not to get all soft, but if you aren't going to go at is as a marriage of equals i doubt it will succeed. Then i'd suggest not marrying someone who is prone to [uck fay]ing the mailman. every buddy i have whose wife/gf has cheated on him we all saw it coming well beforehand. sure people "drift apart," but if you don't think someone will be resonable in divorce than you probably shouldn't be marrying her. i.e. if you have good common sense this shouldn't be an issue.
i'll look for the reference, but i remember reading an article that said serial cheaters and serial divorcers skewed the statistics. i.e. fewer than 50% people get divorces, but a small % get's a lot of divorces. same for cheating on the spouse.
I'd like to get married, but the way I'm going I think I'd bet money on the Doolster leading us to football glory first.
Well, if she often wore an "I like banging the mailman" t-shirt, I might not walk that plank, but it usually isnt' that crystal clear. I hope I don't come across as jaded in any of this, but I've recently taken an interest in evolutionary psychology. I've read a couple very interesting books that I would recommend. "Sperm Wars"; "The Selfish Gene"; "The Mating Mind". Men and women are such distinctly different creatures that we may as well be different races. This makes sense given that we evolved for hundreds of thousand of years with different roles in mind. Anyway, I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent, but one thing -- among a million others -- that is very differrent between males and females is that females live in the present moreso than males. For females, love is ine the present -- love is an evolutionary tool to help create babies that are likely to further replicate and thrive -- and once the female doesnt' love the man anymore, she is done and she is looking out out for #1. None of this is good or bad. It's natural selection. these differences allowed for the replication adn advancement of the human race. But the bottom line, as it applies to this particular discussion is that the sweet wonderful lady that gazed admiringly at you in the good times....well she no longer exists when that love no longer exists. And she won't feel a bit bad about trying to take your house and your kids.
That evolutionary aspect is what makes the rise of the current legal situation so interesting. Now, a woman need not stand by her man to fulfill her evolutionary need of continued support of young from the mate. She can tell him to [uck fay] off and still get that support.
"that category" == female nature as shaped by evolution. Men are much more idealistic, head in the clouds romantics than women. Female nature is, in essence, *cold*. Even a woman in love does not have the same love as a man. Men believe that love matters for the sake of it. Women love opportunistically. Women live in the details of their days -- this their strength and their charm. Men live in the past and future --we're only really present when in a state of ecstacy: [uck fay]ing, fighting, watching the dealer get a bust card after we've split hands four ways and doubled down on all of them, etc. Men are great dreamers; women do what has to be done. This isn't KidB talking shit; this is biology -- inner caveman and cavewoman shit -- and the sooner you are able to accept this as truth the better off you'll be. Women ultimately have a responsibility to their young. They might have to beg, borrow, steal if need be. They'll do what needs to be done to keep their young alive so that they can grow and prosper and proliferate their genes. From this came a cold-eyed amoral pragmatism and thank god for it.
Also an argument against welfare. A woman doesn't need a man to provide for her because the government will play that role. So there isn't much disincentivizing Holly Hometown from getting knocked up by Billy Badass, who Holly Hometown knows will probably be incarcerated in two years. Holly Hometown is happy to take Billy's alpha male genes and the subsequent government paychecks. But in the absence of that safety net, Holly Hometown might be more inclined to reject Billy's overtures and settle down with Paul Prudent. And in that latter example the kid will have two parents instead of one, which I think most all will agree is a better situation.* *Paul Prudent might be wise to get a paternity test, though. Juuuuuust to be sure.
I've always found it funny that so many women want their man to "change" right after they marry them and seem confused why they don't want to. If they didn't like them the way they were, why hang around in the first place?
