2012 February 06 Monday
Man Demands Sex In Prenuptial
Seems very practical to me.
I have been with my partner for two years and we are talking about getting married. But, he says he wonít commit himself to me (or anyone) unless thereís a firm deal in place about how often we make love.
His marriage and last relationship ended because both women lost interest in sex. He says he wants an undertaking that we would have sex at least twice a week, unless one of us is ill or away.
Given that men desire sex more often than women the fact that his previous relationships ended due to low sexual interest from the women should not be too surprising. Though I suspect the guy needs to learn how to handle women in a long term relationship.
But why get married in the first place? The advantages of marriage seem small to non-existent and marriage causes weight gain and relationship stagnation. Really, the marriage deal has to offer compelling advantages. So this guy trying to get a better deal up front with guarantees of performance seems pretty practical and reasonable.
Married people have significantly longer life expectancy and higher income, which sounds like a pretty compelling deal to me.
Of course, we can argue about cause and effect, but I suspect that at least to some extent marriage causes these good things to happen.
And I forgot to mention, married people are significantly happier according to the GSS.
>"Sex, love and affectionate companionship donít feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed."
Even assuming that this is correct, it's peculiar to think that the benefits of marriage are just "sex, love, and affectionate companionship". What about, you know, children? They're the primary purpose of sex, love, companionship and marriage. Even though he likes to affect an attitude of cynicism, Roissy's view of things seems rather adolescent.
Agree that children are one of the benefits of marriage, but having children is not the primary purpose of sex; it is pleasure. Children are just incidental, regardless of how lovable they can be to parents.
Now, women often cannot make a distinction between love and sex; it was they who invented the term "making love". Men on the other hand, separate the issues.
>"having children is not the primary purpose of sex; it is pleasure."
The big picture view of sex, the view of nature or biology or evolution, is that the point of having sex is to produce offspring. Making the activity pleasurable is just natures way of getting us to do what needs to be done.
Of course the same thing is true from the standpoint of society or civilization - the point of sex is children, preferably children born into a marriage. Without children there is no future society. Pleasure is an incentive to sex, but not the point of it.
Half Sigma, the benefits of marriage are questionable.
Look, a large part of it is selection effect. The people who get married and stay married are more stable on average. With the big decline in marriage rates where's the decline in life expectancy? Rather, life expectancy has kept increasing.
"With the big decline in marriage rates where's the decline in life expectancy?"
Oy vey. This doesn't seem like an argument you'd make in any other case, Randall. Life expectancy has increased due to better hygiene, better information (about diet, excercise), reduced exposure to hard labor and the elements, and better technology. One could just as easily speculate that life expectancy would have climbed even faster if more of us were married.
"but having children is not the primary purpose of sex"
Holy pile of horseshit, Batman! Yes, having children is THE primary purpose of sex, if nature has anything to say about it. And nature is what has wired us to enjoy sex, the pusruit of which is, in so many ways, a complete waste of resources. The fact that we have figured out ways to get around nature doesn't change that fact.
And you know what else is good for both happiness and longevity? Bearing and raising children.
This just in: woman demands regular provision of food, clothing, shelter, and cable TV prior to agreeing to marriage. Society is appalled.
Oh wait, those things are already expected, prenup or not.
As for the studies comparing weight gain, if they did not control for parental status they don't mean squat. Married couples are more likely to be raising kids than single people.
What about children?
Would you want to marry or even cohabit with someone who has cohabited before?
What if one person wants out and the other doesn't?
Aren't these all compelling reasons to marry?
I would advise the woman not to marry this man, because he's basically twice divorced. And who knows how many other relationships he has had? We have no idea about the woman either.
Maybe they lost interest in sex with him.
"preferably children born into a marriage"
Another catholic moralist.
Well how about children born into a non-marriage mutual agreement that lasts a whole life while children grow up in a family, regardless of civil contracts or priestly blessings.
Nope, solaris probably would prefer marriage even if it ends up in divorce. He probably thinks that marriage is more important than FAMILY.
A better quote would be: "preferably children born into a family"