Most people see being in a position of vulnerability with respect to another human being whom they trust as a wonderful thing, which gives them a great deal of every day happiness. You see this vulnerability as merely negative, a threat to your individualistic pursuit of wealth ("assets and income"). You have a right to live however you want, of course, but maybe consider the possibility that others are getting something valuable out of this that you've missed?
From my perspective, it would be if i recommended to someone that wanted money to play roulette. Sure, you may win. But the odds don't seem to be in your favor and there are more dependable ways of achieving what you want, without relying on random factors outside of your control.
However, i won't denigrate your way of living if you won't denigrate mine. On the contrary, I'm happy that some have found happiness and meaning even in such risky and perhaps old-fashioned ways.
In your writing, however, it rather appears to me that you do not see the value in committing to another person at all - in whatever shape or form. In that case, I would say that the desire for marriage is likely to remain an enigma to you.
In rational terms, consider marriage (or another form of commitment) as a dynamic non cooperative game where a long term mutually beneficial equilibrium is reached.
Briefly, imagine you meet another person to whom you actually want to commit to: you derive utility from demonstrating vulnerability under risk.
This is the case, because the other person similarly commits to you. This mutual equilibrium is only possible with mutual trust. In turn, trust in the other person grows with mutual commitment. Trust is the driver of non ego behavior, shared understanding, and sensemaking. For evolutionary reasons, it also leads to a feeling of safety and reduces the impact of many day to day stressors. Of course, trust is only built up if the demonstrated commitment occurs under real risk and increases then over time, where the initial jump however determines largely the final equilibrium.
The equilibrium is high utility not only due to the feeling of safety and partnership, but also because a high trust environment removes transaction costs.
In turn, commitment is higher in value if the choice to deviate is meaningful, if the risk is real, if your money and income aren’t safe. If you jumped, and your partner equally jumped, both without knowing with certainty. Thus demonstrated commitment leads to a higher utility equilibrium as outlined above.
I hope this game theoretic analysis indicates to you some benefits of something like marriage.
Having lived both extremely independently and married, I strongly believe that my marriage equilibrium is far superior.
I also know that trying to get the same benefits without commitment, that is, without taking an inherent risk on another person, would not lead to the same outcome. After all, without risk, its not really meaningful.
While marriage is just one form, I strongly believe to know that today’s culture of risk aversion in partnership leads to lower utility and long term happiness.
People are afraid to lose or give anything up. In turn, they will gain less.
I acknowledge fully that I would not have understood the above before my marriage.
No I think his problem is putting his assets on the line in order to have a commitment to which he think is ridiculous when he could just simply, ya know, commit.
Of course some people are getting something valuable. Marriage works out great for some people, and of course those people are happy to tell the world how great marriage is because it worked out so well for them.
For other people, however, it's a complete disaster.
Basically, marriage is a huge gamble. The odds are better than going to the casino, but not by that much. If you win, great, but there's a huge potential to lose, big. There's a reason the divorce rate is so high, and more recently why more people just aren't getting married in the first place. People try the "dating" process to attempt to mitigate the huge risk that comes with marriage, in an attempt to "vet" the other person before making such a huge commitment, but there's countless cases of people spending significant time dating someone before marriage, only to wind up getting divorced after a few years anyway, so clearly 1-2 years isn't really enough time to get to know someone well enough to determine if the relationship will work out, and people just don't live long enough (and more importantly, women aren't fertile long enough) for couples to spend 10-20 years dating before marriage and kids.
Divorce isn't the same thing as "losing big". The latter is a relatively rare occurrence, which can happen when the relationship is very one-sided (one spouse makes 10x the income of the other spouse), and one spouse is extremely mean and vindictive. Plenty of couples separate amicably. Plenty of couples separate and it's a long painful affair, but no one gets robbed or cheated in the process. If you really find yourself that worried about your wealth and find yourself that worried about getting cheated in a divorce, sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Most reasonable people will accept one.
My point, moreover, is that the risk itself, the state of vulnerability, is something a lot of people want in a romantic relationship. People like you and the OP of the post I replied to see this risk as pure downside. You think that everyone sees the risk this way, and that they only accept it because they think the potential winnings are worth it. Marriage, as you put it, is a huge gamble. But this is not the way everyone sees marriage. Achieving this level of intimacy with a person, where you inevitably have to trust them like this, is itself the goal. This is the "something valuable" I refer to. It means the downside (potentially getting robbed in divorce court) is offset not just by the upside (a good marriage) but also by the inherent value of the risk-taking behavior that marriage involves.
> 1-2 years isn't really enough time to get to know someone well enough to determine if the relationship will work out
Sure! I can agree with that (with the above note that getting divorced is not really the end of the world). So take 4 or 5 years. Live together for a while. Get a shared bank account when you feel you're ready for that and need to pay some bills together. You may even find that you achieve the kind of intimacy you're looking for without going up to an altar and putting a ring on their finger. I've been with my partner for over a decade, and we're not "married". I'm not old fashioned, and this isn't the 1950s anymore. But I am attached to the rather romantic notion that intimacy is inherently valuable, and that it inherently involves taking a risk.
>I've been with my partner for over a decade, and we're not "married".
That kind of long-term trial isn't feasible once you're past your 20s, if you (or the woman) wants to have kids.
Now apply this reasoning to all the other stupid and harmful shit people do.
