Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfim | Hacker News Reader

These stats are pretty demoralizing with regards to how marriage is just seen as a get rich quick scheme.

> Fully two-thirds of women and half of men said they were "very" or "extremely" willing to marry for money. The answers varied by age: Women in their 30s were the most likely to say they would marry for money (74%) while men in their 20s were the least likely (41%).

> Of course, when the mercenary marriage proves disappointing, there's always divorce. Among the women in their twenties who said they would marry for money, 71% said they expected to get divorced -- the highest of any demographic. Only 27% of men in their 40s expected to divorce.

Quite sobering.

View on HN

To play devil’s advocate:

The study found that people who are willing to marry for money at any price would on average require $1.5 million (in 2007 dollars). Most people answering the survey don’t have option to marry for that kind of money (it’s roughly the 95th percentile for family wealth) and the vast majority of actual marriages don’t involve a wealth transfer of that size. So the survey is really telling us that most people don’t marry for money, but maybe they would if you dangled the opportunity of a lifetime in front of them. It’s telling people to imagine themselves inside the plot of a Lifetime movie and asking them how they would behave.

$1.5 million in 2007 dollars is about $2 million in 2022 dollars. In the Bay area, with a FAANG income, that's somewhat within reach.

It's a pretty good point though that it's just a hypothetical survey, and that most people imagining that opportunity don't actually have it, so it's more of a fantasy kind of thing.

It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Take a look at their specific California examples:

http://www.realworlddivorce.com/California

Surgeon making $275k ends up on the hook for $87,600 annually, which totals $1.5 million over 18 years.

Granted, surgeons and FANG engineers can build up millions in wealth, but they are nowhere near the median person in the US. Romantic partnerships tend to be class-segregated, so most people don’t have the option of marrying up like that.

I speculate that if you stratify they survey responses by income, you’d find that people of X income are going to require 10X+ for a money marriage.

Marriage being an expression and means of "love" is a fairly modern phenomenon. Looking back throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were (and arguably still are) to obtain, transfer, or maintain wealth and power.

Arranged marriages are the most obvious example. Two families get together and decide <X> and <Y> will marry to advance familial interests; wishes and desires of <X> and <Y> be damned.

Divorces becoming normalized and destigmatized (to some degree) is also a modern phenomenon. Lest we forget, the Church of England came into existence for the sole reason that the English king at the time wanted to divorce his queen.

There's no reason to feel sad that marriage isn't about "love", because that notion is at best a recent turn of events, and at worst an elaborate lie woven by storytellers of various forms through the ages. Fact of the matter is that marriage for the vast portion of human history has never been about "love". Marriage has always been about money and power, and ultimately leaving offspring in a manner whose lineage can be easily traced back.

Can we kill this "church of england exists because divorce" meme? It's getting grey and long in the tooth. The CoE started in the 600's with Augustine of Canterbury, even though the Celts had an earlier form of Christianity in the 3rd century.

The law around regarding consent in marriage started in the 11th century. Unless we want to remove consent and arrange marriages, the "love" influence of Christianity on marriage isn't going anywhere.

If the Church of England started in the 600s, it was nevertheless fully in union with Rome for the next 900 years. The Church of England/Roman Catholic Church was onboard with notions of exclusivity and permanence of marriage for all those intervening years.

The reason that CoE's genesis is largely traced to the mid-16th century is because Henry VIII had trouble producing an heir with an eligible wife, and he was more than willing to break with the Holy See on such a momentous issue. He declared himself Head of the Church. He declared himself arbiter of the marriage laws.

Henry arrogated so much authority that Rome was unable to continue in union with that Church of England, no matter how old and venerable its roots may have been.

I understand the history and your argument. Saying the "only reason it exists is because of Henry VIII" ignores where it began. Henry did not alter very much except kicking off the papacy and allowing annulment. The real changes came later by Cramner and Cromwell's suggestion.

It's worth nothing the English Reformation happened in the same decade as Martin Luther's sola fide, the 1520s. Divine providence?

The pope didn't own it in 600AD, the pope didn't own it in 2000AD. The 1520s is not the cause of the CoE's existence, the start in 600AD is the start of the CoE (and before that, Christ).

The Roman Catholic, papal perspective is different.

Among the aristocracy, sure. Maybe the near-aristocracy. What about the other 99% of historical humans? Do you have any sources that the average peasant was marrying primarily for advantage? What advantage is there even to gain in a marriage between two peasants?

For the 99%, marriage was an arrangement - the man earns, the woman supports the household and both make babies to keep the family moving on. A lot of the arrangements were done by parents, even in poor families. This was all blessed by the church/temple.

Even that is a relatively modern arrangement. More typical was man does the day-to-day farming, woman raises children and produces textiles for the family's use, all hands on deck for key farming events like harvests. Most peasants earned very little hard currency; generally only a bit from surplus food or textiles when their children were the old enough to produce more than they consumed.

I'd imagine the effect is even more pronounced, where a poor farmer gladly weds his daughter for a goat.

I believe that you misunderstand arranged marriage and marriage in general.

The Christian understanding of marriage has always, always been one of mutual consent. The Catholic Church, for one, does not consider marriages valid unless both husband and wife have exchanged their free consent to the marriage as it is understood. That is, they know the implications of the vows, they know marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman, and they are both willing to lovingly accept children into their family by whatever means.

Therefore, Christian families arranging marriage rely on the consent of bride and groom. It may be somewhat grudging and it may not come from a place of romantic love, but free and willing consent must be granted, or that marriage is 100% invalid.

A marriage being arranged doesn't mean it isn't on consent

Where is the surprise? Marriage was created first and foremost as an institution to provide economic security. The idea of “marrying for love” has been a fairly recent one, AFAIK. And those who have married for love, or for physical attraction, often find out pretty soon that those other “unromantic” aspects might actually be much more important for the long term survival of the marriage.

Not supported by literature of any age. Marriage for love has been important for centuries. Millennia.

So has been pragmatism and the desire to improve one's standard of living.

I'm not denying that people in history have desired marriage to someone out of love or attraction. But I am saying that the economical aspect has always played a big role, if not the decisive one.

Being married myself, I know that what makes marriage work is not what you felt when you started. More important than marrying the person you love, I would say, is loving the person you married.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com