Unpopular relationship opinions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

Perhaps you would have more to offer once you have exoerienced being in a relationship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

No one needs to split 50/50. There should be respect for all work in the family including work to bring in money and people should try to contribute when they can. But like Fairplay it doesn't make sense to overlap a lot of roles. Pick your roles, do them well, thank the other for the roles they have and help out when you need to support the other spouse in a bind.

Yeah. I hate cooking and doing dishes. DH hates it too.

We both have to do it

Picking specific roles work well when each person likes certain roles and they don't interlap too much. When there are roles everyone hates, we gotta split the 50/50.'

If you both hate cooking then you are both equally immature and probably a good match, but the food in your house must suck.

What other basic life skills do you lack?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many men and women make too many excuses for being overweight, obese, and out of shape. Fat acceptance is a bizarre Orwellian concept that characterizes the dystopian nature of many womens attitudes towards their obligation to remain fit sexy and attractive for their partners.

Being fat lazy and out of shape makes you a terrible marital partner.

That society thinks 50 year old woman need to look like they did in their 20s. Women used to be able to age and grandmothers weren’t sexy. Now women are made to feel like failures if they don’t weigh the same at 50 as they did at 25. Life was so much better when it was socially acceptable to age and be matronly.

+1 We were watching The Godfather recently and it was striking how all of the older mothers were portly, enjoying pasta, and wearing dresses with graying hair. It is so sad that we now require women look hot (!) and sexually available into their 60s and beyond. Americans are oversexed.

This is why the men in The Godfather had goombas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took my traditional marriage vows seriously. When “until death do us part” happened I was devastated. Some people are happy in long term relationships.

I'm sorry, PP. But it's good that you had a strong relationship and apparently a positive one.

Another lifer here and frankly proud of it. Even better with an empty nest now, honestly.

Unpopular opinion: People who have sex outside marriage should not have gotten married, or should not stay married. If they want sex with various partners, truly, thats fine, but don't pretend that "open marriage"and "consensual non-monogamy" are anything other than buzzwords people use to keep either social standing or financial standing intact. I'm betting that all the supposedly non-monogamous people who prosyletize about its wonders on DCUM are not talking it up anywhere but here. They know society still equates marriage with commitment and fidelity. They can lament that all they like but it's still the ingrained reality, and their feints at making open marriage etc. A Thing aren't making a dent in that reality.

After years of reading comments like this here, I took the plunge and got divorced. You're right, the world didn't end and I do have my freedom. I wish I'd listened to you all before I did. Sexual fidelity was good only when there were children at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

So what if my husband has no energy, talents or efficiency for 90% of what's involved in running a household?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

Perhaps you would have more to offer once you have exoerienced being in a relationship?

I’m married to a high earner who does bald. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for all the women of my aquaintence.

[Anonymous]

Cheating doesn’t matter

[Anonymous]

Your wife's feelings should come before your opposite sex friendships. Always so shocked how many people defend their opposite sex friendships to the demise of their marriage. You didn't make vows to your opposite sex friends but guess what you did to your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: no woman should marry a man who doesn’t do at least 50% of the housework/family responsibility. Men should bring in at least 50% of the income unless they are providing substantially more household support. In many, many cases women would be better off getting high quality sperm from a bank and then using apps for fulfilling sex with young men. The investment of time and resources in pregnancy and childbirth is rarely evened out in an average marriage.

The notion that 50% of various functions should be done by each spouse is simplistic, infantile and unrealistic. People have different talents and strengths and efficiency suggests each partner should do those things for which they have the most aptitude. A partnership does not mean that each partner does 1/2 of everything.

Only feminist theorists in academia or who are in reality very privileged would have the arrogance to suggest that their arbirtrary notions of political equality should trump efficiency considerations which maximize outcomes for the availsble resources.

It’s extremely realistic as long as you accept that only the higher quality men should marry and have children. Not all men should have wives and families, the ones who don’t can provide plenty of sexual gratification while focusing on their jobs and hobbies, and the ones who want to genuinely contribute 50%+ to a family should have wives and children. Meanwhile women can reproduce independently using higher quality sperm.

Perhaps you would have more to offer once you have exoerienced being in a relationship?

I’m married to a high earner who does bald. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for all the women of my aquaintence.

Does half!!!

He is bald though…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

O.K. let's run with that--using your example of being washed up alone on a desert island.

In addition to not needing sex, (according to your definition of "need",) the castway wouldn't need:

1. A house with a roof over her head. You can just make a little shelter out of palm tree branches.
2. Running water, or plumbing. You can just look for natural sources of rain water and take a dump in a hole in the ground.
3. Grocery stores. You can just eat bugs, plants, and raw fish or seagulls.
4. Birthday cake for your 40th birthday.

Shall I go on?

Many people do not live in houses. I listed food and water as necessities. Birthday cake is nice but you can get along without it. Your entire argument is pretty bad and much of it dovetails with what I said.

Let us all know when you give your house away to charity and by the way how do you get mail delivered to the bridge you are going to be living under. Thanks for playing.

You mad cause you can’t dispute that sex is a want, not a need? Stay mad. 😎

Hey its a free country, you can be asexual if you want. But advocating asexuality as appropriate relationship advice is delusional. Your problem isn't your hatred of sex, it is that you think it is a feature not a bug. And boy do you sound buggy.

Understanding that sex is a want and not a need is hardly the same as advocating asexuality. It has nothing to do with hatred of sex. It has to do with adults having self control rather than excusing their bad sexual decisions with "I have needs!"

O.K. you win. There is no one who either needs or wants to have sex with you.

Your snarky moronic replies when you don't understand a basic concept is pretty revealing about your lack of intellect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is between one man and one woman until death of one party. (Very unpopular, no one in this thread believes this)

Finances should be totally joint and undisentangleable. (See above)

More people should choose celibacy. Marriage is definitely hard but there is at least a point to it; sleeping with people as a single person sounds a lot more fun than it actually ends up being. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze, as they say.

You have to be a very special person to enjoy monogamy. Sleeping with single people is very very fun if you're single.

Can someone please explain it to me how it’s very very fun? Dating scene sex is very limited in terms of not having oral on multiple partners, changing partners before I can even get into his rhythm, using protection and scare of infections. It takes couple months for me just to adjust my pelvic floor to a new partner, learn to trust them allow certain things etc.

Are you a man who just like PIV in condom with many different women ? Because to me as a woman it’s not nearly as fun as marital unprotected sex of greater variety

I’m a woman and I think it’s fun! I’m attractive and find it easy to match. I don’t fall into partners randomly - I’m dating for sex and fun as I won’t marry again. I also don’t take months to “warm up” or “adjust” to a partner!?!?

I think you need to relax a little.

I don’t get it: do they all perform oral on you during “dating” sex? Do you like oral on multiple men ? How do you avoid STDs?

How did you avoid it before you were married? Fact: most people don’t have an STI.

I only had 3 partners including my exH before getting married. With each we took STD tests, only used protection for the first few times until both were certain we don’t date others. They pulled out and I was on birth control after. Has oral and anal very early soon after STD test. Sex happened after 1-2 months of dating and introducing BFs to my family and getting my family approval. It was in Eastern Europe 25 years ago. Met my exH at 24 after two other long term relationships. But here in the US men expect sex after 3 dates, use condoms (which don’t even protect against all STDs). They want oral of course but I can’t force myself to enjoy it this way.

You again.

People have oral just fine before they’re married. Problem is you.

[Anonymous]

You choose to love

[Anonymous]

One act of physical violence (assuming no one was injured badly) should not automatically equal divorce, especially if there are kids involved.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people in late 20s/early 30s in long term relationships get married thinking it’s just the next step in the relationship without honestly evaluating whether that person is really the best partner for a successful, lasting marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex is not a need, it is a want or desire. Nobody ever died from not having it. Don't accept "I have to get my needs met" as an excuse for anything, it just rationalizes bad behavior, lack of self control, and misunderstanding of actual biological needs.

Thank you for the perspective of a sex negative fourth wave feminist.

Not sure why this is getting so much blowback. If you washed up alone on a desert island, it’s the lack of food and/or water, not the lack of sex, that would eventually kill you. It’s just a fact.

O.K. let's run with that--using your example of being washed up alone on a desert island.

In addition to not needing sex, (according to your definition of "need",) the castway wouldn't need:

1. A house with a roof over her head. You can just make a little shelter out of palm tree branches.
2. Running water, or plumbing. You can just look for natural sources of rain water and take a dump in a hole in the ground.
3. Grocery stores. You can just eat bugs, plants, and raw fish or seagulls.
4. Birthday cake for your 40th birthday.

Shall I go on?

Many people do not live in houses. I listed food and water as necessities. Birthday cake is nice but you can get along without it. Your entire argument is pretty bad and much of it dovetails with what I said.

Let us all know when you give your house away to charity and by the way how do you get mail delivered to the bridge you are going to be living under. Thanks for playing.

You mad cause you can’t dispute that sex is a want, not a need? Stay mad. 😎

Hey its a free country, you can be asexual if you want. But advocating asexuality as appropriate relationship advice is delusional. Your problem isn't your hatred of sex, it is that you think it is a feature not a bug. And boy do you sound buggy.

Understanding that sex is a want and not a need is hardly the same as advocating asexuality. It has nothing to do with hatred of sex. It has to do with adults having self control rather than excusing their bad sexual decisions with "I have needs!"

O.K. you win. There is no one who either needs or wants to have sex with you.

Your snarky moronic replies when you don't understand a basic concept is pretty revealing about your lack of intellect.

Just make sure you put enough salt on those fries, darlin'.