>Tell me why would anyone enter into a legal union where one side has the ability to divorce the other over dumb issues like "emotional" disatisfaction and force the state to rob you have half your wealth while limiting you access to your on offspring.
Your argument presupposes the inevitability of divorce. It's like asking, "Why should I buy an electric pencil sharpener when it's just going to mangle my dick?" The solution is not to avoid electric pencil sharpeners, it's to take the necessary measures to ensure your dick doesn't end up in it.
The problem with this, and with marriage, is that it requires a certain level of planning, attention to detail, and work that many modern "men" simply don't have the will to implement.
>No amount of being a strong man is going to protect you from being divorced. I've seen too many such man destroyed because their wife decided they weren't happy and destroyed the marriage.
What you saw, assuming you're being truthful, is the ultimate demise of men who were unable, for one reason or another, to control their marriage. The exact processes are irrelevant but the failure is especially egregious because a man's sex appeal is on an upwards trajectory for most of their lives while a woman's is on a downwards trajectory. A successful man in this regard, should he be lacking in moral fiber, would be the initiator of the divorce, looking for greener pastures. When the opposite is true it simply means the man has failed: failed to control his marriage, failed to ride the trajectory of his sex appeal, etc.
>OP's getting everything one would get in a marriage right now, sex, emotional support, and fidelity. Why would he need to engage in a dangerous legal union when he's getting everything he probably wanted?
The sum total of marriage is not "sex, emotional support, and fidelity", though I wouldn't expect you to know that. But as long as you and "men" like you do you'll continue to be stuck in your no-win situation.