dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse

This website has run out of funding so feel free to contribute if you can afford it (see footer)

  • Is Marriage Obsolete ?? 5 0 10 2
Currently:  

Author Topic: Is Marriage Obsolete ??  (Read 31246 times)

Offline Cee

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Apr 2015
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • Posts: 10
  • Reputation Power: 5
  • Cee is new on the scene.
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:January 20, 2022, 12:22:36 PM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #44 from previous page: December 10, 2015, 10:44:30 AM »
I think marriage is the best way to ruin is a good relationship
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Elevated

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Location: WA State
  • Posts: 72
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • Elevated is new on the scene.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:January 26, 2016, 11:16:17 PM
  • Our Community Board
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2015, 02:16:43 AM »
Hell yeah, "marriage" is fucked.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline TearsofThePoppy

  • Regular
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2016
  • Location:
  • Posts: 27
  • Reputation Power: 3
  • TearsofThePoppy is new on the scene.
  • Last Login:December 13, 2016, 08:05:19 AM
  • Our Harm Reduction & Safe Using forum
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2016, 03:24:05 PM »
I definitely see your point Morfy, and I am wary of marriage as well because I have always made more money than my boyfriends. And the thing is, when the woman earns more than the man, she usually gets taken to the cleaners in a divorce as well.

But you have to keep in mind traditional gender roles and WHY they are the way they are. It's only VERY recent in human history than a woman has been able to earn money for herself by getting a job. In the past, women lived off of their husbands. But it's not like they didn't work, they just did (officially) unpaid women's work: cleaning, cooking, bearing and raising children, and all affairs pertaining to managing the house and kids. That is actually a lot of work, especially in the past, before modern appliances were invented. Even with modern technology, cooking, cleaning, bearing children, and raising them to adulthood still takes a load of effort. Because the woman takes care of the house and the family, the man is able to focus on his career and bringing home the bacon. It's also worth noting that in the past, most jobs required a lot of physical labor that women were not capable of doing. Now you can oppose or point out the flaws with this model all you want, but in the past it was the most efficient way to have a family, provide a stable/comfortable home, and raise the next generation of human beings.

To an extent, this is the model that still prevails today. Now, try to look at things from the point of view of the woman. Thousands of years of evolutionary biology have determined what gets who how much interest in the dating market. Traditionally, a man is valued as a romantic partner for his ability to provide, which increases over time, peaking LATE in life. Traditionally, a woman is valued as a romantic partner for her youth and fertility, which are RAPIDLY depreciating qualities with a tiny window of opportunity for her to get the best mate possible, peaking EARLY in life. An older man is much more likely to snag a younger woman than vice versa for this reason. Men want younger women, period. When a woman is old and has had a bunch of kids, she is basically used up-she will not have much interest from any men, even those her age. But an older man, especially one with a good career, will still be able to find someone new. To make things even worse for the woman, usually it is the woman who gives up her career/education (nowadays) for the sake of the family. So all those years she spends cooking, cleaning, bearing children, and raising them, she is not going to school or getting work experience-so when her husband leaves her, it's not like she can just go out and get a good job suddenly. To make things even worse for the woman, she will likely end up with the children after a divorce, whom she also has to support. So if her husband divorces her and doesn't give her any alimony or child support, her and kids will basically be left with nothing. So when a woman marries a man, she is making an investment in the future: she is saying, you get my youth and fertility today, and will sacrifice my youth and beauty to bear and raise your children, and in return you won't abandon me when I am past my prime. The presumption of monogamy is also a contract between the man and the woman with evolutionary significance: the man wants reassurance that all his wife's children as his, so he won't waste resources raising some other man's kid and perpetuating someone else's genes, and the woman wants reassurance the man won't sire children with other women, which could redirect resources away from her and her own children.

If men didn't lose half of their money in a divorce and there was no penalty for leaving your wife, this is what would happen: Young men would marry young women, the women would stop working to take care of the house/bear the children for the man, and then eventually when the man gets older and his career is further along and he's rich, he will simply trade in his current wife for a younger model, rinse and repeat. This is not only unfair to the woman, it would lead to the collapse of the nuclear family itself. So the IDEA behind alimony, when you marry someone, you are a 50/50 team: the higher earning partner is providing financially, but the lower earning partner is providing in other ways, by offering emotional support and taking care of the house/kids. Even when the woman is the higher earning partner, she loses money in a divorce as well. Custody agreements tend to learn towards giving the woman the kids, and whether this is good or not depends on how the father feels about the children. It sucks for fathers who love their kids and want custody. Women are still seen as the primary caretakers of children, and fathers are responsible for helping to support their kids, so that is why child support exists.

Now, I know individual cases differ, and it's definitely true that many, many men get shafted and lose half of their shit to some horrible bitch. But many, many women also give up their education and career, clean and cook and bear kids for a man, only to have him leave her for a younger woman once she is no longer young and skinny and pretty, or when the relationship inevitably enters a rough period. So yeah, people get shafted by marriage. That's why it up to the individual to marry the right person at the right time for the right reasons.

Now, you can say: well both partners should work and keep up their careers! Everyone is responsible for supporting themselves! That's great in theory but doesn't hold up realistically, especially once children come into the picture. Little kids can't be left alone at home, period. And childcare is extremely expensive. It only makes sense for both partners to keep working after kids if the lower earning partner earns more than childcare will cost. Economically, it is usually smarter for the lower earning partner to just quit their job and raise the kids, at least for a few years. And we all know that women do not have the same earning power as men in the workplace, even TODAY. So usually, the woman quits her job and stays at home and does the housewife thing, at least for a while. That means she will take a further pay cut when she returns to work, but it's what's best for the family. In most cases, once a man gets married he has certain expectations from his wife as well, to maintain the house to a higher standard than a bachelor pad. Hell, I'm probably never getting married and I earn way more than my boyfriend and pay for most of our adventures and I STILL clean my house AND my boyfriend's house! AND I do his laundry! He cooks for me, though. Expectations, thousands of years of evolutionary biology, and deeply ingrained gender roles make one hell of an uphill battle to overcome, even though we are making progress.

The best reason to ever get married is if you plan to have kids with someone (have a traditional family). If you want kids and a comfortable home as a man, you can either: 1) pay a cleaning service your whole life, 2) pay an egg donor/surrogate mom, and then 3) pay a babysitter for 18 years, or you can just get married, which is usually a LOT cheaper. So if you look at it that way, marriage is a great deal for the higher earning partner-as long as you choose the right person. Marriage provides protection for the lower earning partner and the children, so that the higher earning partner can't just skip off into the sunset or run off with a younger model once their partner ages or the inevitable problems arise. Marriage is not just between two people, it is an institution of society that facilitates social structures such as the nuclear family, which provides structure and stability for the next generation.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2016, 03:55:25 PM by TearsofThePoppy »
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Griffin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 914
  • Reputation Power: 34
  • Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 29, 2020, 09:21:12 PM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2016, 02:06:46 PM »
I got a question for you people that I thought about after reading this thread. Most of my friends and my parents friends reason for divorce were either the guy was cheating and they split or the woman was no longer happy and they split. Is this true for your friends and family?

I know the traditional or maybe the more stereotypical reason people get a divorce is from infidelity or the man wanting to upgrade to a younger, hotter, woman like tearsofthepoppy said. However from the majority of people I know that are divorced it was usually because the wife was no longer happy and left. I know probably 10 people that was their main reason for divorcing. I know of 4 that were for infidelity, one on the man 2 on the woman and 1 was they were both cheating each other after they started "swinging".

The majority of the couples that divorced because the wife was no longer happy usually happened when they were between 35-45 years old. A lot of them stuck around for their kids to grow up or get out of high school before they left, I know that was the case for my parents, grandparents and good friends parents. I think the reason it happened like this was a little bit of a mid-life crisis or empty nest syndrome exacerbated the problems and the main reason for staying together was no longer as important.

What do you guys think or what are the main reasons you see for divorce from the people you know? I think it is really hard to like someone after you lived with them for a long time. I suppose it works both ways the time can strengthen your relationship or it can make you become annoyed at shit like how she talks or chews or stupid shit like that. People change and what your interests were 20 years ago are no longer your interests now. It is kind of a far fetched idea to think that you will continue to be compatible with the same person for your whole life.

Our move away from traditional christian morals probably had the most to do with increased divorce rates over the years. Honestly it sets people up for failure, how are you supposed to know if you are compatible to live with someone for the rest of your life if you haven't fucked, slept, or lived together before? You may be perfect dating, but that perfect compatibility can easily explode within a day of living with someone. I have friends and family who I'd do anything for except live with them again.

The divorce rate is probably higher than it was 50 years ago. Women didn't have the same rights or freedoms as they do now. Divorce was heavily looked mostly because christian beliefs. People were scared or ashamed to leave their spouse, and domestic violence seemed to be more prevalent. I have no idea because I didn't live back then but it seems likely. Women couldn't work or be independent then, they were raised to marry early, have kids, and be a housewife.

There is no longer a huge stigma to get divorced made people a little more honest about their happiness. Once people were no longer being pressured to stay married to an asshole from fear that they would goto hell made people realize it is much more realistic to get a divorce. Based on my beliefs if there is a god he would rather you divorce and do what makes you happy instead of being with someone you hate and being miserable your whole life.

I'm not sure if no longer having that stigma around divorce made people more willing to cheat. It's probably that people are more willing to stand up for themselves and do what makes them happy instead of staying with a cheating spouse and keeping that secret in the closet. I think people get married to soon and still think that you should marry and have kids when you are young, but that is changing. People are getting married later in life, and setting up their life before taking on the burden of children.

I think because of the difference in views from the 50s that unplanned pregnancies happen more often but, people also have less children now but I don't actually know the stats on that. It makes more since now to become financially stable and building a good foundation before jumping into marriage or having children. Back then a family could be raised on one persons salary and that is definitely not the case today, housing is probably harder to get as well.

My thoughts on marriage have changed quite a lot since getting on methadone before I always thought that not getting married was the better option. You can live together, have a family, ceremony, and do everything that married people without a piece of paper, I definitely don't give a shit about the U.S.'s stamp of approval to me getting married. I now see that their are benefits to the state's approval of your marriage. like for taxes, as well as protection from losing your kids or everything you own if you split.

I would like to live with someone 5-10 years before actually getting married because I don't want a quick divorce. I'd also want a mutually beneficial prenup and I get the argument against getting one, like thinking it is destined to fail but I still want one and don't know if I would get married without one. It sucks that is a deal breaker for some people, even if it is slighted in their favor.

I have seen to many people who were married for 20 years completely destroy the other one and don't think that it is realistic to think it will last a lifetime would be nice but I am kinda pessimistic. I guess it does say something about your trust and vulnerability to go through with marriage without one, If you would be willing to throw away everything for future you for your spouse now then you gotta a lot of faith, and trust in the relationship or you are just impulsive and don't give a shit about future you.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Z

  • Guest
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2016, 02:38:28 PM »
My wife and I chose not to marry.  For us, our love and relationship are more complicated then that, and we judge it by our own standards.  We didn't want to feel responsible or beholden to someone else's definition of a marriage and a relationship.


After 15 years it still holds true.  We have thought about doing a marriage, but always rethink it.  The current thought is to throw a party to celebrate our love and friendship.  To celebrate our kids who came from that, and all of our friends and family who contribute to it.


Neither of us has cheated on the other, although we wouldn't think of it that way anyways.  We have always had an understanding that sleeping with other people would be okay.  There are conditions like the other person meeting them first, and talking about it to make sure it is okay.  Strangely it has only happened during times when we were separated.  My "wife" fulfills me, and I don't feel any need to look elsewhere.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline TearsofThePoppy

  • Regular
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2016
  • Location:
  • Posts: 27
  • Reputation Power: 3
  • TearsofThePoppy is new on the scene.
  • Last Login:December 13, 2016, 08:05:19 AM
  • Our Harm Reduction & Safe Using forum
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2016, 10:14:39 PM »
Agreeing on the idea of a prenup (even if you both not to get one) is a must. It's not just "in case you divorce," it's testing the couple's ability to be able to reach an agreement when it comes to a particularly tough, sensitive form of realistic, long-term fiscal planning. If two people are about to be married and their relationship can't survive the "prenup talk," that is a pretty good sign they shouldn't be married in the first place.

I also agree that sexual monogamy is not to me, personally, the most important thing in a romantic relationship. I mean it does matter but it's not the huge thing other people make it out to be. What matters more than anything to me is someone who will stick by my side when I am down and out in the gutter and love me anyway-and that is super rare to find, and I forgive a ton of flaws in my boyfriend because he loves me pretty much unconditionally. My strongest single issue dealbreaker is the issue of kids-I am never going to be a mom, period. Because I am so adamantly childfree, I don't see marriage as a necessity but as a potential option down the road...
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:19:41 PM by TearsofThePoppy »
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Griffin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 914
  • Reputation Power: 34
  • Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 29, 2020, 09:21:12 PM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2016, 01:43:39 PM »
That is awesome Z, I have always wondered about how those relationships fared against people who go the marriage route. My friends that do it that way seem to be much happier and last longer but I would like to see some stats on it. I am weary of non-monogamous relationships, weirdly it seems that the ones that are open, honest, and allow other partners fare better than the ones who are strictly monogamous but again I'd like to see stats on that.

I have to many trust, and jealousy issues to be in one now. It is why I have stayed away from relationships in general but I don't know if I would ever be okay with them having another partner. I got to much ego, and not enough self confidence for it to work out as it should I assume. Hopefully I will eventually get over my issues of trust and have a decent relationship because living with someone for 5 years that you don't trust is not easy.

I have a few theories on why trust is so hard for me, everyone in my family pretty much divorced after 15-20 years, and I know so many people that have cheated on their spouse. Without trust though you can't have a good relationship, the last person I was with for a long time that I had lived with for longer than I dated, didn't give me any reasons not to trust her and was crazy about me but I didn't trust her at all and it made me lie more, and destroy the relationship. I am glad I did because I was miserable and don't think that would of ever changed.

When there isn't trust it is always really rocky, if you don't trust that person and allow them their independence it turns ugly quick. I always end up in codependent relationships and I assume that is why. I don't trust them making them not trust me and then 6 months down the line I can't take the dogs out for a piss or goto the gas station alone. Every time either of us do something on our own its a fight. It sucks always second guessing someone, and I have no idea why so many relationships have dredged on like that.

I think having confidence in myself is probably the biggest factor, if I like me than I can allow other people to and something legit can blossom.  Idk if I will ever be okay with an open relationship or in one, but I do see why they are a good idea. Weirdly enough the relationships that are open and do allow other people are the ones that seem to have much less sleeping with other people. I hardly see them go with another person even though their partner is okay with it. I think its probably the honesty within the relationship.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Morfy (OP)

  • Free Falling Around The World
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: In a state that rhymes with "BLEXAS"
  • Posts: 487
  • Reputation Power: 35
  • Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2017, 01:44:51 AM
  • Enjoying the stelliferous era--while it lasts
    • THE DRUGS AND USERS CHAT ROOM
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2016, 05:29:10 AM »

Hey TotP (sorry its taken time to reply, I wanted to answer fully and needed time):


In my original post, I tried to minimize gender bias, saying that the "Spouse who earns more has the most to lose in a divorce."  If you see divorce as a business, it only makes sense that the lawyers & court are going to "milk the cow that has the most to give."  I should have kept in gender-neutral from the start.  There are plenty of high-earning women who are being taken to the cleaners by creepy/greedy divorce lawyers & family court having to pay lifelong alimony to their husbands. 


My replies will be in BLUE.
--------------------------------------------------

I definitely see your point Morfy, and I am wary of marriage as well because I have always made more money than my boyfriends. And the thing is, when the woman earns more than the man, she usually gets taken to the cleaners in a divorce as well.  Totally agree.  I think the main enemy here are those who profit from divorce, namely the lawyers and the Family Court (state).

But you have to keep in mind traditional gender roles and WHY they are the way they are. It's only VERY recent in human history than a woman has been able to earn money for herself by getting a job. In the past, women lived off of their husbands. But it's not like they didn't work, they just did (officially) unpaid women's work: cleaning, cooking, bearing and raising children, and all affairs pertaining to managing the house and kids. That is actually a lot of work, especially in the past, before modern appliances were invented. Even with modern technology, cooking, cleaning, bearing children, and raising them to adulthood still takes a load of effort. Because the woman takes care of the house and the family, the man is able to focus on his career and bringing home the bacon. It's also worth noting that in the past, most jobs required a lot of physical labor that women were not capable of doing. Now you can oppose or point out the flaws with this model all you want, but in the past it was the most efficient way to have a family, provide a stable/comfortable home, and raise the next generation of human beings.  I agree, 100% with this statement as well.  Some manner of compensation is needed for this invaluable work, in case of divorce.  This is why there is government (court) involvement, to ensure that the economically-disadvantaged spouse is not left destitute.  I think for the most part, say, up until the 1980's, the courts generally did a decent job at ensuring a ~fair balancing of assets.  Slowly though, the divorce industry learned that it can take quite a bit more from the family for itself.  Any concern for the people involved has given way to 3rd party greed.


To an extent, this is the model that still prevails today. Now, try to look at things from the point of view of the woman. Thousands of years of evolutionary biology have determined what gets who how much interest in the dating market. Traditionally, a man is valued as a romantic partner for his ability to provide, which increases over time, peaking LATE in life. Traditionally, a woman is valued as a romantic partner for her youth and fertility, which are RAPIDLY depreciating qualities with a tiny window of opportunity for her to get the best mate possible, peaking EARLY in life. An older man is much more likely to snag a younger woman than vice versa for this reason. Men want younger women, period. When a woman is old and has had a bunch of kids, she is basically used up-she will not have much interest from any men, even those her age. But an older man, especially one with a good career, will still be able to find someone new. To make things even worse for the woman, usually it is the woman who gives up her career/education (nowadays) for the sake of the family. So all those years she spends cooking, cleaning, bearing children, and raising them, she is not going to school or getting work experience-so when her husband leaves her, it's not like she can just go out and get a good job suddenly. To make things even worse for the woman, she will likely end up with the children after a divorce, whom she also has to support. So if her husband divorces her and doesn't give her any alimony or child support, her and kids will basically be left with nothing. So when a woman marries a man, she is making an investment in the future: she is saying, you get my youth and fertility today, and will sacrifice my youth and beauty to bear and raise your children, and in return you won't abandon me when I am past my prime. The presumption of monogamy is also a contract between the man and the woman with evolutionary significance: the man wants reassurance that all his wife's children as his, so he won't waste resources raising some other man's kid and perpetuating someone else's genes, and the woman wants reassurance the man won't sire children with other women, which could redirect resources away from her and her own children.
Again, I think I agree with you.  I would never expect one spouse to use-up everything the other spouse has to offer, then be able to ditch them without any financial obligations.  However, when the courts decide to split Immediate Assets: 40% to the disadvantaged spouse, 25% to the advantaged spouse and 35% to the court & lawyers (or even higher), it reeks of corruption & greed.  The disadvantaged spouse probably has something to gain by filing for divorce, the advantaged spouse certainly doesn't, and the court, surely has much to gain.  One of the first thing that happens in a divorce is the lawyers see how much the family has in assets: one can rest assured that if Family A has $5000 in assets; and Family B has $50,000, they both will be down to about $0.00 in assets by the time the divorce concludes.  Now as far as Future Assets are concerned: Alimony/Child support is based on "Imputed Income" not actual income, at the time of the divorce.  If the payer loses their job, or takes a pay cut, there is no easy way to adjust payments in a timely manner--the result could be jail time.  There also no oversight how Child Support is used by the custodial spouse.  They can spend none of it taking care of the child, if they so choose.  And the courts don't care if they leave the payer with enough money each month to support themselves--always with the realistic risk of doing jail time if they cannot meet the set payments.

If men didn't lose half of their money in a divorce and there was no penalty for leaving your wife, this is what would happen: Young men would marry young women, the women would stop working to take care of the house/bear the children for the man, and then eventually when the man gets older and his career is further along and he's rich, he will simply trade in his current wife for a younger model, rinse and repeat. This is not only unfair to the woman, it would lead to the collapse of the nuclear family itself. So the IDEA behind alimony, when you marry someone, you are a 50/50 team: the higher earning partner is providing financially, but the lower earning partner is providing in other ways, by offering emotional support and taking care of the house/kids. Even when the woman is the higher earning partner, she loses money in a divorce as well. Custody agreements tend to learn towards giving the woman the kids, and whether this is good or not depends on how the father feels about the children. It sucks for fathers who love their kids and want custody. Women are still seen as the primary caretakers of children, and fathers are responsible for helping to support their kids, so that is why child support exists. Men leaving their wives certainly does happen, without a doubt; and I fully support a FAIR distribution of post-marriage income.  I think there's an equal amount of men who are looking to invest the rest of their lives in a traditional marriage, only to have most everything (children especially) ripped away from them.  Which leads us to the purpose of this thread: Given the risks that the legally-binding contract of marriage carries (for both men & women), why are people still voluntarily putting themselves into this situation?  Tradition is wonderful; living on a friend's couch for 3 months isn't.

Now, I know individual cases differ, and it's definitely true that many, many men get shafted and lose half of their shit to some horrible bitch. But many, many women also give up their education and career, clean and cook and bear kids for a man, only to have him leave her for a younger woman once she is no longer young and skinny and pretty, or when the relationship inevitably enters a rough period. So yeah, people get shafted by marriage. That's why it up to the individual to marry the right person at the right time for the right reasons.
I'm sure you know I am NOT advocating that men should be able to do whatever they want without any financial repercussions.  If the consequences of divorce were more equitable--if lawyers & the courts didn't try to legally-plunder as much as possible--I think more people would be willing to give marriage a chance--worst case scenario, I will lose a predictable amount of assets, etc.... But in reality, it could well leave me homeless, or in jail.  You also mention a Prenuptial Agreement (in another post): You know that many judges these days are dismissing prenups these days.  As it was explained to me: If a judge had a choice to honor a prenup, and limit the amount of money the court & the attorneys (and the spouse) could receive, OR declare the prenup VOID (signed under duress, etc...), and allow people to maximize their profit, the judge tends to do the latter.  Oftentimes the Family Court judge is either a former divorce attorney, or CURRENTLY a divorce attorney, but taking a part-time position as judge, you can see a reason for dismissing prenups.  It all sounds horribly corrupt, but who's going to challenge a judge?  Those who do, even in a minor instance, tend to end up in jail on contempt charges.

Now, you can say: well both partners should work and keep up their careers! Everyone is responsible for supporting themselves! That's great in theory but doesn't hold up realistically, especially once children come into the picture. Little kids can't be left alone at home, period. And childcare is extremely expensive. It only makes sense for both partners to keep working after kids if the lower earning partner earns more than childcare will cost. Economically, it is usually smarter for the lower earning partner to just quit their job and raise the kids, at least for a few years. And we all know that women do not have the same earning power as men in the workplace, even TODAY. So usually, the woman quits her job and stays at home and does the housewife thing, at least for a while. That means she will take a further pay cut when she returns to work, but it's what's best for the family. In most cases, once a man gets married he has certain expectations from his wife as well, to maintain the house to a higher standard than a bachelor pad. Hell, I'm probably never getting married and I earn way more than my boyfriend and pay for most of our adventures and I STILL clean my house AND my boyfriend's house! AND I do his laundry! He cooks for me, though. Expectations, thousands of years of evolutionary biology, and deeply ingrained gender roles make one hell of an uphill battle to overcome, even though we are making progress.  Again, I agree with supporting the spouse for all of the reasons you have stated.  The fact that the Family Court's priority is NOT the children, or the spouse, it is primarily to itself, the judge & the lawyers.  There is NO protection from this greed & corruption--except to avoid the family courts altogether.  There best way to avoid putting your life into these strangers' hand is to not get married.  There are issues of common-law marriages & children, but we can leave that discussion for another time.

The best reason to ever get married is if you plan to have kids with someone (have a traditional family). If you want kids and a comfortable home as a man, you can either: 1) pay a cleaning service your whole life, 2) pay an egg donor/surrogate mom, and then 3) pay a babysitter for 18 years, or you can just get married, which is usually a LOT cheaper. So if you look at it that way, marriage is a great deal for the higher earning partner-as long as you choose the right person. Marriage provides protection for the lower earning partner and the children, so that the higher earning partner can't just skip off into the sunset or run off with a younger model once their partner ages or the inevitable problems arise. Marriage is not just between two people, it is an institution of society that facilitates social structures such as the nuclear family, which provides structure and stability for the next generation.  So basically I agree with you.  I may not have made it clear that it is the 3rd Party nature of divorce (the court, judge, lawyers, social workers, etc...) that makes marriage a questionable venture.  Totally agree with the compensation for raising children & housework--I never said anything contrary to that--you kind of jumped to that on your own, I believe.  At one time, the court ensured ~a fair distribution of a family's assets to aid in the transition of divorce.  What the court has become is a payday for ravenous vultures looking to gorge as much as they can for themselves; leaving the bony carcass of the family behind.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 05:41:07 AM by Morfy »
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
All matter is simply cooled and condensed energy.

Offline Narkotikon

  • Honest
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2015
  • Location: USA
  • Posts: 1141
  • Reputation Power: 50
  • Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:March 28, 2016, 11:31:11 PM
  • Keeping Them Honest
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #52 on: January 22, 2016, 06:13:36 AM »
I liked both of your thoughts and posts, Morphy and TearsOfThePoppy. I also agree with most of your thoughts. I'm a little more fluid when it comes to traditional / stereotypical gender roles, but that's not really my question or point.

I'm wondering what you both think is the most beneficial financial / cost-benefit relationship for same-sex marriage partners. Do you think the same principles of straight marriage apply, or do you think the principles need to be altered? Assume both partners are more or less paid equally, and have relatively the same level of education.

I've honestly never given it much thought because same-sex marriage hasn't been a legal option until recently. Also because I've never been interested in marriage, or considered it a desirable option for me.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Transparency is necessary to ensure decent staff members get elected. Members need to know when staff are misbehaving, so members can be informed voters.

Offline Morfy (OP)

  • Free Falling Around The World
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: In a state that rhymes with "BLEXAS"
  • Posts: 487
  • Reputation Power: 35
  • Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2017, 01:44:51 AM
  • Enjoying the stelliferous era--while it lasts
    • THE DRUGS AND USERS CHAT ROOM
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2016, 06:44:01 AM »

I liked both of your thoughts and posts, Morphy and TearsOfThePoppy. I also agree with most of your thoughts. I'm a little more fluid when it comes to traditional / stereotypical gender roles, but that's not really my question or point.

I'm wondering what you both think is the most beneficial financial / cost-benefit relationship for same-sex marriage partners. Do you think the same principles of straight marriage apply, or do you think the principles need to be altered? Assume both partners are more or less paid equally, and have relatively the same level of education. As long as you remember I am an inexperienced novice when you read my responses.  In a traditional marriage, where both spouses work and earn about the same amount, and have no children, there shouldn't be much difference between settlements.  I'd imagine this would be the same in a same sex marriage.  I'd expect each spouse to get 40% of assets, and the divorce industry to get the remaining 20%. 


Now if you introduce a disparity: where one spouse earns substantially more than the other, or if there is a child or children involved, that is when things can get lopsided.  This should apply to hetero and same-sex marriages.  The higher earner should have more to lose, including any retirement investments earned while married.  Probably the biggest consideretation--the most expensive is going to be which spouse get custody of any children.  It seems that the lower-earning spouse will get custody usually, which means monthly child support payments for several years, or decades after the divorce.  Most marriages last less than 5 years, so if there are children, they are likely to be <5 years old (adoption ages vary, of course).  Typically, the payer of child support has to pay for all children through their 18th birthday; and then continued for college.  Things might change then, like instead of paying child support AND college tuition, the payer pays for college.  My gut says this should be no different no matter what gender the spouses are.  Now in some very small conservative counties, I can only imagine some sort of bias--maybe even court-ordered social workers (paid by the family) to assess the situation.  Where in a hetero marriage, the default custodial parent is usually the mother. 


I've honestly never given it much thought because same-sex marriage hasn't been a legal option until recently. Also because I've never been interested in marriage, or considered it a desirable option for me.


Part of the reason for making this thread is my trying to explain to my parents why the hell I will never get married.  They are traditional and don't seem to understand the way modern marriagesorces work.  Even though my two older brothers have BOTH been married and divorced by their wives in less than 5 years.  I tell my parents, quite truthfully, "I cannot afford to go through a divorce."


So I agree with you Nark that the reasons to be interested in marriage are waning.  Today, people can have a relationship & children without the legal ramifications of a legalized contract with the state.  One that can be easily dissolved unilaterally, and CAN be a very profitable venture for SOME of those involved.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 06:46:57 AM by Morfy »
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
All matter is simply cooled and condensed energy.

Offline Narkotikon

  • Honest
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2015
  • Location: USA
  • Posts: 1141
  • Reputation Power: 50
  • Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.Narkotikon has got loads of potential.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:March 28, 2016, 11:31:11 PM
  • Keeping Them Honest
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2016, 07:12:36 AM »


Thanks for answering my question, Morphy. Interesting thoughts.

I agree with you that the financial benefits of marriage are waning. My lack of interest has mainly been the notion that it wouldn't be possible (until recently), so why think about it. Also my general disinterest in having a romantic relationship. That's kinda necessary if you want to get married, straight or same-sex.

Now, any thoughts TOTP? Anyone else? 
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Transparency is necessary to ensure decent staff members get elected. Members need to know when staff are misbehaving, so members can be informed voters.

Offline Zoops

  • Filius non bonum de canis femina.
  • Deceased
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location: Nodsville-on-Patawomeck, Virginia, USA
  • Posts: 1684
  • Reputation Power: 58
  • Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
  • Keeping the wolves at bay with a sharp stick.
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #55 on: January 22, 2016, 01:15:37 PM »
So it's kind of like communism - looks great on paper as an idea, but it sucks in actual practice.

I'm very biased in this regard, because I have nothing to show for a marriage but $13k in back child support and a continuing $300/mo obligation that I can hardly (as in barely, with my new job) afford to pay.

My ex mentioned once to my mother, who conveyed it to me, that her new husband would like to adopt my son. At first - this was like 4 years ago, while I was still in prison - I was totally opposed to the idea, thinking it amounted to selling my child, since it would be an obvious financial windfall for me, as the child support obligation would necessarily cease.

Four years down the road and several thousand dollars more in the arrears department, I have changed my opinion on this matter. Now, I am prepared to offer my ex-wife this concession. As long as I am guaranteed some future contact with my son, I have no problem with it. I hardly see him much anyway, so it wouldn't be like he would be taken out of my life, he already is, pretty much. Of course, I'd still be responsible for the arrears of child support payments, so she would be getting payments for several years to come.

I just hate the idea of paying $300 per month and getting nowhere with the arrears, actually going further down the hole, because there's 0.5% interest on it, or $5 for every $1,000 of principle per month applied to the balance. If that entire $300 went towards the arrears, plus interest of course, I could pay it off in like 5-6 years, which would be great.

I only can hope he's still amenable to doing that, with four years of dealing with a special needs (moderately autistic) child under his belt.

My drivers license is also tied up with the child support arrears as well, so I could get that back too.

So, it's a couple reasons why it has become attractive to me as an option - "the adoption option" hah! hah!. Fucking Hah! Joke's on me.

I just don't want his surname to be changed to his (Chinese) step dad's. Not because he's Chinese, but because it isn't my name. "Kao" (pronounced "cow") just simply isn't as becoming as my noble European surname though, truth be told.

- Apologies to our dear friend TOTP, who I believe is of Chinese, or some Asian, extraction. The name just has some unfortunate connotations in English.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 01:21:55 PM by Zoops »
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"The future ain't what it used to be."
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
- Yogi Berra

"Drugs are so fucking good....that they'll ruin your life."
- Louis C.K.

Offline Morfy (OP)

  • Free Falling Around The World
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: In a state that rhymes with "BLEXAS"
  • Posts: 487
  • Reputation Power: 35
  • Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.Morfy is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2017, 01:44:51 AM
  • Enjoying the stelliferous era--while it lasts
    • THE DRUGS AND USERS CHAT ROOM
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2016, 02:50:15 PM »

God damn Zoops, I have heard some horrible stories--nightmares actually--involved with divorce/child support, late payments & arrears, etc.... but your story is one of the most heart-breaking.


It shows exactly one part of this thread's purpose.  You know in Scandinavian countries, they have divorce and everything attached to it, pretty much civilized.  Of course, they have the social infrastructure that makes child support & alimony almost unnecessary.  When it IS necessary, its generally limited to 12 months, and the payments are reasonable.


The countries of the Anglosphere just seem really backwards when it comes to these issues.  From what I've gathered, Canada's laws are even worse than most states.  Here's an interview with Dave Foley on Joe Rogan talking about the ramifications of his divorce.  Even if he's exaggerating (and I doubt he is), its still a soul-crushing experience:



All of this is due to inviting that damned 3rd Party--The State--into a relationship.  Yes, spouses & children might need attention after divorce, but how the courts determine the amount to be paid and the punishment for failing to do so are far from fair.  There is NO flexibility at all, and any changes require EXPENSIVE legal wrangling that can take years to complete.  And there really is NO accountability: if the courts do something unconstitutional, its just too bad for the victim.


Anyway, thank you for sharing this very personal story.  You have my sympathies (for what they're worth) and if I hit a decent lottery, I will offer to help as many people in your situation as I can.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
All matter is simply cooled and condensed energy.

Offline Zoops

  • Filius non bonum de canis femina.
  • Deceased
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location: Nodsville-on-Patawomeck, Virginia, USA
  • Posts: 1684
  • Reputation Power: 58
  • Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.Zoops has got loads of potential.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
  • Keeping the wolves at bay with a sharp stick.
Re: Is Marriage Obsolete ??
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2016, 04:48:47 PM »
Hey, thanks. I get the same response every time I tell anyone, man or woman, about my situation. It's has ruined me financially. Not "pretty much ruined me," but straight up ruined me. Well, that and getting locked up did it.

I don't understand her point of view. I think it has something to do with her being not-the-brightest-bulb in the box. I am expecting her to say, "oh, I didn't know you started paying again," when I call her to have this discussion. It goes into a checking account that she never touches, and has probably forgotten about. Her husband is retired US Navy, on a sweet military pension, and is working as a civilian now for a defense contractor - "double dipping" is what they call it around DC. She doesn't need the money at all, while I desperately do, but I can't point that out, because my son's "best interest" must be kept in mind. What a total crock of shit.

If she were struggling and my son needed food and clothing, I'd have a completely different point of view about the situation, I'd be willing to suffer for his welfare, but it's just fucking my life up and not enriching his at all, so that's why I'm pissed. Like I said before, she probably won't even notice she's getting $300 extra dollars a month.
friendly
0
funny
0
informative
0
agree
0
disagree
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
"The future ain't what it used to be."
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"You can observe a lot just by watching."
- Yogi Berra

"Drugs are so fucking good....that they'll ruin your life."
- Louis C.K.

Tags:
 


dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse





TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In no event will d&u or any person involved in creating, producing, or distributing site information be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use d&u. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless d&u, its domain founders, sponsors, maintainers, server administrators, volunteers and contributors from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from the use of any part of the d&u site.


TO USE THIS WEBSITE YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE


Founded December 2014
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal