[nking]

I think we need a new form of marriage that lasts a set 20 years and then the assets are divided evenly unless they both choose to renew. Changing the last name of the woman advances the idea that she is now property of the man. Marriage is a contract and needs to be updated to fit the modern world. Of course accepting that it is a contract for companionship and sex “reduces” women's status, so since nobody will admit that truth, we can’t call it the contract it obviously is and update it accordingly. Not that I’m knocking marriage. I should be so lucky. But maybe we need to get past the ideas that A) you can own a woman and tell them what to do and that they can’t have sex with other men and B) that trading goods, money or opportunities for advancement in social status for sex reduces the value of the woman. For all the moral superiority we claim over primitive religious cultures, we have a long way to go to recognize the basic realities of human existence. The primary motivations for most people indirectly revolve around sex and money. If you take those things away, people will shut down.

[dTal]

You have some pretty odd ideas. In particular I find it bizarre to frame a mutual, symmetrical commitment to monogamy as "owning a woman and telling them what to do". Marriage is nothing more or less than formal recognition of the human tendency to pair bond, and distaste for infidelity is neither a cultural quirk nor exclusive to men.

[nking]

In terms of infidelity, this attitude doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. If I meet a woman and start a relationship I’m not rationally going to hold it against her that she’s slept with other men before me, and if the relationship ends I wouldn’t be concerned if she slept with other men (or women I know) after me. So then, why should I be so concerned if during our relationship she sleeps with other people? Disease and paternity issues can be managed with protection and DNA testing. You know, I wouldn’t dare tell someone they aren’t free to do as they please with their own body. They might turn around and ask me why.

[xupybd]

I would dare tell my wife that she can't sleep with others. Just as she would tell me the same.

We bond via oxytocin especially during sex. My wife and I have committed to only bond with each other. It's something we both want and have chosen.

I'm not saying others have to but it is a very common expectation. Rooted in our biology. There are many things we can manage with modern technology but sometimes life is better not having to.

[nking]

I’m afraid our collective genetics does not tell of a history of fidelity. The standard successful procreation strategy involves children through many partners.

And besides, aren’t sexual experiences enjoyment? Why deny yourself and your partner pleasure and variety? You could both agree to not let the other watch TV and just glare at each other over every meal, but that’s going to get old pretty fast.

Not that I’m against marriage as it is today, but for the fact that for a decision that so radically defines the lives of those involved, I think there should be more deliberation in the details.

[xupybd]

Our genetics do tell that story.

However there is a biologic reason for male jealousy. It's a good strategy to ensure your genetics out compete others. It ensures you don't waste your resources raising someone else's children.

Female jealousy ensures that she has a provider and protector during the vulnerable period during pregnancy and child raring.

The rape and pillage strategy was probably the most successful but it's a no longer and accepted practice.

>You could both agree to not let the other watch TV and just glare at each other over every meal, but that’s going to get old pretty fast.

Please tell me that is not what you think marriage is limited to. We raise children together. Build our family together. Explore the world together.

There is so much fulfillment in a long term committed relationship. If all I thought it was is watching TV and glaring at each other, then I'd hate that too. If that's how your parents or people around you treat each other, that's horrible. I'm sorry your experience has been like that.

[xupybd]

I agree most people today should not be entering into a marriage as they only view it as 'till inconvenience do us part.

I would rather have no legal method of separation from my wife other than infidelity. I made a commitment that is going face challenges. Like Ulysses bound the mast I want to be bound to my wife. So I have external forces binding me to that agreement.

Much like a personal trainer at the gym helps hold you accountable and achieve greater things than you could on your own.

[nking]

The thing is, speaking for myself, every 5 years or so I’m almost a completely different person. Same context, different tenant. People change and they get bored. Maybe they don’t want to commit the entire rest of their lives to a single relationship. Divorce is the norm already, so let’s just standardize it and reduce the trauma.

[xupybd]

Yeah, but if divorce is the norm a fixed term contract is a better option.

Personally I want an actual death do us part contract. But that no longer exists. Why can't we have both?

[nking]

Sure if you can get your partner to sign you can set whatever terms you both agree on. Fully customizable. But most death-do-us-part marriages aren’t honored, so that may not be the best deal for you because since that contact comes with no predefined exit strategy, if you have assets that means litigation if someone wants out.

[tharkun__]

For consideration. Not saying anything for or against here.

    In Québec, both spouses keep their surname after they marry. In other words, you must use the surname you were given at birth to exercise your civil rights, for example

        when you sign a contract,
        or apply for a driver's licence.

    Even if you married outside Québec but you are domiciled in Québec, you must exercise your civil rights using the surname you were given at birth.

    However, in your social life you can, if you wish, use your spouse's surname.
    
    Women married prior to April 2, 1981

        If you are a woman and married prior to April 2, 1981, you are entitled to use your spouse's surname to exercise your civil rights, provided your were already doing so at that date.

        However, if you decide to exercise your civil rights under your own name, you must first notify the relevant departments and agencies.

https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/couples-and-families/marri...

[nking]

That’s a good compromise, keep both names. And the kids if any can start with the last names of the same sex parent then choose one or the other when they become adult. It’s easy enough to retire these aged concepts. In a way the marriage contract is a technology to be advanced. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for a startup here, marriage 2.0. Trouble is people will see the contract as negotiable from then on. Custom marriage contacts would become the norm leading to new lifestyles, perhaps including communal partnerships, and further, women would have a great deal more leverage depending on which variant of the marriage contract they are willing to accept. Although it could be said their bargaining power would be restored rather than increased since it was clearly taken from them in the past using religious shame tactics.

[tharkun__]

This in only Quebec AFAIK. But FWIW, Canada in general is pretty progressive that way. While actual marriage exists for those that want to, there's no reason to marry just because of tax advantages as there is in other countries. After a relatively short amount of time (a year or something like that) you can apply for a "common-law marriage" status and you basically get all the same things as if you were married.