1. Men used to bear all financial responsibility. Now wives are expected to work and to take care of themselves and contribute.

2. Marriages happen later on average giving both parties an opportunity to play the field first and not feel tied down. Loyalty is not the norm as people can change their minds even after marriage. This means more mate variety. 'Open marriage' seems to describe the new social construct?

3. Child and home responsibility are no longer for the woman alone. Guys are now expected to clean the home, cook and take care or children as equally as the woman does.

I think the contract has changed to give ladies a better deal though at the risk of some promiscuity.

Has the marriage contract changed for the better? Is marriage still relevant? Should marriage be replaced with open partnerships instead?

Pls comment.

You feel marriage contract have changed because the wives are no longer confided in the kitchen.

It has changed from 1000 yrs ago because women work and contribute which is a good thing and also because of all other things mentioned - it has shifted from a partriarchial institution to an equalist institution and in some countries like Sweden a martriarchial instutution where women call the shots in the marriage.

The original question is the traditional marriage of 1000 yrs ago still necessary or even important today if the lady can bail any time (over 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman).