[Ramrod]

From todays Times:

Only losers get married

I REALLY LOVE my girlfriend; I think she loves me. We are both of a good age to get spliced. Consequently I am thinking of popping the question. Last week I nearly did it †â€ÂÂÂ� but a small voice inside made me hesitate. That voice was asking: Why on earth should I marry? Whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s in it for me, for men, for any modern British male? Is there any point in a man taking such a hideous risk? I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t like thinking this way: it feels grubby and unchivalrous. But facts keep rudely intruding, such as the Ray Parlour case. These things can leave a man feeling a little confused †â€ÂÂÂ� and in need of a short, simple, pros and cons list.

Letââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s do the pros first. Traditionally, one of the major selling points of marriage †â€ÂÂÂ� especially for highly sexed young men †â€ÂÂÂ� has been sex itself. When sex is unavailable outside wedlock, licensed lovemaking sounds great. But since the Sixties, casual, no-strings-attached sex has been widely available outside marriage in Britain. So sex is no longer a significant plus point.

What about the legitimisation of children? Again, this factor must once have been crucial in making marriage attractive. Not any more. Does anyone these days really care if kids are illegitimate? There may still be vague question marks over inheritance law for ba*tards, but it feels like a marginal issue, at most.

Finally, (itââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s quite a short pros list) there is status. As with legitimacy and sex, this is a plus whose potency has dwindled. Marriage used to be the Western version of †œkilling your lionââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�. It was how men became that proper and exalted thing: king of the castle, a paterfamilias, the official head of the household.

Nowadays, it ainââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t necessarily so. In any modern family, the woman is quite likely to be the major breadwinner; the wife may also be the †œhead of the householdââ‚ ¬ÂÂÂÂ�, inasmuch as that concept exists any more. Am I saying that these social changes are intrinsically bad? Not at all †â€ÂÂÂ� how many intelligent men really liked having a doormat for a wife? But there is no denying that, status-wise, things have changed, and not to the advantage of men.

Now for the cons. These begin at birth: with the laws on reproduction. Marriage brings a man no more rights over the reproductive process than he had before. Zero. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort the child as she wishes. The father-to-be doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have a right to be consulted, or even informed. At least two dozen UK court cases have confirmed this. Hereââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s one: in 2001 Stephen Hone, a 24-year-old salesman, went to the High Court to stop his former girlfriend from aborting the foetus. Hone offered to give up his job and look after the child, if his ex would go full-term. Of course, the court found in the womanââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s favour; as it would have done even if they had been married. She aborted.

Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m not saying this is morally wrong. Only a caveman would want to return to a situation where women can be forced to give birth. But there is still something in the contemptuous way that the law treats men that irks. Consider the contemporary comments on the Hone case by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service: †œWhere she has the abortion, when she has it, and what happens to the foetus as a result, are for her and her doctors and no one else.ââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�

But what if a woman lies that she is on the Pill and gets pregnant? Presumably the man isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t expected to support that child, is he? Strangely enough, he is. The law does not recognise that mothers manquÃÃâ€*’©es can act †œfraudulentlyÃà ‚¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ ÂÂÂ� in conceiving this way; instead, it taxes the man.

Even when it comes to children wanted by both partners, the law sides heavily with the wife, the ex-wife, the mother. Women win more than 90 per cent of custody cases. Men, for sure, are usually awarded access, but that means little †â€ÂÂÂ� 50 per cent of the 50,000 contact orders made each year are broken †â€ÂÂÂ� nearly always at the expense of the father. We know this because of the Fathers 4 Justice Campaign, those saps on bridges in Superman suits. And what have they achieved so far? To elicit this terse statement from the Home Office: †œThe Government does not believe that a legal principle to contact would be helpful.ââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

Itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s not looking good, is it? Then we have to think about divorce law as it relates to earnings. Here I have an anecdote that I think is telling.

When I was working on a travel article in Spain I met a yoga teacher called Peter who used to be a high-flying lawyer. As Peter sat in the lotus position he told his story: he had once been very much in love with his wife, to whom he was faithful. Then his wife, who had never had a job, started an affair with her personal fitness trainer; she consequently demanded a divorce. Despite the womanââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s adultery, the courts awarded his wife the children, the house and the majority of their money. One day, after the divorce, Peter, now exiled to a bedsit, rang up his own house: the fitness trainer answered, on the phone Peter still paid for, in the living room Peter had furnished; with Peterââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s kids laughing in the background. Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s when Peter gave up his job, moved to Spain and started teaching Ashtanga. There were tears in his eyes as he told the story, ten years later.

You see my problem. How can I pay lip service to a laughable institution such as modern marriage, an institution so obviously devalued, trashed and unbalanced, from the male point of view? I feel as if society is asking me to tattoo LOSER across my forehead. Why donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t I just cohabit, and avoid all these risks and pitfalls? And yet, the paradox remains: on an emotional level I really do still want to take my vows, to make this solemn declaration, to announce in the presence of my friends, my family, my God, that this is the woman I love above all others.

Itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s a horrible dilemma. Which is why Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m loading the burden on to you. Put it another way: Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢d like to end this piece with a plea. Can any reader give me one, cold, clear, non-religious reason why I, as a modern British male, should tie the knot? If you can furnish me with just one sound argument in favour of wedlock, I am sure that my heart will do the rest.