist and author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America.” “Better-educated Americans have found a new marriage model in which both spouses work and they build a strong economic foundation for their marriage.”

Some of the decline in divorce clearly stems from the fact that fewer people are getting married — and some of the biggest declines in marriage have come among groups at risk of divorce. But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later.

Ultimately, a long view is likely to show that the rapid rise in divorce during the 1970s and early 1980s was an anomaly. It occurred at the same time as a new feminist movement, which caused social and economic upheaval. Today, society has adapted, and the divorce rate has declined again.


In the 1950s and 1960s, marriage was about a breadwinner husband and a homemaker wife, who both needed the other’s contributions to the household but didn’t necessarily spend much time together. In the 1970s, all that changed.

Women entered the work force, many of their chores in the home became automated and they gained reproductive rights, as the economist Betsey Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers have argued in their academic work. As a result, marriage has evolved to its modern-day form, based on love and shared passions, and often two incomes and shared housekeeping duties.

The people who married soon before the feminist movement were caught in the upheaval. They had married someone who was a good match for the postwar culture but the wrong partner after times changed. Modern marriage is more stable because people are again marrying people suitable to the world in which we live.

“It’s just love now,” Mr. Wolfers said. “We marry to find our soul mate, rather than a good homemaker or a good earner.”

The delay in marriage is part of the story, allowing people more time to understand what they want in a partner and to find one. The median age for marriage in 1890 was 26 for men and 22 for women. By the 1950s, it had dropped to 23 for men and 20 for women. In 2004, it climbed to 27 for men and 26 for women.

Perhaps surprisingly, more permissive attitudes may also play a role. The fact that most people live together before marrying means that more ill-fated relationships end in breakups instead of divorce. And the growing acceptance of single-parent families has reduced the number of shotgun marriages, which were never the most stable of unions, notes Stephanie ****tz, a professor at Evergreen State College and author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Overall, the marriage trends resemble those in many other areas of American life. For people on the wealthier side of the class divide, life is better than it used to be in many ways. For people on the other side, the situation is much more complicated.

And the effects could last for decades, as the children of stable marriages grow up with both the immediate benefits and the role models for successful future relationships — while at the same time, record numbers of children grow up in one-parent households.

Its not even yall's generation.

Its, literally, just yall...
 
View media item 1417536

A word to the wise...



Stay single my dudes. And this is coming from someone who was married once. I divorced her, not the other way around. You want your future and hard work hanging in the balance of a coin flip? You know YOU. You'll never fully know someone else. People change... lose interest... become lazy... get bored.
You said it all in such few statements. Similar situation so I know exactly where you're coming from.
 
 
I always post this whenever this topic comes on. Good read. 

Don't Marry | Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men https://dontmarry.wordpress.com/
Society typically paints a negative stereotype of men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry.

They are labeled as either:

A) Womanisers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.
Sounds about right.
 
I'm not about marriage but it's funny how so many dudes worrying about the finance aspect of it when most dudes aren't millionaires.  Most dudes aren't in the financial position to even worry about this.  
 
Middle/lower class dudes are hit harder financially because the little they have mean so much more to them as far as just surviving. Im not in that camp, but I can see why that's concern. You take a mill from a dude with two, he's still a millionaire.
 
I'm not about marriage but it's funny how so many dudes worrying about the finance aspect of it when most dudes aren't millionaires.  Most dudes aren't in the financial position to even worry about this.  
You don't have to be a millionaire to have a home, income, and a savings account. Those are gonna be on the chopping block.
 


Some of the decline in divorce clearly stems from the fact that fewer people are getting married — and some of the biggest declines in marriage have come among groups at risk of divorce. But it also seems to be the case that marriages have gotten more stable, as people are marrying later.
 
You don't have to be a millionaire to have a home, income, and a savings account. Those are gonna be on the chopping block.
so according to ol' buddy...

You should only worry about your paper when you're a multi millionaire..

Famb troll game is epic. :lol:
 
so according to ol' buddy...

You should only worry about your paper when you're a multi millionaire..

Famb troll game is epic.
laugh.gif
Do you know how it works? if you're not a millionaire chances are the 2 of you are probably roughly around the same in terms of assets.  It's 50% of combined assets so even if you had a bit more coming into the marriage at 200k and she's 160k that would be 50% of 360k which is 180k meaning you lose 20k.  It's not like as if you're coming into the marriage with 5mil and to her 160k lol. 
 
Do you know how it works? if you're not a millionaire chances are the 2 of you are probably roughly around the same in terms of assets.  It's 50% of combined assets so even if you had a bit more coming into the marriage at 200k and she's 160k that would be 50% of 360k which is 180k meaning you lose 20k.  It's not like as if you're coming into the marriage with 5mil and to her 160k lol. 


You literally have zero idea what you're talking about right now.

:rofl:

Famb mean with that numerical anal extraction

:pimp:
 
You literally have zero idea what you're talking about right now.

roll.gif


Famb mean with that numerical anal extraction

pimp.gif
Simple facts are you only lose financially in a divorce if you're the wealthier partner, if both are around the same financially which is the case for MOST marriages neither side really lose anything on a serials level.
 
Do you know how it works? if you're not a millionaire chances are the 2 of you are probably roughly around the same in terms of assets.  It's 50% of combined assets so even if you had a bit more coming into the marriage at 200k and she's 160k that would be 50% of 360k which is 180k meaning you lose 20k.  It's not like as if you're coming into the marriage with 5mil and to her 160k lol. 

And how many females have you dated that has the same net worth as you? In my life, ZERO! I can't think of any past GF that even came close to my net worth. Use some common sense... men in the US usually have the higher paying job and own more assets than the female. That's just a given! I mean yes there maybe a small percentage of women that actually have some net worth but not many... especially attractive ones.

Simple facts are you only lose financially in a divorce if you're the wealthier partner, if both are around the same financially which is the case for MOST marriages neither side really lose anything on a serials level.

^ Please post some stats on this "MOST" marriages.
 
Last edited:
And how many females have you dated that has the same net worth as you? In my life, ZERO! I can't think of any past GF that even came close to my net worth. Use some common sense... men in the US usually have the higher paying job and own more assets than the female. That's just a given! I mean yes there maybe a small percentage of women that actually have some net worth but not many... especially attractive ones.
^ Please post some stats on this "MOST" marriages.
Sounds more like you're choosing the women on the low end of the financial spectrum http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192
 
Back
Top Bottom