Why American men are getting less marriageable
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
As a modern woman who makes good money, I'd be comfortable in theory with marrying a man who makes far less than I do.
The problem with that in practice is gender roles in marriage. It's still the norm for women to be responsible for the lion's share of cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Even in the marriages with the most "woke" husbands I see among my friends, the wife almost always ends up both doing more and spending more mental energy on the home.
That means that for men, marriage lightens the burden of (for lack of a better term) managing life, leaving more time and energy for career. For women it's the opposite. This is the primary reason IMO why marriage is a good deal for both parties if the breadwinner makes more than the homemaker. It's just that men who are willing to be the homemaker are vanishingly rare. And if both are breadwinners, almost invariably the homemaking burden falls more heavily on the wife.
That means that from a practical (as opposed to a romantic) perspective, marrying a man who makes significantly less than me is liable to be an enormous burden. Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically?
Yes, there are some men out there who would make the fair trade and do more of the homemaking if I were the primary breadwinner. There are also a bunch who say they'd be willing to do it, but aren't aware of what that fully entails and aren't willing to put in the emotional investment. (See [1] and [2]). There are also more of those men in younger generations in general; and the ones who exist in my generation are likely to be already married - and happily so. So I'll stay single - and happily so.
The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.
The solution is not merely one sided. Women must also be willing to 'give up' those roles.
Say what you will about men stepping up but my ongoing experience in a marriage with the woman as the bread winner and me as the home maker (with kids) is that my wife puts herself under a lot of 'self' pressure to be the classic mum (baking, cleaning, ironing, washing whatever). She also receives a ton of pressure from her mother and from her friends, intended or perceived it doesn't really matter, to maintain the 'mum to the kids and running the house' meme.
Believe it or not we've had stand up arguments about her not doing the washing and ironing and leaving it to me, because she just can't let it go. The most recent one is wrestling control of the kitchen from her, not in the sense of shutting her out but letting me in. Even food purchasing, I began to solely do that last year but New Year, New Resolutions has brought a return to the 'we'll eat healthily, I'll cook every evening and bake at the weekend' pantomime. Despite the fact we already ate great food and she's away with work for at least 1 week in 6 and the weekly late evenings still in work or day trips away for conferences/meetings.
All this might sound like one big complaint but really it's just to illustrate that it takes both sides to change in order to actually affect change.
This has survived 27 years and kids so far.... :-)
We've developed a bit of a different style where I'm her 'safety net' for the things she still puts pressure on herself to do. Like washing/ironing and cooking. Cleaning has mainly been resolved and we do what's needed when needed. House organisation/upkeep is mine, all critical kids care is mine.
But everything else we pretty much just communicate with each other. That seems to have been the key to success so far.
There's also the factor of having done one thing a certain way for a long time, getting a little possessive of it or thinking it's better. "Well, if you do it like this...". :-/
At least y'all are talking about it and you seem to be concerned with having a good balance.
Thinking in terms of "sides", "them", "us" is harmful. Sexism can be internalized by anybody.
I see this brought up a lot, and I get it: we SHOULD be able to treat everybody equally regardless of the bits between their legs, but we haven't gotten there yet.
I think it's counterproductive to be pedantic about language when it's serving a purpose and not hurting anyone. If someone brings up a better way to express this type of thing, then I'll be in total agreement, but I haven't found a better way to do so using the english language.
How about: "Some people, regardless of gender, can perpetuate or reinforce gender roles through speech, action or inaction."
"Some people should be willing to give up traditional gender roles."
I agree that that type of language should be used in general (and I make a concerted effort to use it, even in my native tongue where sex is strongly denoted), but IMHO it's useless when describing specific scenarios.
You can’t trade 1 hour of McDonalds employee for 1 hour of car mechanic, for example. It’s not a fair trade. (And I’m not saying here that these are women’s and men’s roles. Just providing an example.)
What do yo usually eat then ?
The point I'm making in the section you quoted, and which agrees with your other comment about social mimicry, is that the pressure she faces from herself and others to continue to perform this 'traditional' role means now she is the one who said I'm going to do this, you're not going to.
That's not a position she has to be in, it's one shes chosen and actively maintains precisely because of those pressures, not from necessity.
Not my experience. It's easier to have a career, hobbies, and energy if you're single, than if you're in a "modern" marriage. I'd argue it's easier even compared to "oldfashioned" marriage, but for different reasons, but that's just a guess.
People still get married, because love, and kids, and social expectations, and tax cuts ;), but in my experience being alone requires the least effort.
> The solution, in my opinion, would be to continue to erase traditional gender roles. If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.
Why would you want to erase them? These roles developed and exist for a reason. Obviously the alternative roles should be promoted as viable and respectable choices, but the existing roles exist because for most people it's a good fit.
I've met women that are quite angry at society for making them feel inadequate because they just want to be housewives.
> If most of the men out there were ready to take on the homemaker role enthusiastically, I would be far more willing to consider them as partners even if they make a fraction of what I do.
Why do you want most? Isn't it sufficient if some do? You won't marry all of them :)
The problem is the pressure women put on themselves, out of social mimicry. I don't give a shit if I'm not the perfect housekeeper, that's not my goal in life, and many things are more exciting than this to me.
And if you don't clean a certain minimum amount, yeah, your home gets unhygienically disgusting. As proven by the 6 months of beard shavings and toothpaste spittle crusted up on my ex's sink. (And that was the least disgusting surface in the bathroom.)
The same goes for things like washing bedsheets and towels now and then; leaving clothing all over the floor where you trip on them in the dark; letting dishes pile up in the sink until you get pests; and more.
Technology has decreased the amount of time required to keep a home to a minimum standard of cleanliness - but it still requires a certain amount of attention and effort.
Then if you have a partner who's either unwilling to clean or whose standards for "gross" are far lower than yours, you're stuck cleaning for two or living in conditions you find unlivable.
And that's without even beginning to get into the complications of childcare for those couples who want children for reasons other than social pressures and norms.
My mother is a school teacher in rural Maine and hires a lady to vacuum and dust and change the bedding every week.
Then, historically, before house appliances, the burden of home tasks was brutal. No washing machines, driers, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, no instant or fast food, etc. What can now be done in a few minutes used to take hours, and require more work, to the point it was a full time occupation.
I am glad this is no longer the case.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing...
But then once you are done with laundry you've got cooking, washing, ironing, etc...
Ironing became optional for some people as fibers started receiving a special treatment to reduce wrinkling. Before that, clothes would wrinkle beyond what most people today would be comfortable wearing. Before electricity, irons were powered by coal and of course had no thermostat.
Before refrigeration and other modern methods for preserving food, you also had to buy fresh food constantly, or preserve food in archaic ways like salting.
Then, before plumbing and sewers, rather than getting water from a faucet you had to go get water from a well.
And maybe, Betty over the street did the above reasoning, has cleaner house and you want measure up. You wanna do right by your family. Maybe there is a piece of you that is competitive, which is pretty normal among humans, although you don't use that piece often.
For automation to really free time the women's time, the next step is needed - women finding the reasonable socially accepted thing (most people want to do socially accepted things) to do with that time. Eventually it did happened, just not right away.
You can set an unrealistic standard of cleanliness, like: polishing doorknobs, cleaning windows, the roof and the basement every day. Or do your cleaning routine twice per day, or 3 times... when does it stop?
Then, at some moment cleaning has diminishing returns and becomes redundant. Plus, day to day activities may require to make things dirty temporarily, and wanting to preserve a permanent state of cleanliness may interfere with those activities.
https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/883373670990786561
Of course some people then went on to question Tim Harford...
The second most common thing I hear is that men are intimidated by her. Sometimes this is true and sometimes they are just put off by her aggressive (masculine in their eyes) behavior. She of course rewords it make it sound like he shouldn't have a choice or preference (while she can).
It should be obvious that anyone who is too much of an outlier is going to have issues with marriage. Picture a man who is the image of a soft caring person who strives to be the best caregiver as a stay at home husband. Can he get married? Of course. Will lots of women reject him and think he's not a proper man? You bet! His behavior won't get him mocked my women, in fact he'll be so deep in the friendzone he be surrounded by women. Sexual attraction is another thing.
Regarding the comment about not doing more homework, I see it this way. Many men are simply unwilling to do it. I just can't be bothered. Her level of income won't change my attitude towards this. Does this restrict me to women who earn less? Probably. Most men who chase youth and beauty also end up with women who earn far less. It shows that her income is very low on the priority scale while his exemption from most housework is high.
Your solution is a valid one. Another is to try to make our society a more fair and balanced one so that income isn't as important in a spouse as it's getting to be if you're not already wealthy.
Stories about owing a woman a paycheck for years make people think twice. This is in glaring contrast to the line everyone hears about the amount of employment opportunities women have.
The way I see it, the law fails to protect women from abusive men in the physical sense men from women in the financial and custody sense.
Edit: for those who downvote - there is opportunity cost for doing these things. At minimum, he is more tired when he does that. And it is not possible to do fair share of house work if you work 70 hours a week every week. Nor when you train or work on hobby additional 20 hours a week.
It is not like men who did all those things would have longer days or magically needed less sleep.
Which is why I'm in favor of outsourcing (i.e. cleaning, take-out, blue apron). My friends (she's a doctor and he's a product manager) say getting a cleaner is the best thing they could have done for their relationship
That year and a half or so was the easiest we have ever had. People take for granted how much time laundry absorbs when you have two people working and limited free time.
How does outsourcing help with a crying baby at 2am? How does outsourcing help with the mental burden of worrying about whether the kids have their shots and annual dentist visits and don't forget that you have to go shopping because they outgrew their shoes?
And if you're raising two kids on a $35k nursing salary and the $15k your husband earns at the minimum wage job that's all that's available to him, how are you going to afford any of that anyway?
Outsource where you can. Where you can't, share the responsibility.
All of this is subject to whether or not you can afford it. I made my assumption based on two breadwinners.
In my mind $15k is a not a breadwinner salary. I had assumed since you referred to yourself as a modern women who makes good money you'd be at least making $70k-$100k.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-who-do-housew...
I don't want to be a dick here but one cannot cheat the biological psychology of gender dynamics in a whim. Maybe someday, but as it currently stands it is just the way it is and there is nothing one can do about it.
No wonder the marriage is declining.
Men want to be the provider. Men take pride in that and I think that is a good thing. While I think most men are alright with their wives working, especially when the children get older and don't need as much attention, they'd prefer to be able to make enough to let their wives do as they please. While attempting to become financially independent enough to spend as much time with his family as possible.
Perhaps this is a bit of a rosy view, but I think that it is much easier if couples swim with the stream of biology than attempt to fight against it.
Yes, it feels good to be provider especially if you provide out of job you love and are successful in. It makes you feel important, capable, like you matters and so on and so forth. That is why even rich people don't want to retire all that much. Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too. Or at least dislikes feeling like dependent lazy incapable freeloader - which can be her own feeling independent of what man does (meaning not caused by his bad actions).
If you however has to work long hours in job you dislike with boss that treats you like disposable dirt, pretty normal situation in bad economy, while actually capable adult person who depend on you watch tv/call with friends/does some hobby, then certain amount of resentment is absolutely normal human psychology. And this does not even have much solution, because if she starts to work, she is endangering his masculinity.
Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family. And past stereotypes about women are full of what is basically resentment over the above.
From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever. It is fine to watch tv or do some home embroidery, but the real full focus on success endangers his pride and his status of provider.
The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful, do something real, not just hang around coffee whole day. In other words, adult women need to be adults and cant be happy living as children. It was first time when large enough portion of population really did not needed that much home work, did not needed to sew their own cloth, did not needed to earn money (lower classes and peasants needed that always), cooking took much less time and so did shopping. And quite a lot of them were not happy and were quite vocal about that.
They were not possessed by aliens nor on drugs. It was their psychology and biology in action, making themselves heard.
I don't really see how it is an unfair situation. Cleaning, cooking, and home chores in general aren't exactly easy. I know personally I'd definitely like to have someone at least help do those things. I wouldn't mind going to work all day helping provide for someone who was doing those things and I knew when I got home that I didn't have to worry too much about those kinds of chores. There is a reason a division of labor started among humans to begin with.
> Of course, you don't consider that women might like that feeling too.
Yes, which is why having children and helping support her husband while also potentially doing volunteer work or part time work in something she is interested in are all very good things and part of living a fulfilled life.
> Men happen to be human, which is not the same as idealized saints with zero consideration about themselves. But also practically speaking, even this discussion has men resentful over "loosing half of his money" in case of divorce in traditional family.
Yes, there is fear and resentment about losing half the life you helped build simply because she may not feel like continuing anymore. There is a reason why there weren't "no fault" divorces in the past. You actually had to have some kind of reason for getting a divorce. Now you can essentially do so on a whim, though of course the process isn't an easy one.
> From the female side, in the rosy view she is allowed to do as she please - except being truly useful or achiever.
I think that's a ridiculous notion. Caring for children is quite possibly the most important and useful job humans have. It is the reason why we create civilizations and why men go and try to provide for his family. I suppose if you don't have children there's no real reason to not try to have a career of your own. If both partners careers are going well (and thereby useful to continue pursuing) then it would make sense to hire people to help with things around the house.
>The feminism of 1960 did not happened because women were going against their biology. It happened because our biology and psychology has deep build in need to be useful
I disagree, if you want to feel useful there are lots of things to do. Charitable organizations need volunteers, houses need people to make them feel like a home. How I see it is basically men made society too easy and some women felt the need to struggle still. These women convinced other women that men were somehow evil oppressors through building this society and it is women's turn to "dominate" society. When in reality men were simply doing things to make people's lives better, and women benefitted the most.
All that said, I am not against women having careers and not being homemakers. I don't care if people in their relationships decide to have the women be the primary breadwinner. I'd just argue that you are going against how it has been for millennia and will likely have a rough time at it. If you want children there will be a decent amount of time where children will need a lot of care. If women decide to focus on their careers instead of child rearing, they will feel like bad mothers and that isn't just a result of societal expectations. The vast majority of women have very natural nurturing instincts. I think that feminism is encouraging women to go against these biological instincts with no real benefit or gain of happiness for these women.
Historical division of labor was entirely different. And no, those things in modern setting do not amount to full time job. Moreover, the idea that whole gender is composed of personality type that likes isolated routine work with pretty much zero external motivation is ridiculous. 1960 America middle class housewife is not historical norm by any meaning. The majority of population were peasants, both genders overworked.
Or otherwise said, I don't like cleaning either and prefer someone else to do it too, but it is not because I would perceived it as difficult. Nor is it something that in 2018 requires someone full time at home.
> Yes, which is why having children and helping support her husband while also ...
That is his hope for her feelings which is not the same as her feelings. While some women might totally feel that way, a lot simply don't. There are schools and they are not harming kids at all. Kids really don't need stay at home parent beyond very small age.
> Caring for children is quite possibly the most important and useful job humans have. It is the reason why we create civilizations and why men go and try to provide for his family.
That is not how and why we created civilization, historically speaking. But, be teacher if it is the most important and useful job human can have. Why are you not? Why are you here instead of arguing over what is best way to teach reading?
> I suppose if you don't have children there's no real reason to not try to have a career of your own.
There is no reason not to try career of her own if she has children too. Just like men have careers on their own with children.
> When in reality men were simply doing things to make people's lives better, and women benefitted the most.
That is nonsense even outside of gender relations. Men (and women) did things for many various reasons, occasionally "making people's lives better" one of them. Many times, simply not. If women benefited the most, then be happy for that revolution, cause women fought and argued to benefit less and you should, logically, benefit from it. Consider it a gift.
There is side effect of this setup - that her idea about whether she is happy mattered much less then your theories about what she should be happy about. And your theories just happen to coincide with that makes you feel good about yourself (which is normal and human). You cant do things for someone benefit if you refuse to consider that someones opinion over she likes and wants.
> Charitable organizations need volunteers, houses need people to make them feel like a home.
Volunteer then. I am fine with it. I am even fine with paying higher taxes and social structures that help poor. But, the houses don't need people to feel like home. The houses need nothing except occasional reparation.
Or at least, your feeling of "like home" is not worth of what it cost in her feelings.
> These women convinced other women ...
The discontent and unhappiness was very real. Even now, being long term stay at home moms is considered risk factor for depression and alcoholism in women. There is reason why many women that came back to work talk about being happier after they came to work. There are some that simply love that period of their lives, but they are not nearly majority.
Very few people are built for reality of it - reality of things is always very different that naive romantic fantasy.
[1] https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/
While it may nice to imagine an idyllic world devoid of gender roles, that simply is not reality across the board. Each couple has their own idiosyncrasies and forcing a social pattern or demeaning traditional ones always ends in failure.
There is a continuum of personalities, yet recent movements seem to assume a strict dichotomy exists and seek to tear down a division that is unique to each individual.
This is not to say that you should assume a traditional role, only that before offering a one-size-fits-all solution it is worth keeping in mind that what works for you will not necessarily do so for others. Certain acts such as abuse, murder and theft are universally accepted as wrong; it's when opinion becomes demand that respect fades and hostility builds. It happens in both male and female-led societies.
A simpler solution may be to encourage individual discovery with awareness of history - what is occurring now is nothing new :)
> for men, marriage lightens the burden
No, it absolutely does not. You are now the sole breadwinner for an entire family.
See A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jul/02/a-lette...
> leaving more time and energy for career.
Huh? How backward is that? First, the vast majority of people has jobs, not careers. Second, you have a job in order to live, you don't live in order to have a job. A job is generally something you don't really want to do, otherwise people wouldn't give you money to do it.
> Why would I want to support a man both economically and practically?
This is the truth: you don't. And the vast majority of women don't. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to. Really, really, really don't want to. Which is why the rationalizations come so thick and heavy. Anyway, the reason I am pretty confident that it is not because they can't is that every study shows that the higher the income, the less women want to support a man, despite the fact that with higher income it obviously becomes factually easier.
And in fact, when it comes to to senior dating, it becomes even more extreme. Wealthy widows with no financial concerns and no housework to speak of absolutely and adamantly refuse to consider men who have less than they. And of course, they have a million rationalizations as to why that's just not possible.
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Broke-Olde...
> continue to erase traditional gender roles.
You go right ahead! Start erasing!
> If most of the men out there were ready...
Ahh, but of course it is the men that have to change. And change first. Should have guessed. And of course you can't actually tell if a particular man is willing to take on more house-work and child-rearing before your "consider" him, so you have set up a nice impossible barrier. "There's just nothing I can do".
A lot of people here seem to assume that living together and being married it's the same thing.
You can have one without the other. Please don't make this assumption.
The modern world of work (i.e. modern career focused women) clashes with the status quo/tradition of marriage (i.e. housework).
I don't think you can just erase gender roles. I think in any relationship there is a "masculine" role and a "feminine" role, and currently men tend to fill the former, and women that later.
I got nothing. :-)
Men, as they currently exist, are becoming obsolete. There will need to be a great adaptation and reassignment of roles as women will soon surpass men in their 'default' social, financial and political status. Frankly, it isn't going to go down very well. Lets hope that traditional masculinity doesn't start a war on its way down.
@Gatsky that's a strong statement. Would you mind expanding on your definition of "Men, as they currently exist"?
What do you mean "could be"? It is, full throttle misandry.
A good introduction on the 'universal' traits of manhood can be found here: https://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/03/31/the-3-ps-of-manhoo...
On the demand side, we are also seeing more and more educated, career focused women.
I feel like there are many who have a desire to have children and therefore would like to marry someone who can support them. Typically this means marrying a man who earns more than you. The thing is if you're a women, the more you earn, the smaller the marriageable pool becomes.
As another commented has suggested this might not be an issue when gender roles get removed, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this will just leave both parties unsatisfied with the result.
I would argue that innate biological differences contribute to the different gender based desires, and hence affect the different gender roles.
If there's a group of people that are doing poorly, and external reasons are at fault, we can say that the external reasons are to blame.
Yet if a reasonable percentage of that group are doing relatively well, and there is a clear path to improvement for that individual, then that individual also has responsibility to improve their situation.
If only all individuals could agree on what would be defined as an acceptable improvement one should should pursue…
It's not too hard to see that some people might make choices where they would define it as an improvement for their life, but come at the expense of/be in conflict with what a larger group would define as an improvement.
If people want to get married, then do it. It's not for everyone.
The topic is delicate, but the comments here have, unusually, not satisfied my interest in the slightest. There is an interesting debate on something here, but the parameters of the question are poorly articulated.
How is a community supposed to gauge the importance of even the opening questions raised by this article? Do we care more about securing the next generation? Creating a world where women get first pick of the role they will fill? Judging the value of marriage as an institution? Whining about how men/women have it tough?
The structure of families have fundamental and far reaching demographic consequences. It is important at a clash-of-civilisations level and can make or break cultures. It'd be pleasing to have a language to talk about that without resorting immediately to anecdotes and solutions.
That sounds a bit to me like a push poll. I wonder if you phrased the question in a gender-neutral way how the responses would change.
Really, you would have to ask just one question to each individual, because I suspect if you asked all three questions you would get different responses than if you only asked one. I'm not denying the effect, just that I think the question is leading.
That's why we always hear "where did all the good men go?" from women, even though they are surrounded by guys who throw themselves at the women.
So since more women and fewer men started going to college, the dating pool for women shrunk a lot.
Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is famous for talking about these issues on YouTube, highly recommended.
I call shenanigans. A guy will no prospects and a guitar will never be wanting for interest. It’s a cliche for a reason. Now this guy may not be husband material, but the criteria was “date”...
In this arena the status markers may be different from individual evaluation (with some general markers shared).
It's pretty common to notice that women who like guys with long hair in a band and women who like 'successful' (whatever that means) men are not usually the same, just different selection criteria at work.
Most of my friends and relatives (NL) don't even get married, but rather have a partnership agreement that is pretty much the same status as married but less hard to unbind or set up.
For people they date or for people they decide to settle down with with?
This is strengthened by culture: look how the marriage is presented in the movies, for example. The woman is anxious if he's going to propose, then he has to buy a very expensive ring just to propose, then she is extremely happy as if she won a lottery (not because he loves her, but because he decided to marry).
Deleted comment
there are a lot of potential negatives [...]
Why in the world is tying all of your assets
[...] a thing?
Once you think of "get married and have a baby" as a single atomic decision, all the "downsides" of marriage are overshadowed by the _inherent_ downsides to having children.
Marriages are difficult to get out of? Well, children are almost impossible to dispose of. Marriages can be personally costly? Children will take up a lot of time and money, no matter how rich you are. Marriages can involve one partner shouldering more than half the burden? Well, a man can't breastfeed a newborn at 4am no matter how much he wants to. And so on.
pitching the idea of marriage minus mixing
finances, [...] resulted in hours of crying.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria...
High income couples are actually penalized, and even worse off once they have a child!
It's slightly easier to get a large loan or mortgage as a married couple, but it's not exactly impossible if you just live together as partners.
The way I see it, it's an absolutely enormous expense with almost zero financial/economical benefit for us. I love my partner and want to get married because I think that's the right thing to do, but if I looked at it outside of the "romantic/traditional" angle, there is absolutely no reason to get married.
You also benefit from spousal privilege, meaning you can't be compelled to testify against the other. Although, depending on your criminal inclinations, that may not be a strong reason to get married!
Looking at my friends there's a pattern, a man who loses his job long term becomes divorced quite quickly. So there's no added safety for the man and no economic incentive (or even a disincentive, not sure how bad it really looks for men losing everything in court).
You all make it sound as if stay at home women was the norm, but it is not the case.
Now, you could argue that I could have gotten the same deal without marriage, just living with her for. But first, I could not have gotten that deal - not with her. It was marriage or nothing. And second, I didn't want just living together either. I wanted the real thing, with the commitment. I wanted to commit to her, not just to an institution or a tradition.