I've been pondering lately whether marriage actually hurts kids more than it helps them.
A lot of men say, "I got married so I could give my kids a stable home in which to live." Of course, the piece of paper isn't what keeps the family together, though. It's your paycheck, or your game, or whatever, that makes her want to stay. Briffault's Law, and all that.
If you suddenly lose your job, and stay unemployed for several months, then if your wife decides to leave, people will probably say it's justified, because she had to do what was best for herself and the kids. They may even say she's dumb if she stays with you. So the piece of paper doesn't help in that situation.
On the other hand, if she just happens to get tired of being with you, and wants to make up a false accusation like "He beat me" or "He emotionally abused me," then people will feel like they have to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that. If she feels like frivorce would be frowned upon, then maybe she'll be MORE likely to fabricate a story about how you mistreated her, so that she won't be shamed for leaving. That could cause a lot of damage to your reputation (harming your ability to provide for others) and to your relationship with your kids.
In the event of separation or divorce, the piece of paper has nothing at all to do with who gets custody of the kids. The court's decision is all about "the best interests of the child" rather than any agreement or contract the parents had when they got married. If anything, the fact that you're married encourages her to dump you, if there's potential for her to collect alimony or a share of the marital property. If leaving you meant that she walked away with nothing other than maybe child support (as might be the case if you were unmarried), she might be more inclined to stay.
The main effect of marriage is that you, the husband, feel bound by your agreement to stay, because of your own principles and/or the cultural stigma against arbitrarily dumping your wife. Suppose after you get married, she starts getting fat, or becomes frigid, or whatever. You might say, "Well, if we weren't married, I might dump her and have kids with someone else instead, given the way she's acting. But I promised to stay with her, so I better do that. And since I want kids, I guess I better knock her up."
Because you feel like you can't leave her, she's free to do pretty much whatever she wants. She can indulge in all kinds of bad behavior that's detrimental to the family, because she no longer has any competition, given that she has locked you down. You can't even go MGTOW at that point. You end up doubling down on a situation that could be deteriorating, and potentially subjecting more kids to that environment, rather than cutting your losses and getting the hell out.
So what's the benefit of marriage? I guess it could make her and her family trust you more if you make that commitment. She might say, "Maybe it's worth forgoing the carousel for the opportunity to marry this high-value guy." You might be able to get a better chick than if you weren't offering marriage.
But once you marry her, she becomes basically your owner, since she can dump you, but you can't dump her. If you were both bound to stay together, then it would be a situation where you would sink or swim together, giving you both an incentive to behave well. If you were both free to leave at any time, then you would both have to be on your "A" game, and it would simply be acknowledged that once you're done having kids with her, she would need to continue offering value in order to remain your wife (just like you need to continue offering value to keep her around).
But if you're giving her security without any binding commitment in return, that's only taking care of half the equation that's needed to maintain a stable household in which the parents work together for the benefit of the kids. It could actually make the situation worse, because it puts her in a position of control, and women (at least, feminine women) aren't naturally suited to leadership.
I guess it could be considered insulting to tell a woman, "I don't want to get married, because I don't trust a woman to stay loyal unless she's compelled to, and marriage doesn't provide that compulsion." But that's no more insulting than if a woman says, "I want to get married, because I don't trust a man to stay loyal unless he's compelled to."
A lot of men say, "I got married so I could give my kids a stable home in which to live." Of course, the piece of paper isn't what keeps the family together, though. It's your paycheck, or your game, or whatever, that makes her want to stay. Briffault's Law, and all that.
If you suddenly lose your job, and stay unemployed for several months, then if your wife decides to leave, people will probably say it's justified, because she had to do what was best for herself and the kids. They may even say she's dumb if she stays with you. So the piece of paper doesn't help in that situation.
On the other hand, if she just happens to get tired of being with you, and wants to make up a false accusation like "He beat me" or "He emotionally abused me," then people will feel like they have to give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that. If she feels like frivorce would be frowned upon, then maybe she'll be MORE likely to fabricate a story about how you mistreated her, so that she won't be shamed for leaving. That could cause a lot of damage to your reputation (harming your ability to provide for others) and to your relationship with your kids.
In the event of separation or divorce, the piece of paper has nothing at all to do with who gets custody of the kids. The court's decision is all about "the best interests of the child" rather than any agreement or contract the parents had when they got married. If anything, the fact that you're married encourages her to dump you, if there's potential for her to collect alimony or a share of the marital property. If leaving you meant that she walked away with nothing other than maybe child support (as might be the case if you were unmarried), she might be more inclined to stay.
The main effect of marriage is that you, the husband, feel bound by your agreement to stay, because of your own principles and/or the cultural stigma against arbitrarily dumping your wife. Suppose after you get married, she starts getting fat, or becomes frigid, or whatever. You might say, "Well, if we weren't married, I might dump her and have kids with someone else instead, given the way she's acting. But I promised to stay with her, so I better do that. And since I want kids, I guess I better knock her up."
Because you feel like you can't leave her, she's free to do pretty much whatever she wants. She can indulge in all kinds of bad behavior that's detrimental to the family, because she no longer has any competition, given that she has locked you down. You can't even go MGTOW at that point. You end up doubling down on a situation that could be deteriorating, and potentially subjecting more kids to that environment, rather than cutting your losses and getting the hell out.
So what's the benefit of marriage? I guess it could make her and her family trust you more if you make that commitment. She might say, "Maybe it's worth forgoing the carousel for the opportunity to marry this high-value guy." You might be able to get a better chick than if you weren't offering marriage.
But once you marry her, she becomes basically your owner, since she can dump you, but you can't dump her. If you were both bound to stay together, then it would be a situation where you would sink or swim together, giving you both an incentive to behave well. If you were both free to leave at any time, then you would both have to be on your "A" game, and it would simply be acknowledged that once you're done having kids with her, she would need to continue offering value in order to remain your wife (just like you need to continue offering value to keep her around).
But if you're giving her security without any binding commitment in return, that's only taking care of half the equation that's needed to maintain a stable household in which the parents work together for the benefit of the kids. It could actually make the situation worse, because it puts her in a position of control, and women (at least, feminine women) aren't naturally suited to leadership.
I guess it could be considered insulting to tell a woman, "I don't want to get married, because I don't trust a woman to stay loyal unless she's compelled to, and marriage doesn't provide that compulsion." But that's no more insulting than if a woman says, "I want to get married, because I don't trust a man to stay loyal unless he's compelled to."