Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Never Married, a New Normal

psychologytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 450 posts

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#371

Post by emodendroket »

patrakov wrote: post #294
emodendroket wrote: post #127

> Cohabitation has become a popular alternative; living together is a less complicated relationship model that comes with an easy escape hatch (compared with marriage) if the relationship fails This seems like a bit of a false promise... Once you commingle finances, own a house together, have children, and so on, there's no "easy escape hatch." Plus thinking of having an "easy escape hatch" probably does not do wonde…

This might be dependent on the country. This may be a choice between "no escape hatch at all" and "no easy escape hatch". In the Philippines, a divorce is legally impossible, but it is not a crime for a man and a woman to live together and have children without marrying. So why bother?

Well, I certainly wouldn’t agree with instituting a no-divorce policy… I’m talking about this in more of a psychological sense.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#372

Post by n4r9 »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #359
laurencerowe wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be describing a committed relationship? For me the significant markers of committed relationships were first moving in together, then perhaps buying a home together (in those places where that was still affordable), and then for those that wanted them and by far the most important having children together. Many of my friends and family have gotten married along the way too but it never felt like a big dea…

Marriage, apart from a nice opportunity of celebration, is a legal contract.

In my experience the legal nature of it is not what encourages one to get outside of oneself, as the original reply describes.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#373

Post by emodendroket »

shadowgovt wrote: post #342
emodendroket wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was it not true that you could live larger without needing to support children? Eventually I didn’t feel like being able to afford more baubles was my most important value anymore.

> When was it not true that you could live larger without needing to support children? When most of society was agrarian and labor-oriented, more people meant more hands to do the heavy hand-work of maintaining the city. Modern automation and standardization has largely removed those benefits; a single person can operate a tractor that maintains acres of crops on an almost semi-autonomous basis, with the driver there…

Fair enough but you clearly weren’t talking about preindustrial society before.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#374

Post by fuzzfactor »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #150
gameman144 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can speak to this in some degree: marriage is much more significant than a negotiated commitment for me personally. A negotiated commitment takes a specific form (the terms of the negotiation) but a marriage defines a commitment to be committed . I've heard some folks of my generation say things like "we got divorced because we fell out of love", which sharply contrasts with my view of marriage and falls more in li…

> I can speak to this in some degree As you suggest at the end, this is very much your personal view. My wife and I have been together for almost 20 years, but we've only been married for 2. Our commitment didn't change due to marriage. The only thing that changed was that things got easier from a legal perspective. We no longer need to worry about wills in the case that one of us dies, and we can make medical decisi…

>together for almost 20 years, but we've only been married for 2.

This is the way.

When a relationship has been proven for a decade or more, then marriage can be contemplated more realistically.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#375

Post by [deleted] »

ameminator wrote: post #361
red-iron-pine wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#376

Post by lapcat »

ameminator wrote: post #368
lapcat wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 her…

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,…

> 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.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#377

Post by doogah »

saghm wrote: post #271
cultofmetatron wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm not sure if you're implying that every single husband and wife pair is comprised of a man with more financial resources or if you're somehow convinced that divorce will always screw over a husband and benefit a wife regardless of their incomes, but either way, it sounds like whoever you think you would have married otherwise is the one who's dodging a bullet.

[dead]

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#378

Post by Veen »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #359
laurencerowe wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be describing a committed relationship? For me the significant markers of committed relationships were first moving in together, then perhaps buying a home together (in those places where that was still affordable), and then for those that wanted them and by far the most important having children together. Many of my friends and family have gotten married along the way too but it never felt like a big dea…

Marriage, apart from a nice opportunity of celebration, is a legal contract.

It's also, and perhaps primarily, a vow.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#379

Post by illiac786 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #350
illiac786 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see a lot the argument that having kids is bad for the environment? Can I ask where? I do not disagree, I just rarely hear it, it's something people are afraid to day out loud in my social network, it's socially unacceptable, but it's changing a bit.

Read HN posts on climate change. On almost every one, there will be a subthread on "don't have kids because of environmental impact" (and another one that says not to have kids because they're doomed).

Interesting, somehow this doesn't reflect in birth rate decline. The decline has started long ago and continues roughly at the same pace, no massive acceleration [0].

[0] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/1_Demographic%20Profile...

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#380

Post by jitl »

warmwaffles wrote: post #213
jitl wrote: post #10

My partner and I have been together for 7 years, we bought a house together, haven’t found a compelling reason to get married. Marriage is a complex and binding contract that for two high earners is a tax disadvantage. The most prominent benefits I’ve learned are some situations around visitation rights, and avoiding being compelled to testify against your spouse. It comes from a very dubious history of the husband e…

> Marriage is a complex and binding contract that for two high earners is a tax disadvantage. You can file separately.

Sure; but we file separately while unmarried as well. I noted that because it’s often listed as one of the objective benefits of marriage.
Post reply on HN