This is a stupid measure. I say that because every person I’ve dated, which isn’t a short list, puts their best foot forward when they start seeing someone. For some, that’s just who they are, they stay consistent, but IMO, this is rare.

For most, the “mask falls off” at some point and you get to see the seedy underbelly of who they are. All the “warts” in their lifestyle, personality, decision-making etc. Usually after you’re committed to a relationship with them and they get more conformable.

This, in and of itself, denotes a certain uncertainty in dating. The person you meet is not the person you will end up with after a few years. I recognized this in myself and decided for myself not to do it. There’s still parts of my personality I kind of restrain in spite of this policy because some of my darker humor can be rather off putting on the first take, and usually makes a bad impression if said so early into knowing someone that they don’t take it as a joke, which it was intended to be. It doesn’t help that I usually joke about things very deadpan, so new people tend to doubt when I say “it’s a joke” and jump to the conclusion that I’m just saying that because I’m trying to save face. Which I’m not, but that’s another matter.

My point is, even for me, you don’t meet the person, you meet their idealized view of what they want you to know of them. So someone who seems 10%/25%/125% better than your current partner, isn’t really a valid comparison. You’re comparing someone who you know their “ugly” side, to someone who you have only met their representative personality. Their % “better” may be artificially inflated because you don’t have the whole picture.

The other issue I have here is that while he’s correct that “not everyone sees marriage like that” or whatever, they should. Marriage is a vow. A vow is simply a commitment to uphold into the future, regardless of circumstances. During a wedding ceremony, you vow, before your friends, family, the officiant (a legal representative) and God (if you believe in such a thing), that you will love, cherish, have, hold, another person, in sickness, health, good times and bad, until you die. You’re making a very serious promise to do those things forever until your death, in front of everyone you hold dear.

Divorce breaks that promise, and a legally binding contract.

Personally, I couldn’t give any shits if others break their word with their marriage vows/contract, but the purpose of the vows is clear. This is a promise that should not be broken, and can only be terminated by death. Vows are supposed to be the highest form of a promise, one which cannot be broken. But people do it.

That’s the theory at least…

People’s misunderstanding of what that means, IMO, is mainly a lack of being educated on what the words are spelling out. People don’t take vows anymore except in marriage. It’s fallen out of fashion to commit yourself to something with a vow. Because of the relative scarcity of such vows, they’re only used in marriage now and the misunderstandings of what a vow should represent is staggering. The only other person’s who take vows in the current era are doctors. They take the Hippocratic oath, which is, in essence, a vow to “do no harm”, yet, it can easily be argued that harm is actively inflicted during every medical procedure. Whether placing an IV, taking blood, or doing surgery, you’re actively harming your patients; but it’s generally understood that such things are a requirement to help people. It’s still committing harm for the benefit of the patient, but it is harm nonetheless.

I’ll step away from that aside since it’s not relevant to the core point, that all of these comments made in the image posted by OP are a demonstration of this fundamentally short sighted thinking and poor understanding of the commitments you make.