Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Marriage

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#71
post #45

Don't marry. http://curi.us/blog/post/1168-monogamy

I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, but I think it's a fascinating read. This is particularly powerful, I think: We shouldn't be scared of trying things that aren't best, and if something is genuinely good, it shouldn't fear criticism and rivals. If it's good, it will beat those rivals. There's something so true in that. There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks…

> There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks to another guy. It's the confident ones that know they are the best that aren't afraid of competition.

There's nothing weaker than a startup founder who gets furiously jealous if his employee aids and abets another company. It's the confident ones that know they're the best that aren't afraid of competition. No reason to get litigious, a little competition is all.

Jealousy is a basic human emotion of paramount importance. Loyalty is a cornerstone of society. I value deviation from the norm as much as the next free spirit, but deviation from this basic principle I will not allow myself ever. There is nothing insecure or weak about the territorial insticts humans associates with things of value. It may have a perfectly sound evolutionary explanation, it has a perfectly sound religious explanation, no matter how you split it, it's there. I don't buy that it's cultural, except may be some manifestations of it. There must exist a core which transcends culture. Perhaps protection of offspring can form one tenet of such core, but I'm no expert and this is not a proof.

Nonetheless, let me give you an example of how jealousy is simply a construct which one can use to describe a particular response to a given stimulus. Let's say one is walking down the street and notices a pile of trash. One, not prodded or otherwise influenced decides to do the "right thing" and remove the trash. The prospect is not pleasant, but one proceeds out of some motivation that is not relevant. Then let's say someone swoops by and picks up the trash and hurries it away. The first individual may very well be relieved of no longer having to deal with the trash, and feel grateful for another's "brazen" act. Let's replace trash with gold. Sure, some people may say: "meh, it's just a pile of gold, let 'em have it!". Some might get very upset. See, here we have jealousy measure a degree to which a given individual can raise their defenses. It's a protection mechanism more than an act of insecurity. Just as carrying a gun to a gun fight is a protection measure. If you chose to bring a knife "cuz you're confident", you'd get a few in the dome and that'd be the end of it. Just as any old general strategy or planning. Granted, one can still lose even with a bazooka, and some can win with a knife, but one had better be prepared regardless.

So back to relationships. If one partner decides that they're liable to "chat someone up and accidentally have sex" they should divorce/separate and carry on. Unless their significant other has agreed that it's normal and is liable to do the same. Those relationships work, they're fine, but they're a contract of sorts. Let's not conflate the desire to keep something special, with the inability to let people "talk to others". If we define "talking to others" as being a precursor to a steamy side life, then we're talking of different things. No one owes anyone anything, unless one has a previous arrangement which forges a contract. However, when we enter a mutual contract with another party, a modicum of self worth is good to keep honest to oneself, and the loved one. Of course people make mistakes, and if they so choose, they can separate and pick a different life. But back stabbing is one of the most weak and worthless acts of human nature. There are amazing stories of couples that not only went through true horrors in their life and remained together, but remained loyal in the face of seduction from a rather "appetizing proposition". I respect, and dare I say even admire such people. Lastly, since it's inevitable that the "self preservation and self interest uber alles" is an always-nascent thought, I would only say this: if one wants polygamy, then there are plenty of partners who also do; pick N.

Sorry for the rant.

Edit: response to your edit:

> We shouldn't be scared of trying things that aren't best, and if something is genuinely good, it shouldn't fear criticism and rivals. If it's good, it will beat those rivals.

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm not perfect and that I experience full range of emotions when it comes to loved ones. Had it been otherwise, had I thought that I was the best thing that ever graced this planet, perhaps then I would have no motivation for jealousy. Likewise I cannot eradicate it, since I see it as innate. Perhaps some people are just not able to experience jealousy at all. Perhaps. I doubt it, but I cannot know, nor can I avoid it. Nor do I know anyone who can. Nor will I ever deny that I do. Best I can hope for is that I'm good enough for the love of my life and that we can go to the end together. If that doesn't work, it was not to be. I can do what I can to keep the relationship working on all fronts, physical and otherwise, but I cannot pretend that nothing better than me can arise. There are truly lucky people who have loved ones that choose what they have, over the greener pastures. We can't all be perfect. Likewise I'm all for experimentation, outside of marriage or a relationship that is, or in a relationship that is predicated on experimentation. I'm just appalled at an apparent justification of betrayal.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#72
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.divorcerate.org/ has the following for men: age rate So if you are just playing the numbers, wait until your late 20's at least. But please, don't play the numbers. As someone already said, don't try to plan love.

Those statistics are totally the wrong ones to look at. It's "Age at marriage for those who divorce in America". You want "Divorce rate by age at marriage".

"Divorce rate by age at marriage" + the age of marriage as a percentage of all marriages (otherwise you might find 80% of marriages at age 60 are successful but fail to realize that probably accounts for a I think it's kind of funny that we're all seeking statistics on marriage. Where are the romantics on HN?

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#73
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get all those things from a committed non-marital relationship. Marriage (by which I mean the contract enforced by your state) adds nothing to the mix beyond a massive financial liability (for the man) if the relationship ends. Read this article for an example of the bad results of marriage: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.h...

Pre-nup. Problem solved.

If only it were that easy. Pre-nuptial agreements are routinely invalidated by judges at the precise moment one needs them to be enforced.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#74
post #33

Don't marry if you are a guy. At present, marriage is a contract with no upside for you. You gain nothing from marriage that you can't get from a committed non-marital relationship, and stand to lose a lot.

How many women out there want to raise kids out of wedlock? Probably not many, and the same is probably true of most men. Or are you assuming that men don't want to have families?

I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner. Neither a wedding nor a state-enforced contract is required for a committed, long-term, loving relationship.

There is an increasing phenomenon of women choosing to give birth out of wedlock. It's not yet clear if they are having children without a cohabitant partner.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-tren...

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#75
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last friday I had to stand in front of a judge and say that two people where not living together for the last year so they could get a divorce in the state of Virginia. After 6 months of marriage it took a year, a judge, an attorney, and a witness, plus some cash to finally separate them. If they had been married for 10 years then there would be Social Security implications etc. Plus I think they still force you to t…

rational for divorce proceedings through state courts has little to do with Church. The courts are mostly dealing with issues of property.

Then why should the state care if they lived together?

It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced.

Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plenty of people get divorced without hating each other.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#76
Marriage increases your responsibilities and, consequently, reduces your risk tolerance. Maybe it wasn't a choice, just so happened that it was because of the higher risk tolerance that those unmarried individuals could be so risky.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#77
post #10

50% of all US marriages end in divorce. I would say it's partly the poor judgment of youth; mine wasn't so good. Maybe it has always been true, but now it is easier to get out. Romance is a pretty poor basis for a marriage. With mutual respect comes love and a more lasting relationship. Consider all the other qualities needed for success. Starting companies is a huge commitment and raising children is an unbelievable…

Romance is a pretty poor basis for a marriage. This is such a true statement, yet everything you see on TV, movies, the web, etc. ignores it. Marriage is a lot of work. Fun work and worthwhile, but sometimes the person you love, well, you just don't like that much right now. You have to work through problems. You just can't ignore them and hope they go away. I wouldn't trade it for anything, and a good partner can ch…

I would never tell my wife this, but I think it's important for other people to hear. I've never actually been "infatuated" with my wife. The only people I've actually been that sort of "in love" with were utterly unmarriable (and for that matter utterly un-relationshipable). That part of my brain really seems to like the cute, crazy chick, but the problem with the cute, crazy chick is that she's actually crazy. "Quirky" is cool and all, but the crazy that comes with it, not so much.

No, all I have with my wife is love, a deep agreement on many of the important issues (including how money should be spent), an agreement with how many children we should have (broadly) and when and broad agreement on how to raise them, the ability to be friends with each other and work through arguments, and other such things. And a commitment. Love is primarily a choice, not a feeling.

If there's a part of you rebelling and saying that sounds cold and unfeeling, kill that part. That's propaganda, bad social programming, and it will lead to exactly the sort of pain and failure you'd expect when you shut off your brain for the one of the most important decisions of your life.

It's not that feeling don't enter into it at all. I've got and had all kinds of other feelings. (You can't tell because this is a text message and it's too easy to read it as emotion-free.) I'm not saying that feelings or emotions are bad; I'm saying that this one particular feeling is treacherous beyond belief. If you are lucky enough to be infatuated with someone whom you can have a relationship with, more power to you, but consider it a bonus, not a prerequisite.

(I also think that if you do know what you are doing, some such things can be decided surprisingly quickly. Some "love at first sight" stuff does work out because it doesn't necessarily take two years to figure out whether you've got this sort of deep compatibility. Sometimes two days is enough. I don't recommend that approach, but it can work.)

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#78
post #68
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11 percent of murder victims were killed by an "intimate" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

misleading. i'm guessing the number of murder victims is many orders of magnitude smaller than marriages, and is negligible.

I like how I'm downvoted for a joke response to a worthless uncited statistic. If its because you think its not funny fine. I sincerely hope no readers of HN are dumb enough to actually be "mislead" by it.

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#79
post #21
post #10

50% of all US marriages end in divorce. I would say it's partly the poor judgment of youth; mine wasn't so good. Maybe it has always been true, but now it is easier to get out. Romance is a pretty poor basis for a marriage. With mutual respect comes love and a more lasting relationship. Consider all the other qualities needed for success. Starting companies is a huge commitment and raising children is an unbelievable…

That's not true: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html Also, "all US marriages" is not the same thing as "all US first marriages." A person divorced twice and divorcing for the third time is different from a person divorcing for the first time. That has little to do with the poor judgment of youth.

according to wolfram its ~49.8%

http://www42.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+annual+...

Re: Ask HN: Marriage

#80
post #56

Don't marry if you are a guy. At present, marriage is a contract with no upside for you. You gain nothing from marriage that you can't get from a committed non-marital relationship, and stand to lose a lot.

Uh, you are aware of the concept of a pre-nup, right? I'm pretty sure a marriage + a solid pre-nuptial agreement would put you on much better legal/financial ground than a "committed non-martial relationship" without a written contract.

apparently prenups are pretty much worthless in this day and age. Even if its air tight, the other lawyer can just say that they were forced to sign the prenup(i.e. no prenup = no marriage) and poof, your air tight prenup is null and void
Post reply on HN