dopetalk
General => General Discussion for Everybody => Topic started by: Morfy on September 21, 2015, 11:05:06 AM
-
I might turn this into a poll so we can get a visual representation of our input.
My personal beliefs is that the changes in the last 50-60 (namely the No Fault Divorce) and the actions of the Family Court (or Divorce Court) makes marriage a bad idea for men.
Typically, a man in the Anglosphere has everything to lose and precious little to gain by marriage; the opposite seems to be true for women (I might be biased here).
Try explaining modern marriage/divorce stats to the older generation and you can really see the generation gap regarding the different attitudes. Typically, it comes down to:
"People have been pissing & shitting in the Marriage Well for 60 years now; excuse me if I don't want to take a sip of this fetid brew."
Before I get tagged as a misogynist, some people believe that the Courts favour the spouse who Earned Less Money during the marriage, not specifically the wife.
your thoughts?
[how does one make a poll?]
-
Well I for one have had an amazing marriage to a woman who I would literally* be dead without 10 times over. That woman has put up with severe breaks in my mental stability over the past decade+ and we have defied the odds of getting married young by only growing in our relationship over the years.
So I say get married if possible and you want it. Do not let fears of a spoiled marriage down the line fuck up the potential for a lifelong partnership.
Anyone who has had a sour marriage will possibly disagree but I still wanted to shed a positive light on marriage for the unmarried here who may be looking for said partner in the future times.
If it wasn't for her....and my kids....well there would not be a monkawat to post on dau
And yet......YMMV
-
Personally, marriage doesn't really interest me (nor my girlfriend), but it has nothing to do with the potential fallout if we were to split. But, I don't think it's obsolete as a concept.
I do think the the whole 'men going their own way' and men's rights movements are 100% bullshit, and despite their proponents denial, they're both steeped in misogyny. I don't believe that women or the person who made less in the relationship (more often than not, the woman) have the upper hand when it comes to dividing assets in a divorce, and I don't think women have an unfair advantage in terms of custody/child support. The fact is, women are generally the ones who make less because we live in a patriarchy, and they're also the ones who generally sacrifice a career or chance at a career to rear children, and that has value. It's not fair for a couple to divorce and one ends up with a career and a resume and the other with nothing without there being some sort of compensation (child support is not compensation).
-
I know if thwy made it as hard to get married as it is to get divorced there would ne less divorces.
To me, im more in love and more "married" to Andi after living together for a little over a year than any of the 5ish years i was with my ex.
I dont need a paper saying we are dedicated to eachother.
-
Even before same-sex marriage became the law, I never wanted to get married. In the past, present, or the future.
In an ideal situation, you'd have two loving partners who are equal, and who are both supportive of each others' differences, and also "melding" together as a united front.
In reality I don't think a lot of people are actually capable of doing that. Sure, they might be great at some parts, but overall, I think most humans in our culture are too driven by their own egos. They have a hard time thinking of others as much as they should. I think that's taught by our culture: instant gratification is possible and preferable for many things, strong emphasis on self-reliance, urging to strive to be the best, being judged for your performance and abilities, etc. I think those types of values can create a very ego-driven person. I don't think those types of people tend to be very empathetic and / or caring.
I guess that's why they say marriage takes work. I think that's a large part of why so many people get divorced. They don't want to change or put in the work to save a relationship. Not all relationships can be saved, but I think a lot could. You'd have to be willing though. I think some people would rather take the easy way out by divorcing.
I also think cultural and gender stereotypes play too big a part in a lot of marriages. Those can be damaging to the person holding the stereotype, and for the relationship in general. One spouse may feel they have to do this, the other that. When the stereotypes don't sync up to the spouse's actions or desires, I think it can create resentments and therefore tension in the marriage.
I also think some people get married for the wrong reasons: pregnancy, lust misinterpreted as love, feeling like they have to for whatever reason, material concerns, etc.
....................................................
Morphy, you can create a poll by clicking "add poll" on the top toolbar next to reply.
-
Getting married and then divorced was the dumbest fucking thing I ever did. I blame it in large part for the poor quality of life I currently enjoy.
The man always gets fucked in a divorce case. I think it will be interesting to see same sex divorces come out as a cultural phenomenon.
-
Thanks for your replies!
I have seen many unstable men who straighten out after marriage (like heavy drug use to light/no use).
I have also seen good people shredded in divorce. Basically losing all control over their lives after signing the license. Usually they sum it up as: $35 for the marriage license, $130,000 for the divorce.
I'm not the first to say this, but there are many same-sex couples that were HAPPY with they way things were, like, no chance of getting married. Now that that has changed, they have a lot of explaining to do.
Thanks Narko!
** Zoops & Narko, you have Rep Points, but i have to wait an hour before I can share them! what kind of stuff is that?
-
I think marriage can be a great thing but it's kind of unrealistic to think that you will be the same in 20 years from now. Have the same interests and like the same person for the rest of your life. People change over time its natural and often times that change makes them not like the partner they are married to anymore and they grow distant. However the time spent when the 2 were happy is a great thing and if you need to be married to make the other person secure in knowing you wont just up and leave and that and your love for each other is mutual you should get married.
Pre-nups are a very good idea to put in place. I think both sides can benefit from having a prenuptial agreement and that it is not a sign that your thinking the marriage will fail but a realistic view of how things truly are and a way for both sides to protect themselves if the couple end up changing. I always thought that you don't need a marriage license to show your love to the other person and for you to think that the relationship is what you want for the rest of your life. I do think that it might make both parties feel a bit more secure because you wont have to go through all the court proceedings to end it. However divorce court is usually biased and often screw over one of the people getting the divorce.
Marriage can be a wonderful thing but it is a little unrealistic to think that you will be the same person you were when you got married and for you to have the same interests and such that made you love the other person.
Griffin
-
If I ever "tie the knot" again, I'm getting a pre-nup for sure. Gotta get a decent-paying job first and a date too before that can happen.
-
Griff & Zoops bring up the idea of a Pre-Nuptial Agreement.
I have heard/read stories that in modern divorces, Pre-Nups are either ignored, or thrown-out by the judge. Or they are challenged and discarded.
Even some divorce attorneys are saying that pre-nups won't help. They advise using a similar document, something called "Distribution of Properties, Upon Termination of Marriage," contract (states/countries may vary in this name).
Can you imagine thinking that the assets you bring INTO a marriage (already owned) and even "protected" by a pre-nup will actually be classified as "Marital Property" and distributed to the party that has no right to it!!
From my POV, the Judge can order ANYTHING they want, and your options are to follow those orders, or go to jail (gaol).
See These Links (Pre-Nups Won't Save You):
http://www.assetprotectiontraining.com/asset-protection-trusts-prenuptial-agreements/ (http://www.assetprotectiontraining.com/asset-protection-trusts-prenuptial-agreements/)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-reasons-your-prenup-might-be-invalid/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-reasons-your-prenup-might-be-invalid/)
Well you can find other sites with information.
Basically, IMO, the only way to keep your assets safe is: Not to marry, Not to cohabitate, Not to impregnate.
Otherwise, your assets are up for grabs.
I've heard of judges ordering payments to the Ex IN EXCESS OF the person's income! No amount of lawyering changed the order. Either pay or go to jail.
No Thank YOU!
-
Marriage isn't Just work..... Its HARD FUCKING WORK.
The more and more Ive lived, Ive noticed that things like 'work ethic', 'integrity' and 'devotion' drops off rapidly as the generations continue to pile up.
Its hard..... Just quit.
Its boring..... Cheat and Lie.
It looks like work..... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.!!!
No bullishit, there is no more value kept for things that require effort.
People are so fucking self indulgent, spoiled and selfish.
"Reality TV tells me A... So I'll do B and C will make all of my dreams come true.... The grass is so much greener over there.
I won't lie..... Ive considered divorce.
But if I didn't tough it out, and save the most important thing in my life, like Monkawat. I just may not be here either. I wouldnt have a beautiful baby boy, and Id have done what I hate most.....
I would have QUIT. Given up... Surrendered. Whatever.
But marriage is what you make of it... Its not ALWAYS about cocksucking money. Or earthly possessions.
Its about not being afraid to be that vulnerable in front of someone, and its very much about choosing the right mate.
If marriage is obsolete... Then what else can you commit to???
Yourself...?
Have fun with that
-
All of the pre-nup talk made me think of how marriage was thought of in the past. It was not about love at all. It was a contract between two people, and two families. Customs varied from country to country, and over time, but had the three basic components.
The family of women had to pay dowries to the groom's family. Dowry is an ancient custom predating human records. It was especially popular until comparatively recently. The past hundred years or so.
The groom or his family had to pay a bride service fee to the bride's family.
And the groom had to pay a dower to the bride. A dower is property or money that the groom willingly gives the bride. After marriage, the bride remains in control of her dower, as it's now her property.
There were different rules for what happened after that. The dower, for instance, was retained by the woman after her husband's death. It was to enable her to have a measure of support after her husband died.
In short, marriage was a means of securing property. All parties were protected.
It's ironic that marriage today is seen as a "get rich" scheme by some. The proverbial gold-digger. It's also ironic that pre-nups are often looked upon negatively. It's really just a modern way of trying to secure property. But the whole "marriage is about love" thing tries to negate that practice.
-
I dont think marriage is obsolete at all.
What I do find annoying is that all the people who talk about the sanctity of marriage (especially that dumb bitch in kentucky; anyone else smell a lifetime movie? Lol) really miss the mark anyways.
Marriage IS a special bond between two people, or should be. Who needs a state certificate for that anyways?
Really some one like that kentucky lady should really reconsider her whole role in providing marriage licenses, since it kinda puts the state as more important than the church in marriage anyways, right?
-
I dont think marriage is obsolete at all.
What I do find annoying is that all the people who talk about the sanctity of marriage (especially that dumb bitch in kentucky; anyone else smell a lifetime movie? Lol) really miss the mark anyways.
Marriage IS a special bond between two people, or should be. Who needs a state certificate for that anyways?
Really some one like that kentucky lady should really reconsider her whole role in providing marriage licenses, since it kinda puts the state as more important than the church in marriage anyways, right?
I never thought of it like that, but you're right. She is being a huge hypocrite in that regard. Saying she cares so much about ecclesiastical marriages and what the church / god would think. Who in the hell is she to interpret what god would want. When did she become a prophet?
That bitch really needed to be fired on the spot. It was a total abuse of her power.
-
I don't know if marriage is obsolete
I know that being with someone
As long as I have
Is HARD FUCKING WORK
But it's defo worth it
Especially for my babe
I also know that
Marriage in these here United States of hypocrisy
Is a contract between
Two people who are supposed to love each other
And the fucking federal government
So yeah fuck that
If I can
And in this
I defo can
Opt out
You goddamn right I'm going to
-
I'm separated but have a close friendship with my ex-partner.
we are not living together but I live in hope that one day there will be a reconciliation but this lifestyle of ours is hard to accept.
marriage is what you make it but if it doesn't go the traditional way then make your own.
growing apart is the natural enemy.
-
Psssssssssssssssssssssst
Hear that
That's the air being let out of my balloon
#iamdone
#imbouncinghead
:/
It's a whole lot more that a piece of paper
It's a state of mind
I have been with DoD
Going on 15 years.
Was I hung up on the fact that she wouldn't
Marry me yes
Till I had absolute faith in her that she was married in her mind to me
I put a ring on it
Do either one of us have to go to court to leave? No
So I work harder at keeping what I want
I love you babe and there is no place I would rather be
Than by your side
15 years I haven't did any thing that long
Well there's drugs
Plus I am one neurotic fuck
-
Hey Hero 1,
Tried to rep you, could not for another 58 minutes.......
One of the reasons for starting this thread is to hear about people's unique experiences & PoV. Very nice post. I think this is the best arrangement adults can hope for in their lives.
A lot to consider too: When you see legally married people who are (miserable and) only staying together for the sake of their children, versus people who have a life-long bond independent of a legal contract.
-
Do you think it's still a misogynist thing? I possess this woman. We'be gone from cows and chats to cash but we still possess someone?
-
Do you think it's still a misogynist thing? I possess this woman. We'be gone from cows and chats to cash but we still possess someone?
Idk you know you know
In a way it was not wanting to lose her
She rocked my world
I had all but given up on conventional relationships when she came along
Just wanted to stay on that boat and keep smelling the sweet magnolia
So I wanted to do what I was taught
Then Katrina
She has put up with allot off my shit like disappearing.wrecking cars, court cases.pych holds.Well a whole lot of me just showing her that she couldn't hurt me. But that hurt her.
I feel like shit now that I put that out there. No matter what I do.
I will never ever be able to show her how much she means to me.how much I just live to see her smile.
I keep borrowing lines from songs, but music it's the sound track of or life.
I'd sell my soul for money to burn.
With her
I'm free to dj weddings on Wednesdays.And every other Tues.
-
Marriage isn't obsolete imo
But it shouldn't be compulsory either
Get married, or don't. Whatever.
In this day and age everyone seems caught up in other people's marriages
Live and let live
-
Which other Tuesday? This one or the next?
When I got married the good dentist's family paid 20k to us for a down payment on a house, but actually asked for it (all) back from me when we got divorced. That car didn't make it out the parking lot.
-
I don't think marriage is obsolete. I think it depends on the couple.
I have been with the same man for 11 years now and we have no plans on getting married.
We have both been married before and although we are not against marrying again, we just don't really talk about it or feel it as a need in our relationship.
We have made a commitment to one another by sharing out lives together and the bond we share is just as strong if we had a piece of paper making our union legal by the state.
I know many couples who have been happily married for many years, and I have known many people who have been married multiple times.
Any relationship takes work and whether you are married or not, respect, trust, and love must be a constant for a relationship to work.
My first marriage was horrible and I only married because I didn't want to hurt my then to be husband at the time. Not a great reason to make such a commitment, but I am much more mature now then I was 18 years ago.
Divorce is hard. I decided to waive my rights for child support and healthcare at anytime while my child was a minor in my divorce. I just felt that I could afford to raise my kids on my own and my ex helped when he could. We only had one child together, but he was not able to make a very good living and I just could not take money from him when he did not have much to give. We never got along very well and he did some things that hurt me a great deal, but going after him just because I was hurt just didn't feel right.
Marry for the right reasons. If I could give anyone any advice on marriage, it would be that.
-
I dont think marriage is obsolete at all.
What I do find annoying is that all the people who talk about the sanctity of marriage (especially that dumb bitch in kentucky; anyone else smell a lifetime movie? Lol) really miss the mark anyways.
Marriage IS a special bond between two people, or should be. Who needs a state certificate for that anyways?
Really some one like that kentucky lady should really reconsider her whole role in providing marriage licenses, since it kinda puts the state as more important than the church in marriage anyways, right?
Also she's been divorced 2 or 3 times. Imagine that, a religious fanatic hypocrite, first time in the history of the world.
-
Which other Tuesday? This one or the next?
When I got married the good dentist's family paid 20k to us for a down payment on a house, but actually asked for it (all) back from me when we got divorced. That car didn't make it out the parking lot.
Did he ask YOU to pay for it, or his daughter??
That's a fucked-up thing right there.
-
and I just could not take money from him when he did not have much to give.
That is really kind of you, and of course, everyone is different....I just think that many people, men or women, would take their Ex-Spouse for everything, even just about of spite.
This gives me hope that there are more good people in the world than it seems.
-
This gives me hope that there are more good people in the world than it seems.
There are plenty of good people in this world. I just cant seem to find any haha
-
and I just could not take money from him when he did not have much to give.
That is really kind of you, and of course, everyone is different....I just think that many people, men or women, would take their Ex-Spouse for everything, even just about of spite.
This gives me hope that there are more good people in the world than it seems.
Well, I've been with my husband for 17 years and married for almost 14, we married young and bought a house, and built a home together with shared time and money both contributing. Ten years ago, if we would have gotten a divorce I would probably have fought him in court for the house tooth and nail...now?..my happiness and disgust with all things legal and system related,( plus maturity) has changed my mind. I would kindly ask him to do the right thing, and if he refused, I would walk away from the house with my happiness, and sanity intact. The way I see it is, it's just a house, and i can always get another.
I saw a divorce attorney a few years back when we were separated and I almost threw up after the meeting. He wanted to go after my husbands pension, his 401a, his welfare fund and a bunch of shit that made me Ill. How could I ever live with myself knowing I raped or even tried to rape someone financially? I don't know how people do it. Well, I do know but that's a whole nutha topic...
Money comes and goes. It hurts when you have none, but it can always hurt more.
Marriage used to be sacred to me, not so much anymore...I love being married but I its not the most important of the relationship in the grand scheme of things, being married doesn't make anyone a better person. It's just a title and piece of paper.
I understand the legal rights it gives people, but I also know people who have never been married and live happily and peacefully as man and woman without any need for a paper to prove their devotion. Obsolete ? Maybe kinda, sorta, but necessary in this country for a bunch of legal protection.
-
Which other Tuesday? This one or the next?
When I got married the good dentist's family paid 20k to us for a down payment on a house, but actually asked for it (all) back from me when we got divorced. That car didn't make it out the parking lot.
Did he ask YOU to pay for it, or his daughter??
That's a fucked-up thing right there.
It was actually her mom's idea to ask me for all of it back, after we got the proceeds from the sale of the house. I finally agreed to give her an extra $1,000 only.
-
I hate it when people give people gifts then expect something in return.
IT'S A GIFT!!!!!!! A gift is something you're willingly giving to another person. It means it's theirs from there on. It is no longer yours.
You don't get to:
1. Expect something in return if it's not agreed upon at the time.
2. Tell them how to use the gift.
3. Make them feel guilty for receiving the gift.
4. Expect them to give the gift back.
5. Expect them to kiss your ass b/c you gave them a gift.
This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where that guy gave Jerry a "brand new Armani suit." Jerry tried to be kind by taking him out for a "meal." Nope, soup isn't good enough. Nope, this isn't good enough. That's not good enough. Just take the suit back. Some gift.
A gift is like an all-sales-final purchase IMO.
-
Divorce rate is what, 51 percent? People that stay together for a long time just become content. Want to put on the blinders and not see anything else they like. Their comfortable with their life as it is. Going against the nature of a human-being is just asking for trouble.
-
Even tho hero and I aren't married
Our relationship revolves around the fact that
I think he's the coolest thing since
Sliced bread
And have no desire to impress anyone else
Or to make anyone else laugh
It's an awesome feeling
Being able to make someone laugh
Especially someone that you are in love with
And after 15 years
I'm STILL
IN LOVE
-
Even tho hero and I aren't married
Our relationship revolves around the fact that
I think he's the coolest thing since
Sliced bread
And have no desire to impress anyone else
Or to make anyone else laugh
It's an awesome feeling
Being able to make someone laugh
Especially someone that you are in love with
And after 15 years
I'm STILL
IN LOVE
this is just absolutely beautiful.
and yea, I think marriage is obsolete. I think it's unnecessary. Its archaic. It's a religious remnant. It has little to do with loving your partner and a lot to do with religion.
and thats where a lot of the gay marriage hoopla comes from: marriage itself is a religious institution. and I've got this weird feeling religious institutions don't care so much for the gays.
-
I believe in marriage. I have always said I wouldn't cohabit with a woman I wouldn't commit to, but I've broken other of my rules, too
I was proud to see a meme of that dumb bitch comparing her to a couple of hugging gay newlyweds , and one of the couples was my son and his partner taken from the front page of the NYT
-
I believe in marrying the woman you truly love[and it does exist]. The one you to wake up next to every morning. If that's Marriage , that I believe in .
-
I believe in marrying the woman you truly love[and it does exist]. The one you to wake up next to every morning. If that's Marriage , that I believe in .
That is good, and I hope EVERY person that gets married feels likewise, but then there's the very real threat of having everything ripped away by an unhappy spouse with the full power of the courts behind them.
I guess the purpose for this thread is, if you want the joy of waking up to your spouse every day for the foreseeable future (or the other benefits of marriage, procreation, etc...), does one have to risk being financial-ruined??
What if you make a mistake with the first marriage? Will you be financially able to try a second one? Would your next spouse be happy that 67% of your income is going to your last spouse?? (rhetorical)
If that second marriage doesn't work, and you're paying 67% of your income to your first spouse, and 67% to your last spouse. In my book, that means living 34% over your means each month--no money for an apartment, food, or anything.
How eager would potential Spouse #3 be to get tangled-up in THAT mess? (again, rhetorical)
* I'm thinking divorce-reform is needed; something closer to Scandinavia's, which might cost $250, and a reasonable alimony that may last a year, or so at most.
Morfy's Note: As more women are having to pay their former husbands alimony, they are realizing that our current divorce system is extremely unfair and crippling. So change may be coming, but the divorce industry would have a lot to lose, so they will fight any changes.
-
as a drug user, married or not, i say that's it's best to keep track of what's yours and their's and have SEPERATE accounts.
that way, there is less pressure and should you be forced to live apart, then the foundations are there.
as drug users, we often prioritise drugs above everything, mainly due to the physical addiction of opiates or even the psychological pull of stimulants, but it's good to remember that relationships are the MOST important issue.
although i an seperated, i still put my relationship as top priority and things are slowly improving between us, despite not living together at the moment.
taking good drugs all the time but being by yourself is no way to live once the novelty wears off.
yeah, to recap: i recommend separate accounts and cannot stress the value of independence in modern relationships.
-
I've never heard of alimony payments equaling anywhere near 67% of a person's income (at least not in the last 30 years). In fact the consumer credit protection act limits most alimonies (in the form of wage garnishment) to a maximum of 50% (with the absolute maximum in very specific circumstances being 66%). The national average is said to be around 20%, though it can vary depending on a variety of factors. Morfy, I can't help but feel like you seem a little bitter about the whole topic.
-
Thanks PMH,
I should have added: Alimony plus child support equaling 67%. But I am basing this off of nothing, just an example.
And most courts use "Imputed Income" not actual income to determine payments. I'm told that even if my actual income was $5K per month, but the courts think I should be earning $7K (imputed income), then I would have to pay 50% of $7K not $5K.
So I would, in fact be paying $3500 per month, which is 70% of my actual take home pay.
And that would be separate from any child support.
PMH, I am not bitter, never been married, never will be. I DO see many people, men & women who are unnecessarily entering this meat grinder, thinking:
"Those bad things only happy to other people, it won't happen to me and my schnookums!" Until it does. And they're devastated, emotionally, financially, legally.
As comedian Bill Burr says: "Would you go sky diving if over 50% of the parachutes were known to be defective?" [paraphrased].
Using this analogy, this thread is asking: "Why are you guys still going sky diving?"
And if divorce weren't so profitable, we'd have a more reasonable system. Divorce opens up a family's assets for legal plundering like nothing else in society--not even death.
-
I know divorce rates are about 50% and Alimony plus child support is a big fucking problem. My parents got divorced so i've been on both sides of this, but call me a helpless romantic if you like.
I still wish I could wake up next to a woman I love every day. It would make my day so much better to know someone loves me too.
-
I know divorce rates are about 50% and Alimony plus child support is a big fucking problem. My parents got divorced so i've been on both sides of this, but call me a helpless romantic if you like.
I still wish I could wake up next to a woman I love every day. It would make my day so much better to know someone loves me too.
Buddy, I think most men feel this way--I sure do.
It comes down to a person's tolerance for risks -vs- reward: are you willing to take a substantial risk for this reward?
I wish the risk end of things lessened considerably.
-
Buddy, I think most men feel this way--I sure do.
It comes down to a person's tolerance for risks -vs- reward: are you willing to take a substantial risk for this reward?
I wish the risk end of things lessened considerably.
I think you're right. But I've found love before,. I was just too much of a dumbass to deal with it.
But when you really fall in love with someone you think about them every damn day.
To me, that marriage without sharing your day,the ring and the sex.
She can have my money if I could have her. That's marriage too.
-
I don't think it's obsolete, but I do feel that all it is is a legally binding contract.
I married the wrong man. I knew it walking down the isle, but I put my heart and soul into and didn't give up easily. Even the first two years after my injury and he started to become abusive, I still had hope things would change.
Now days more and more people are sharing custody 50/50. Which usually means no child support and both parties carry health insurance. Alimony is given but it's very short term and you have to be married a certain number of years to even qualify. Utah it was 10. If you have any kind of a work history, you're not getting it for more than a year or two.
Now the house and possessions, that's individualized. I only wanted what I and the kids use and I stayed in the house until it sold or foreclosed.
I was offered alimony for the duration of our marriage, but I wasn't seeking that.
Anyway, we were pretty amicable at the mediation. Which is what you do in Utah before seeing a judge to see if you can work things out. My ex only contested the amount of time he got with his kids and that was only so he wouldn't have to pay more in child support. He couldn't give a fuck if he sees them or has much of a relationship with them. How do I know? Well, 1-he was willing to let them move 2 states away as soon as I said I didn't want anymore child support because I had them more and 2- we're going on living here for over a year and he's talked to my youngest 0x on the phone or Skype/facetime. He only talks to my oldest if he calls his dad or my ex needs to know if my youngest is using all their data. (I was going to put him on my plan, but I was waiting until he's older. So serves him right for not listening to me and buying him a shitty Samsung phone.) They don't know him and he doesn't know them. Unfortunately, they do have to go there for either Xmas or thanksgiving, depending on the year and almost 2 months in the summer.
I was really never one to care about getting married. I doubt I would have, but I couldn't get prenatal care anywhere but through his job in the military. I loved him, it's just I never had the desire to walk down the isle. In fact, I couldn't tell you a thing that was said because the two of us were trying our hardest not to laugh through it.
I'm still not. I've had do many married men hit on me it's not funny. Where's the sanctity or loyalty in that. As one guy told me, "it's just a piece of paper." But then rings don't plug holes either.
Really, I don't care what anyone else does. I'm happy where I'm at. If we decide to marry, fantastic. If we never marry, fantastic. I only care that we stay together and stay in love. Thoms is the first person I can open up to, tell him my past all of it, cry in front of and make myself vulnerable because I trust him. He's the first person I've been with that I miss even if he's gone for an hr (and no I'm not one of those psycho girls that will blow his phone up. Even if he's late. He may just get a text asking if he's ok). I try to better myself for him. I made a vow to myself that I was never going to be in a relationship that if I fought with them names would be called. And to this day we haven't. Hell, we haven't even had an argument where we yelled at each other. He make me laugh, smile and feel important to him. Which is something I've never had and I don't take that for granted. Plus, his family is good to me and my kids. My ex's mom and brother were horrible to me and for the dumbest shit.
Anyway, get married or not, but don't let it define you. And certainly don't let the what ifs stop you or keep you in a marriage.
-
Andi,
Thank you for your story and offering a much-needed PoV.
-
I think marriage is the best way to ruin is a good relationship
-
Hell yeah, "marriage" is fucked.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.