How many acts of charity and hours of volunteer work have you actually done and performed this year so far?

> No need to risk half of my current assets and future income on the whims of some potentially capricious other person

This reeks of misogyny. Your future partner wouldn't possibly have a good reason for breaking up with you except if she was "capricious"? Are you somehow the perfect man?

Every week 2 hours at a local organization. There are other ways in which i give back to my family and my community, which i don't intend to discuss here. Further, on this point, i do not need to justify these to you or any internet stranger. Who are you to police others and their morality?

I never said what gender i was or what gender i was interested in. I do know that i would probably earn a higher salary than my partner, which would disfavor me in a divorce. Perhaps it is you with the prejudice, assuming that women would earn less?

Finally, people in general are capricious. People change all the time. It seems like a large gamble to make on another person, based essentially how they feel.

Either way, maybe you should examine your own self before judging others. Humility has intrinsic value in and of itself and can be found in many places.

> …which i don't intend to discuss here. Further, on this point, i do not need to justify these to you or any internet stranger. Who are you to police others and their morality?

Pretty rich to come in so hot against something and then when questioned freak out like that.

Were you actually able to convince yourself with all that or no?

Your gender is not really in doubt scrolling through your post history.

I’m pretty pro family but I have to admit you just absolutely smoked ‘em

> No need to risk half of my current assets and future income

Most people see being in a position of vulnerability with respect to another human being whom they trust as a wonderful thing, which gives them a great deal of every day happiness. You see this vulnerability as merely negative, a threat to your individualistic pursuit of wealth ("assets and income"). You have a right to live however you want, of course, but maybe consider the possibility that others are getting something valuable out of this that you've missed?

I'm certain this vulnerability does bring value to some, especially people like the original commenter. However, consider that it's possible to gain something similar in value without certain risks? My wealth is not my most important part of my life but it is valuable. Why should I risk the ability to retire, to travel as well as the security of finances, when I find so much meaning in the world already? Why do I need marriage, of all things, to another person, when I already have so much to do and see?

From my perspective, it would be if i recommended to someone that wanted money to play roulette. Sure, you may win. But the odds don't seem to be in your favor and there are more dependable ways of achieving what you want, without relying on random factors outside of your control.

However, i won't denigrate your way of living if you won't denigrate mine. On the contrary, I'm happy that some have found happiness and meaning even in such risky and perhaps old-fashioned ways.

The risk of marriage is what makes the commitment meaningful. Of course, you can always substitute for marriage with other forms of commitment in partnerships, marriage is just a particular choice.

In your writing, however, it rather appears to me that you do not see the value in committing to another person at all - in whatever shape or form. In that case, I would say that the desire for marriage is likely to remain an enigma to you.

In rational terms, consider marriage (or another form of commitment) as a dynamic non cooperative game where a long term mutually beneficial equilibrium is reached.

Briefly, imagine you meet another person to whom you actually want to commit to: you derive utility from demonstrating vulnerability under risk.

This is the case, because the other person similarly commits to you. This mutual equilibrium is only possible with mutual trust. In turn, trust in the other person grows with mutual commitment. Trust is the driver of non ego behavior, shared understanding, and sensemaking. For evolutionary reasons, it also leads to a feeling of safety and reduces the impact of many day to day stressors.

The equilibrium is high utility not only due to the feeling of safety and partnership, but also because a high trust environment removes transaction costs.

In turn, commitment is higher in value if the choice to deviate is meaningful, if the risk is real, if your money and income are at risk. Thus demonstrated commitment leads to a higher utility equilibrium.

I hope this game theoretic analysis indicates to you some benefits of something like marriage.

Having lived both extremely independently and married, I strongly believe that my marriage equilibrium is far superior.

I also know that trying to get the same benefits without commitment, that is, without taking an inherent risk on another person, would not lead to the same outcome. After all, without risk, its not really meaningful.

While marriage is just one form, I strongly believe to know that today’s culture of risk aversion in partnership leads to lower utility and long term happiness.

People are afraid to lose or give anything up. In turn, they will gain less.

I acknowledge fully that I would not have understood the above before my marriage.

> In your writing, however, it rather appears to me that you do not see the value in committing to another person at all - in whatever shape or form. In that case, I would say that the desire for marriage is likely to remain an enigma to you.

No I think his problem is putting his assets on the line in order to have a commitment to which he think is ridiculous when he could just simply, ya know, commit.

> putting his assets on the line

People put their time, hearts, and lives on the line when they commit to another person. The risk of losing some money is a pretty tertiary one. I'm not saying it's negligible, I'm saying that the idea that you can just do away with risk in a committed relationship is a pretty silly one. I guess for some people the financial risk is the primary one, but that attitude seems to me ... I don't know, sad? If you really worry about it that much, sign a pre-nuptial agreement and move on.

> No I think his problem is putting his assets on the line in order to have a commitment to which he think is ridiculous when he could just simply, ya know, commit.

How does the other party know if the claim of committing is genuine or a lie? The sacrifice is the signaling mechanism.

It is like celebrating with a “high value” food or drink. Something that took time and effort to prepare, or cost a lot. Practically, you can share a meal from Chipotle and still obtain your calories, but the point of the exercise was not the meal, but the sacrifice.

Similarly, you can text someone “congrats” or you can sacrifice your time to go to their wedding. And on the other side, the couple can sign the documents at city hall, and text everyone a picture of it, or they can sacrifice and have a ceremony they invite people to.

>but maybe consider the possibility that others are getting something valuable out of this that you've missed?

Of course some people are getting something valuable. Marriage works out great for some people, and of course those people are happy to tell the world how great marriage is because it worked out so well for them.

For other people, however, it's a complete disaster.

Basically, marriage is a huge gamble. The odds are better than going to the casino, but not by that much. If you win, great, but there's a huge potential to lose, big. There's a reason the divorce rate is so high, and more recently why more people just aren't getting married in the first place. People try the "dating" process to attempt to mitigate the huge risk that comes with marriage, in an attempt to "vet" the other person before making such a huge commitment, but there's countless cases of people spending significant time dating someone before marriage, only to wind up getting divorced after a few years anyway, so clearly 1-2 years isn't really enough time to get to know someone well enough to determine if the relationship will work out, and people just don't live long enough (and more importantly, women aren't fertile long enough) for couples to spend 10-20 years dating before marriage and kids.

> If you win, great, but there's a huge potential to lose, big. There's a reason the divorce rate is so high

Divorce isn't the same thing as "losing big". The latter is a relatively rare occurrence, which can happen when the relationship is very one-sided (one spouse makes 10x the income of the other spouse), and one spouse is extremely mean and vindictive. Plenty of couples separate amicably. Plenty of couples separate and it's a long painful affair, but no one gets robbed or cheated in the process. If you really find yourself that worried about your wealth and find yourself that worried about getting cheated in a divorce, sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Most reasonable people will accept one.

My point, moreover, is that the risk itself, the state of vulnerability, is something a lot of people want in a romantic relationship. People like you and the OP of the post I replied to see this risk as pure downside. You think that everyone sees the risk this way, and that they only accept it because they think the potential winnings are worth it. Marriage, as you put it, is a huge gamble. But this is not the way everyone sees marriage. Achieving this level of intimacy with a person, where you inevitably have to trust them like this, is itself the goal. This is the "something valuable" I refer to. It means the downside (potentially getting robbed in divorce court) is offset not just by the upside (a good marriage) but also by the inherent value of the risk-taking behavior that marriage involves.

> 1-2 years isn't really enough time to get to know someone well enough to determine if the relationship will work out

Sure! I can agree with that (with the above note that getting divorced is not really the end of the world). So take 4 or 5 years. Live together for a while. Get a shared bank account when you feel you're ready for that and need to pay some bills together. You may even find that you achieve the kind of intimacy you're looking for without going up to an altar and putting a ring on their finger. I've been with my partner for over a decade, and we're not "married". I'm not old fashioned, and this isn't the 1950s anymore. But I am attached to the rather romantic notion that intimacy is inherently valuable, and that it inherently involves taking a risk.

The downside, in America at least, is not just losing some of your wealth. It's becoming truly impoverished and becoming homeless. Remember, America is a country where you can easily go from solidly middle-class to utterly bankrupt because of one medical problem. The stakes couldn't be much higher, unless they institute a death penalty for divorcing.

>I've been with my partner for over a decade, and we're not "married".

That kind of long-term trial isn't feasible once you're past your 20s, if you (or the woman) wants to have kids.

> but maybe consider the possibility that others are getting something valuable out of this that you've missed?

Now apply this reasoning to all the other stupid and harmful shit people do.

Sure, why not? Trying to get inside the head of someone you don't understand or disagree with is always a valuable exercise. There's a whole movie (Trainspotting) trying to understand why people do hard drugs. People do all sorts of stupid things, but not always for reasons you or I are incapable of understanding.

Based on your post it doesn't seem to be working.

I heard you can avoid that, Using some kind of pre marriage financial agreement, does that actually exist? I don't livs in the U.S. so I don't know.

pre-nups are a thing but come with strings, and are not unilaterally enforceable without certain considerations. both sides usually have to have their own lawyer -- often not cheap -- and there are often ways to break a pre-nup.

state laws have an impact as well. a California pre-nup ain't the same as Kansas.

they're also not really useful for many people; yeah if you've got a $4MM startup and a few assets it's good to CYA, but the average household of 2 renters and middling salary might not benefit, while both sides pay out the nose for lawyers.

This. Young people should read http://www.realworlddivorce.com/

huh. wasn't expecting to see phil greenspun at the top.

>No need to risk half of my current assets and future income

life is risk. marriage is a great way to de-risk many aspects of your life. 2x income for only 1.3x increased expenses. Easier debt/mortgage access. Support (financial/emotional) in case of illness or income loss.

>other person, who probably doesn't like me very much anyways

Marrying the right person is the key (hanging out with your best friend forever is cool), and that for sure is risky/not easy.

>marriage is a great way to de-risk many aspects of your life. 2x income for only 1.3x increased expenses

Then what happens when you get married, and your spouse soon quits their job or is fired because they're a terrible employee, and you didn't see signs of this while dating? Now you have 1.3x expenses on 1x income. Worse, what if your spouse is terrible at money management? Now you have 2-3x expenses on 1-2x income.

>Support (financial/emotional) in case of illness or income loss.

What if your spouse only seemed to be emotionally supportive before you got married, but afterwards (or when you got sick) the facade was dropped? What if they drop you like a rock when you get sick?

>Marrying the right person is the key

Of course. Similarly, if someone loses the lottery, you can just tell them, "that's your own fault: you should have picked the winning ticket".

that's a lot of what ifs.

we don't live in the 50s any more. My wife and I were living together for 8 years before we got married. That sure would have been one doozy of a long con if she turned around and suddenly became a totally different person once the ink dried on the marriage certificate.

Picking the right person is not the same as buying a lottery ticket, lol.

An 8-year trial run is completely unrealistic for most couples, especially if they want to have kids.

Now you are moving the goal posts. There are many valid reasons to get married that do not involve having children. There you can take your time.

Honestly, if you want to have children, have them with someone you can see yourself co-parenting with, not someone you love. Children place a lot of stress on a marriage, and even if you are personally compatible but have different attitudes on child-rearing it will ruin the relationship. Having kids within a romantic relationship is a terrible idea, IMHO. Be practical about it.

So many what if's in life. What if I'm successful, what if I'm a failure? Will my partner still love me? What if I'm ugly, what if my health problems are too much? What if what if... What if I divorce and lose everything? So what? You could have lost everything a thousand other ways too. A car crash, a violent attack, a random event or calculated one.

Too much success can easily lead to failure, too much failure could actually lead to success if you learn.. Life is about up's and down's, I've lost so much over and over through bad circumstances (complicated deaths, parents with problems, etc) I find it mind boggling how much control people actually think they have in life. Sometimes you just get bad hands but that can be good sometimes as it can give you perspectives that others may miss out on. Empathy is something often hard earned.

So many people think if they just play life safe they will always be safe, and yeah I guess maybe. But for me, I see life has a best hope situation in general. Get lucky and good stuff might happen to you, Do your best to get lucky. I'm so used to instability in life, I personally find it amazing to realize how many people are in a blessed position to make/have friends, health, wealth and education, a happy family and such. And I'm sure so many would see my life as stable lol.

I think the best thing is to be thankful for everything you get because it might not last but is something worse because it doesn't last or is it better? A hot piece of bread is much better then one always cold because it's so short lived and a simple pleasure. Like life itself is short lived but I've been thankful for those things I've learned.

Even if bad stuff happens it's not the end of the world, because you are still alive. Though I know plenty wish that weren't alive, some being successful at getting their wish. It's understandable, a lot of life is painful and disappointing. I'm not married or anything but I can tell you from my own experience money is a tool sometimes you will have it, sometimes you won't but you can make do, health is a blessing sometimes you will have it, but when you don't you wish so much you did, friends are such a joy when you have them but they too might not last forever, family can be the same. When it comes to love, it's really a question of sacrifice. If you love someone sacrifice is much much easier. But I think it's hard for people to truly love. It's often painful and sometimes the rewards don't seem there. How much is their life really worth? But would you really leave people worse off? I think the movie A Wonderful Life is a good example of this. I think knowing people from other cultures and countries also makes you realize how wildly different life can be for people too.

I do plan to get married one day and I personally believe sharing everything is important because loss is to be expected so enjoy it while you can. Though I know many would find me a fool but everyone is a fool in their own way. I don't think of marriage as winning the lottery ticket but then again I think you are quite lucky to marry in the first place because quite a lot of people may never see the opportunity ever come up. Even though my parents marriage went up in flames and they both lost everything in it, I think I've learned a lot of what not to do lol. I don't blame marriage for their self destruction only their own expectations of what to expect out of life.

It was their attempts at control that caused such a spiral.

> who probably doesn't like me very much anyways

This feels like a straw man, or straw woman, as the case may be. Why would you even consider marrying someone who probably doesn't like you very much? And why would they consider marrying you?

(He says, fresh off watching the finale of Succession.)

It's a personal judgement based on personal experience. I asked those same questions before deciding that maybe dating or marriage was not for me. However, you should make your own judgement call based off of your own experiences. Just be aware that something between 40 and 45% of first time marriages fail in North America (depending on the study).

> It's a personal judgement based on personal experience.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that nobody likes you? If so, then maybe that's a "you" problem and not a "them" problem...

> I asked those same questions before deciding that maybe dating or marriage was not for me.

Forget marriage for a second, you don't even want to date? If so, I'm not sure you're really one to be giving advice here, to people who are interested in having relationships.

Exactly, you should make your own judgement, based on your personal circumstances, including how agreeable you are.

In terms of dating, when I engage in that, I aim for pure companionship. It always struck me as wrong to use another person, either for intimacy or even as an emotional crutch. Relationships, when they do happen, usually last quite a while but may be a different experience for the other person involved, from their previous relationships.

However, these are personal anecdata. Is it so hard to look at the statistics and results and make your own conclusion?

> In terms of dating, when I engage in that, I aim for pure companionship.

I'm not sure what that means exactly? Sounds more like friendship than dating.

> It always struck me as wrong to use another person, either for intimacy or even as an emotional crutch.

Why would you frame it in term of using someone? A relationship is supposed to be mutual.

> However, these are personal anecdata. Is it so hard to look at the statistics and results and make your own conclusion?

According to your stats, >50% of first time marriages succeed. That seems pretty good for such a major life decision.

Anyway, what puzzles me is that you're asking why anyone should get married, but your starting point was with someone "who probably doesn't like me very much anyways". Shouldn't a couple be in love before they even consider marriage. If you don't love each other — or even like each other??? — then of course you shouldn't consider marriage. That would be dumb, and likely destined to fail. The question of marriage shouldn't even come up in that situation.

If you're vehemently against marriage, and moreover, nobody loves you, then congratulations, it's a rather easy decision for you. Or no decision at all. Love is why people risk it.

> It's a personal judgement based on personal experience.

ITT: parent poster is an unlikable jerk. or thinks they are, anyway.

But you can marry someone you like, and courtship periods -- plus the modern "live together for a while and try it out" thing -- means you can find someone you like.

Plus they're your spouse; your job is to try to keep them (sorta) happy.

I mean, pretty much. However, I've also been pretty happy and - more importantly - fulfilled, without marriage. It's to the point where I don't understand why someone would take the risk (in both capital and personal impact), especially when divorce rates seem so high.

> Just be aware that something between 40 and 45% of first time marriages fail in North America (depending on the study).

This goes down a lot as you go up the socioeconomic ladder:

https://flowingdata.com/2021/05/04/divorce-rates-and-income/

Most people I know earn less than $100k per year, unfortunately. Even then, having a divorce rate reach the floor at 30% seems pretty risky to me.

>Why would you even consider marrying someone who probably doesn't like you very much? And why would they consider marrying you?

Because many people act very different during the dating stage, and don't show their true personalities and preferences. They want to marry you because it's advantageous for them.

Do you… attract capricious people?

I think it is more than just about "ego". I think we are conditioned to be self-seeking.. selfish individuals. Being married forces one to look beyond one's own comfort zone, own desires etc to prioritise the interests of others in the family. For instance, when you have a spouse who is not well, you will need to take care of them - even if that means suspending your meditation session or saying no to something like volunteering at a shelter which may give you a sense of meaning and purpose.

Marriage is not for everyone because it requires dying to one's own self a bit. So it is not really a path to self actualisation. But is definitely a way of putting oneself in a position where one is no longer focused on one own's progress psychologically, emotionally, financially etc and others and their interests become more important.

So if you are looking at marriage as a way of improving oneself, you may be in for a reality shock. That may happen but it happens at some cost and isn't the point of getting married.

Does it sound masochistic? well, on the surface it does. But it is part of being a mature person for a large part of humanity and is often a hard path but there are others who have chosen celibacy - which may infact be even harder.

Having said that, having someone by your side who you genuinely care for and who cares for you and who you can grow old with is quite a treat.