wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> Marriage
        
(Message started by: JiNbOtAk on Oct 8th, 2009, 9:59pm)
Title: Marriage
Post by JiNbOtAk on Oct 8th, 2009, 9:59pm
Is it worth it ? Some of friends (of both gender) had started to complain to me what a chore it is. A few is even considering making a clean break.  Most bemoaned the fact how their marriage is not as lovely and as magical as their parents'.

I guess divorces are pretty common these days. So is living together without any legal attachment. Thus, it raises the question, why marry in the first place ? If you have someone you love, and loves you back, is it worth it to gamble it all on marriage ?

Incidentally, how many of you guys are, or had been, or about to be, married ?  (This should prove interesting, given the amount of time we spend hanging around here) Of those who are, are you happy with your partner ? Ever contemplated divorce ? What's your current status ?
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 9th, 2009, 1:12am

on 10/08/09 at 21:59:56, JiNbOtAk wrote:
What's your current status ?
Still as single as I ever was.


Quote:
Is it worth it ? Some of friends (of both gender) had started to complain to me what a chore it is. A few is even considering making a clean break.  Most bemoaned the fact how their marriage is not as lovely and as magical as their parents'.
I'd hazard to guess their parents worked at it. The real world is rather devoid of magic. And if they asked their parents, they might find out to their dismay it wasn't all that effortless and perfect as they always thought.


Quote:
If you have someone you love, and loves you back, is it worth it to gamble it all on marriage ?
How is it a gamble? It really shouldn't change anything, should it? I don't see any reason why marriage should be more of a chore than the same relationship without the contract.
Unless you treat a marriage contract as the final signature on a successfull conquest; yeah, then you screwed up. You can't say "Well, I'm now married, I've won, I don't need to carry my weight in this relationship anymore."


Quote:
I guess divorces are pretty common these days. So is living together without any legal attachment. Thus, it raises the question, why marry in the first place ?
Tax benefits?
Well, it's a way to show your commitment to each other in front of the community. And an excuse for a party. (And there are some legal aspects, like inheritance, but at least here you can arrange many of those without marriage as well.)
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 9th, 2009, 11:00am

on 10/08/09 at 21:59:56, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Is it worth it ?


It depends.


Quote:
I guess divorces are pretty common these days.

Behavioral economics can provide insights on this


Quote:
What's your current status ?


I'm single.

Would you like a perspective from economics?

Thinking like an economist means thinking in terms of opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost), seeing markets everywhere, even in someone's romantic life, if and when you talk about the prospect of getting married I will listen to your contract, and if you tell me how wonderful she is and would like to marry her ... I see someone who is satisfied enough to stop looking around for someone else in the marriage market  .... and thinking about sunk cost fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs), the theory of real option valuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_options_analysis) ... and thinking about the phrase used by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan :"Irrational exuberance." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance)
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 11th, 2009, 11:17pm
I've only searched for the Marriage/Divorce rates in the U.S.


on 10/08/09 at 21:59:56, JiNbOtAk wrote:
I guess divorces are pretty common these days. So is living together without any legal attachment. Thus, it raises the question, why marry in the first place ? If you have someone you love, and loves you back, is it worth it to gamble it all on marriage ?


The story of rising divorce is a powerful narrative. It is also wrong. In fact, the divorce rate has been falling continuously over the past quarter-century, and is now at its lowest level since 1970. While marriage rates are also declining, those marriages that do occur are increasingly more stable.

Check the U.S. Census Bureau marriage rates :

National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mardiv_tables.htm

Divorce rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2007
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Divorce%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf

Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2007
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Marriage%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau : Marriage and Divorce
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/default.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/Default.htm

http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html

Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think (http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html)

Divorce Statistics Collection (http://www.divorcereform.org/stats.html)


Quote:
On the positive side, the rate has been slowing declining. On the negative side, a young couple really does have a very high chance of not making it.
...........................................................................
...........................................................................
What most people want to know, however, is the percentage of marriages that will end in divorce. Unfortunately, this is a difficult statistic to calculate, and it depends on certain assumptions.


Source: Divorce Rates (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)


--- To be continued ---
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 11th, 2009, 11:31pm
Researchers found a link between weak smiles and divorce :

Smile for the camera - it might help you stay happily married (http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/04/16/2009-04-16_smile_for_the_camera__it_might_help_you_stay_happily_married.html)

According to a study by scientists at DePauw University in Indiana, people who smile big in childhood photos are more likely to have successful marriages as adults, a study found ... and people who frown in childhood photos are five times more likely to get a divorce than those who smile for the camera

The authors in this case don’t argue that smiling for photos causes a good marriage, but rather that smiling and a lasting marriage are somehow correlated.

Hertenstein told LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/culture/090414-smile-marriage.html) :

"Maybe smiling people attract other happier people, and the combination may lead to a greater likelihood of a long-lasting marriage. We don’t really
know for sure what's causing it."

Hertenstein has also considered the possibilities that smiling for the camera may indicate a more obedient personality or that those with a happy disposition may develop a bigger support network of friends and in turn find iteasier to maintain a long-term relationship.
"I think [our results] go along with a lot of the literature that’s been coming out over the last five to 10 years, which shows that positive emotionality is incredibly important in our lives," Hertenstein added. "There are many, many beneficial outcomes to a positive disposition."

Source : Here (http://www.depauw.edu/learn/lab/media/documents/media/18_New_York_Daily_News_2009_story.pdf)

So, if you want to diminish the risk of divorce, you may want to check the childhood photos
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 11th, 2009, 11:39pm
We know that divorce rates decrease during recessions .... Still, they remains high.

The model ’til death do us part’ has not worked
How about recommending a renewable marital contract every 5-10 years?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is thinking of introducing fixed-term marriage contracts.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/world/90851.htm

The marital contract might be for 5, but no longer than 10 years, and at that time, couples automatically become divorced without any legal process other then what happens when any
contract is finished.

The idea is this type of contract would not only allow for the celebration of the renewal of vows after 5, 7 or 10 years but would also give incentives to maintain a good relationships.

Your thoughts, please.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 12th, 2009, 2:38am

on 10/11/09 at 23:39:10, BenVitale wrote:
The model ’til death do us part’ has not worked
How about recommending a renewable marital contract every 5-10 years?

[...]

Your thoughts, please.
The problem is, there is more to ending a marriage than ending a contract. And I doubt most people, when they get married, want to look ahead at how their marriage will end, and consider how to divide the goods.
I don't really see how fixed-term contracts solve any of the major problems surrounding divorce.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 12th, 2009, 11:56am

on 10/12/09 at 02:38:13, towr wrote:
The problem is, there is more to ending a marriage than ending a contract. And I doubt most people, when they get married, want to look ahead at how their marriage will end, and consider how to divide the goods.


I went to talk to economics major students (undergrads and grads students) about this idea of "renewable marital contract" ... I was a bit disapointed with these guys and gals ...they like this social experiment as long others go thru it, they don't want to do it themselves.

They want to make a lifetime commitment to a spouse.


Quote:
I don't really see how fixed-term contracts solve any of the major problems surrounding divorce.


I figured that the  model ’til death do us part’ is not working, then why not try something else.

It's better than having prenuptial agreements.

Human beings respond to two things: pain and pleasure or to incentives and disincentives in predictable ways.

It would be like an employment contract, with a probation and expiry period ....  It would allow people to bargain for the terms and conditions we want and they make sure we are not tied down for longer than we want.

I talked to my girlfriend about it. She does not like this idea at all. She said, "Women want security and stability in relationships ... and if someone talks about a marital contract to woman, she will walk away."

Everybody wants to think that their marriage will last forever.

Stalemate.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 12th, 2009, 2:59pm

on 10/12/09 at 11:56:57, BenVitale wrote:
I figured that the  model ’til death do us part’ is not working, then why not try something else.
There hasn't been a "till death does us part" in a long while, it's "till divorce does us part".
And of course, the argument "X doesn't work, so why not try Y" is a bit of a fallacy. Why not try wearing silly hats then? ::) There should be something to be said in favour of Y, other than that it isn't X.


Quote:
It's better than having prenuptial agreements.
Is it? What arguments are there for that assertion?
Prenuptials ensure that people don't fight over how to divide the goods, possibly how to divide the care of children as well.
I don't see what problem is solved by fixed-term contracts, other than that people may be too lazy to divorce in time if the marriage doesn't expire on it's own. Of course, if people should part ways in three years, waiting an extra two because of convenience will do nothing to make it better, far from it.


Quote:
Human beings respond to two things: pain and pleasure or to incentives and disincentives in predictable ways.
Surely, you must know better. We've seen numerous examples where reality didn't conform to game-theoretic/economic predictions. Even if the premise, that people respond to (dis)incentives, were correct, it has not been worked out in a empirically sound theory.


Quote:
I talked to my girlfriend about it. She does not like this idea at all. She said, "Women want security and stability in relationships ... and if someone talks about a marital contract to woman, she will walk away."
Well, if you can only get an open-term marriage after extending a fixed-term marriage, then at least it doesn't matter whether someone would prefer open-term from the start; since it isn't a choice. (It'll be a problem getting it through parliament, but that's another matter).
And in that case, a prenuptial agreement stands to add a lot of security to a marriage, because it arranges what happens if the fixed-term marriage does expire. For example, if, say, the wife gives up her job to be a home-maker (or whatever they call it these days), you could arrange that if the marriage expires, the husband will support her for an X number of years to get back to the work-place. That adds security.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by ThudanBlunder on Oct 12th, 2009, 6:22pm

on 10/11/09 at 23:39:10, BenVitale wrote:
The model ’til death do us part’ has not worked
How about recommending a renewable marital contract every 5-10 years?

Yeah, nothing wrong with the guy getting down on bended knee at the end of a romantic candlelit dinner and asking, "Darling, will you be my first wife?"
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 12th, 2009, 11:38pm

on 10/12/09 at 18:22:02, ThudanBlunder wrote:
Yeah, nothing wrong with the guy getting down on bended knee at the end of a romantic candlelit dinner and asking, "Darling, will you be my first wife?"


Sure, if you put it like that, it doesn't sound romantic at all.

They call it  "starter marriages" or "ice-breaker" marriage

I've just an article, it reads:


Quote:
A New York Times journalist reported hearing a guest at a wedding reception, presumably a relative of the groom, say about the bride: "She will make a nice first wife for Jason." One national expert endorses what she terms "starter marriages" for marriages that are good learning experiences but not likely to endure ....  the term "ice-breaker" marriage to mean the same thing....


Source: http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2000/August/consumer.htm
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 12th, 2009, 11:48pm

on 10/12/09 at 14:59:59, towr wrote:
Is it? What arguments are there for that assertion?
Prenuptials ensure that people don't fight over how to divide the goods, possibly how to divide the care of children as well.


Prenup agreements:  
--------------------------
Source: Missing Contracts: On the Rationality of not Signing a Prenuptial Agreement (http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/WorkingPapers/WorkingPapers/20060506.pdf)

Many couples do not sign prenuptial agreements, even though this often leads to costly and inefficient litigation in case of divorce. In this paper we show that strategic reasons may prevent agents from signing prenuptial agreements. Partners who value more the benefit of the marriage wish to signal their type by running the risk of a costly divorce. Hence this contract incompleteness arises as a screening device. Moreover, the threat of costly divorce is credible since the lack of an ex-ante agreement leads to a moral hazard problem within the couple, which induces partners to reject any ex-post amicable agreement.
.............................................
..............................................
only 5-10% of the (USA) population enters into
prenuptial agreements, and one study suggests that only 1.5% of marriage licence applicants would consider entering into such agreement

Partners who do not write a prenuptial agreement, expose themselves to the risk of a costly litigation in case of divorce. In this way they credibly signal to highly evaluate marriage and that they want to devote time, effort and endowments to the success of the relationship. Partners who draw up a prenuptial agreement, by lowering the cost of divorce, signals a low evaluation of marriage and
therefore that they have less incentive to exert effort in order to make the relationship successful.


I shall come back tomorrow to answer to the issues you raised in your last post.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 13th, 2009, 1:42am

on 10/12/09 at 23:48:38, BenVitale wrote:
"Many couples do not sign prenuptial agreements, even though this often leads to costly and inefficient litigation in case of divorce."
That seems to support my position more than yours.
People may have their reasons for not entering into a pre-nup agreement, but it costs them when they divorce.


Quote:
"In this paper we show that strategic reasons may prevent agents from signing prenuptial agreements. Partners who value more the benefit of the marriage wish to signal their type by running the risk of a costly divorce. Hence this contract incompleteness arises as a screening device. Moreover, the threat of costly divorce is credible since the lack of an ex-ante agreement leads to a moral hazard problem within the couple, which induces partners to reject any ex-post amicable agreement."
And the same applies to fixed-term marriages. If you go for a five-year contract, you signal that you're not really committed to the relationship but wish for an "out" in 5 years time.

It should be clear that the people getting married aren't inclined to anticipate and solve the future problems they are likely to run into. They want to believe, and convince their partner, that they'll live happily ever after. All of this says nothing about whether pre-nups work better or worse than fixed-term marriages. Because left to their own devices a couple will choose neither. And to evaluate them you have to look at when they have chosen them (or when there wasn't any choice).
If you want to know whether pre-nups work, look at the people who signed one, and look at whether they have divorced more often or less often, whether divorce costs where higher or lower, and whether they are more satisfied with their marriage/divorce. For fixed-term marriage contract this, unfortunately, can't be done, because they aren't used anywhere (afaik).
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by Vondell on Oct 13th, 2009, 9:31am
I'm not going to bother doing any research for numbers and just offer my opinion.  

First, to address the question..."Is it worth it?"
This depends on your reasons for marriage.  
Is it for love?  Financial gain?  Convenience?
Got the girl pregnant?  WHY do you (general term here) want to get married?

I believe most people would answer, "for love."
In that case, I also believe that many people confuse love and infatuation.  We(general term, again) think that we are in love when we are not.  We are simply attracted to certain things about the other person.  Then we decide we no longer want the "quirky" qualities they exhibited while dating and want to change them.  When we discover we can't..."I don't love you, anymore."  The "anymore" is the problem.

As far as divorce rates going up, people are also starting have pre-marital sex younger and younger which is in turn being more accepted by today's society.  This leads to my previous argument. Sexual activeness should not be the sole basis for marriage, which(unfortunately) I believe is slowly becoming the case.

As for temporary contractual marriage?  It reminds me of an old joke:

Priest: For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health?
Bride(or groom) :Yes, No, Yes, No, No, Yes.

Marriage should be a lifetime commitment.  Which means, as someone mentioned earlier, it's going to take some work.  Nothing is going to change to 'perfect' simply because you got married.  A temporary contract defeats the entire, original, purpose of marriage which is to forever unite 2 people, male and female, who truly love each other.

This is just a brief (such as it is) opinion.  I have many more thoughts on the subject, but no need to voice them all.  Also, no numbers, no matter how quantiful or factual, can define a marriage.  So, I won't need any graphs or charts showing why any of you may think I'm wrong about anything here.  :)
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 13th, 2009, 12:34pm

on 10/13/09 at 09:31:11, Vondell wrote:
I'm not going to bother doing any research for numbers and just offer my opinion.
 

Welcome to the debate!
A story that is logically or aesthetically compelling is important, but numbers, graphs, etc. are very important, even if the assumptions are bizarre ... we always need mathematics to prove or disprove it.


Quote:
First, to address the question..."Is it worth it?"
This depends on your reasons for marriage.


That's right. Probably the most important answer to many questions in economics is : "It/that depends."

 
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 13th, 2009, 12:50pm
Towr,

I'm having trouble with this business of marital "contract".

Re: the renewable marital contract
--------------------------------------------
I figured that if an arrangement is not permanent, it may give an incentive to the couple to be on their best behavior to ensure the contract is renewed.

They may work on their marriage, if they realize they have something good going on.

I don't have any data to support that. It's only a guess. I need to work on this.

I admit that this "marital contract" is my weakest point.

What economic theory tells me is that it is based on the idea that changes in incentives influence behavior in predictable ways.

What game theory tells me is that outcomes are very sensitive to the structure of interaction. Small changes in the rules of the game can produce vastly different outcomes

People respond to incentives, but incentives are determined in one's mind ... and it's hard to figure out what goes in there ... But on average, masses of people respond in fairly predictable ways. The theory offers useful guides. They are not absolutes however.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 13th, 2009, 2:07pm

on 10/13/09 at 09:31:11, Vondell wrote:
As far as divorce rates going up, people are also starting have pre-marital sex younger and younger which is in turn being more accepted by today's society.  This leads to my previous argument. Sexual activeness should not be the sole basis for marriage, which(unfortunately) I believe is slowly becoming the case.
Since pre-marital (and in general extra-marital) sex is more common and more accepted, isn't it less and less a basis for marriage?
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 13th, 2009, 2:10pm

on 10/13/09 at 12:34:10, BenVitale wrote:
A story that is logically or aesthetically compelling is important, but numbers, graphs, etc. are very important, even if the assumptions are bizarre ... we always need mathematics to prove or disprove it.
We first need to know what, if anything, we want to prove or disprove. And then we need to determine whether it is a subject for mathematics or empirical investigation.
You can have a nice mathematical model describe what people ought to be doing, but if it doesn't mesh with reality it is useless.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 13th, 2009, 2:31pm

on 10/13/09 at 12:50:25, BenVitale wrote:
I figured that if an arrangement is not permanent, it may give an incentive to the couple to be on their best behavior to ensure the contract is renewed.
That assumes they desire or value renewal. But they may just as easily approach it as an iterated prisoners dilemma with a fixed horizon. Which, as you know, devolves into the usual series of defection.
Contract-renewal isn't a goal in itself. If what they would renew the contract for (say love) is no longer in the relationship, they will not want to renew it. And they have no reason to work at it, because it'll just run its course and they'll be free to move on. If they were stuck with each-other for life, then they'd have to make the best of what they have.


Quote:
They may work on their marriage, if they realize they have something good going on.
I suppose there might be a bit more incentive to work at it to "trick" your partner into renewal every last few months of a 5-year contract, if you get enough out of a marriage. (It's bordering domestic abuse though.)
But on the other hand, if there is always the possibility of divorce, then there should always be the incentive to work it a marriage so you do not lose what it provides you. But it doesn't seem to work that way.


Quote:
What economic theory tells me is that it is based on the idea that changes in incentives influence behavior in predictable ways.
What empirical research tells me (not to mention you've referenced it often enough yourself in other threads), is that it doesn't usually work that way. Economic theory tends to ignore reality in favour of pretty models.


Quote:
What game theory tells me is that outcomes are very sensitive to the structure of interaction. Small changes in the rules of the game can produce vastly different outcomes
Yes, but in what way?
If you consider marriage as an iterated prisoners dilemma, then clearly putting a fixed limit on it makes it worse. Admittedly, I don't see any good reason to consider it a prisoner's dilemma; although I've heard some people say they feel trapped in marriage. But overall I don't see a reason why this "small change" would have favourable results; especially if you don't work out a resolution of the marriage when there isn't a renewal. (Because however tempting it is to just argue against fixed-term marriage contract when you argue for them, I really intended more to argue for extending the idea with either pre-nups or some other mechanism, so you deal with the inevitable aftermath. There needs to be an exit-strategy.)
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by Noke Lieu on Oct 13th, 2009, 10:17pm
Half way. Engaged to be engaged. We bought a house- that's harder to get out of than a marriage. Now just to get round to the rest of it...


on 10/11/09 at 23:39:10, BenVitale wrote:
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is thinking of introducing fixed-term marriage contracts.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/world/90851.htm


??? I don't think so. :D I might have heard about it back then... and citing the 'Courier Mail' as the source is just as laughable.... ::)

Check their site out- www.abs.gov.au - be warned it's a warren.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 14th, 2009, 8:45am
I'm trying to work it out via game theory models.

It's a bit hard. Marriage is a very emotional, game theory is about payoffs and strategies and rationality.... game theory doesn't say anything about emotions.

There might a way around it ... I'll post it later.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 15th, 2009, 11:22am
Towr,

It doesn't seem to work w/ game theory models.

I've revisited the game of trust ... I've tried to look at the hunt or search for a mate/spouse from the perspectives of Signalling theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory), Signaling games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_games), Screening game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_game), and the auction theory.

Why the auction theory?

I imagined that the hunt for a spouse in the marriage market from the perspective of an auction. The type of auction -- whether be primary type or secondary type -- depends on the players in this game.

In any auction, there are strong bidders and there are weak bidders.

The strong bidders are the men and women who see themselves as desirables because of their intellect, jobs, professions, looks, social capital, money, or any combination of any of them.

These people can afford to be selective.

The weak bidders are the people who are less confident.

The theory tells us that strong bidders win over weak bidders.

But, this is not always true in the real world!

The game of trust and auctions showed me that they do not reflect what people actually do in the real world ... people deviate from the game theoretic equilibrium.

Then, what do you do about this?

We could build 'what-people-ought-to-do' models or discuss about 'might-have-happened' models.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 15th, 2009, 2:34pm
Then I looked at the screening theory extented to marriage:

screening theory to marriage (http://books.google.ca/books?id=a4pIiFqpUtEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=screening+theory+to+marriage&source=bl&ots=5_JK-5aYHt&sig=eJMhUcHYolOJb7pZblIpikVTQPY&hl=en&ei=rY3XSq_OBI-MtAPV1-SRBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=screening%20theory%20to%20marriage&f=false)

According to a "two-stage theory" of love, falling in love involves a two step screening process.
People screen first for those they consider unsuitable. They do not notice these people when they meet, and they forget them right away. A typical example is screening for age. Many young people do not even notice older people because they do not perceive them as potential romantic partners. When someone does not fit our selection criteria, we simply do not notice them. Thus, the unsuitable becomes invisible. In the second stage, people select the most appropriate partners among those who are judged suitable.

The screening process is influenced by social norms.

Since it mentions "social norms" I'll be looking at the History and evolution of marriage to get some insight.

And I'll be looking at the mechanisms of the screening theory.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by Vondell on Oct 15th, 2009, 3:10pm

on 10/13/09 at 14:07:29, towr wrote:
Since pre-marital (and in general extra-marital) sex is more common and more accepted, isn't it less and less a basis for marriage?


Unfortunately, no.  I can't think of a way to properly explain myself, so please consider the following:

Which are you more likely to hear as a reason for getting married?
"I love him/her and we don't care about the sex."
or
"I love him/her and the sex is great."

More and more, people are equating sex with love and making decisions based upon that.  I see this almost every day in one situation or another, including some of my friends.
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by towr on Oct 16th, 2009, 1:15am

on 10/15/09 at 15:10:46, Vondell wrote:
Unfortunately, no.  I can't think of a way to properly explain myself, so please consider the following:

Which are you more likely to hear as a reason for getting married?
"I love him/her and we don't care about the sex."
or
"I love him/her and the sex is great."
I think I would be very unlikely to hear either. They would likely stop at the first clause of the sentence.
Besides, if they did feel the need to say they "don't care about the sex", then I would suspect something was wrong and that they're in denial about it; which can only end in tears.


Quote:
More and more, people are equating sex with love and making decisions based upon that.
I don't think people are equating sex and love more than they have in the past. It's a connection that has always been there. I suppose love may have become a bigger factor in the decision to marriage though. (Marrying for love hasn't exactly always been the norm.)
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 16th, 2009, 3:55pm
Check (online) the health benefits of sex:

It increases brain power, heart rate, it can help fend off diseases and ailments, and it makes individuals feel good about themselves.

It helps to keep you fit -- by burning calories -- and it can keep you in constant awareness of your body image.

You'll sleep much better during the night and feel alive and refreshed throughout the day.

It cleanses your body: increased heart rate, thus increase blood, providing the organs with a healthy dose of oxygen and rids the body of old and wasteful products
Title: Re: Marriage
Post by BenVitale on Oct 16th, 2009, 4:09pm
I've asked my math prof for some help with this game theory problem, he told me to reflect on the following:

In Chapter 5 of Introduction to Game Theory, it reads:

Game theory seeks to describe optimal decision-making strategies for multiple decision makers trying to maximize their own self-interests through a variety of complex social interactions ( von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944 ; Nash,1950) However, such approaches are limited when the decision makers do not possess all the information about the environment, or when the environment changes frequently. In such cases, the decision makers may need to improve their decision-making strategies incrementally by trial and error. This is often referred to as melioration ( Herrnstein et al ., 1997 ).

Then, I talked to a prof of economics, and he said:

"people are surprisingly inaccurate when forecasting their own emotional reactions to future life events ... that forecasts generally don't match their actual experiences."


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board