DADT Marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's in it for the man in this situation?

Only has to pay for one household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked my husband for one and he said no.

You broke rule 1. DA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's in it for the man in this situation?

DH gets intelligent arm candy for professional socializing. I'm an amazing cook. Love and take care of my kids beautifully. Work and contribute to the family financials. I'm a partner in his life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked my husband for one and he said no.

You broke rule 1. DA.

DA means don't ask details about daliances. You should have a discussion with your spouse. If you don't and just get out there, you're just a cheater

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's in it for the man in this situation?

DH gets intelligent arm candy for professional socializing. I'm an amazing cook. Love and take care of my kids beautifully. Work and contribute to the family financials. I'm a partner in his life

Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Agree

I also agree with this. It seems like the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that marriage is about sustaining the last scene in a rom-com for 30 years, and if that seems unrealistic well you just need to "work on it." People used to be more worldly about the fact that passion fades and resentments pile up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Agree

I also agree with this. It seems like the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that marriage is about sustaining the last scene in a rom-com for 30 years, and if that seems unrealistic well you just need to "work on it." People used to be more worldly about the fact that passion fades and resentments pile up.

To be fair, throughout history the arrangement was one-sided: only men were allowed to have dalliances outside their marriage. A married woman cheating in the late 1800s? She would become a social outcast, often with her kids in tow, and fall into abject poverty and be subject to street violence.

I do think it's interesting that pretty much every sizable American city previously had a red light district up until 1915. It was tolerated by society, police, the politicians, and religious institutions for the first couple hundred years of the colonies and the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Agree

I also agree with this. It seems like the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that marriage is about sustaining the last scene in a rom-com for 30 years, and if that seems unrealistic well you just need to "work on it." People used to be more worldly about the fact that passion fades and resentments pile up.

To be fair, throughout history the arrangement was one-sided: only men were allowed to have dalliances outside their marriage. A married woman cheating in the late 1800s? She would become a social outcast, often with her kids in tow, and fall into abject poverty and be subject to street violence.

I do think it's interesting that pretty much every sizable American city previously had a red light district up until 1915. It was tolerated by society, police, the politicians, and religious institutions for the first couple hundred years of the colonies and the United States.

PP - sure, but a better solution would have been to give everyone the freedom that only men had, rather than to subject everyone to the constraints that only women had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's in it for the man in this situation?

DH gets intelligent arm candy for professional socializing. I'm an amazing cook. Love and take care of my kids beautifully. Work and contribute to the family financials. I'm a partner in his life

Contribute to financials as in you'll pay my bills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's in it for the man in this situation?

DH gets intelligent arm candy for professional socializing. I'm an amazing cook. Love and take care of my kids beautifully. Work and contribute to the family financials. I'm a partner in his life

Contribute to financials as in you'll pay my bills?

Sure, at least half of our bills

[Anonymous]

I wonder how often the second person just goes along with it because they do not feel empowered in the relationship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Let me guess your gender if you think this is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Agree

I also agree with this. It seems like the one thing liberals and conservatives agree on is that marriage is about sustaining the last scene in a rom-com for 30 years, and if that seems unrealistic well you just need to "work on it." People used to be more worldly about the fact that passion fades and resentments pile up.

To be fair, throughout history the arrangement was one-sided: only men were allowed to have dalliances outside their marriage. A married woman cheating in the late 1800s? She would become a social outcast, often with her kids in tow, and fall into abject poverty and be subject to street violence.

I do think it's interesting that pretty much every sizable American city previously had a red light district up until 1915. It was tolerated by society, police, the politicians, and religious institutions for the first couple hundred years of the colonies and the United States.

PP - sure, but a better solution would have been to give everyone the freedom that only men had, rather than to subject everyone to the constraints that only women had.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Let me guess your gender if you think this is the case.

Adultery by married women before the rise of feminism was still pretty common. Maybe the consequences of being caught were more severe for women than men.

I also think survey data consistently showed women were more content with their marriage then than they are today. So, although I understand and sympathize with the objectives of equal rights, feminism, etc, it's really unclear if that was a net positive for women or society as a whole. I would probably say that we all would be better ifwe had retained the single earner family structure but allowed more flexibility regarding the allocation of responsibilities between genders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think DADT used to just be called "marriage." Then a strange team of liberal and conservative morality police got involved and made everyone's marriage worse.

Let me guess your gender if you think this is the case.

Maybe you just aren’t paying attention.
-DW