Many men fear being taken to the cleaners in divorce. Some so much so,

[Tiberius]

And why is that do you think? Why is the law designed to protect the women? Think about it? It's laready been explained serveral times on this thread, my post included, but it seems some men just will not hear it!

 

On the second point, that is a massive generalisation based on nothing, "many" women keep looking?????????????????????????

 

Well you argue a prenup is insulting to you because the man implies you are going to leave. Yet you argue you need marriage in case the man is going to leave. So you say men can not be trusted and women need marriage AND the divorce laws to be protected, yet if a man argues that women can not be trusted and they need to protect themselves from divorce, then that is insulting to the woman.

 

Because thats what you are saying. Men can not be trusted enough to be in a committed relationship, without the full protection of modern divorce laws.

[Memphis Raines]

Come on guys, whilst there may be women out there who are golddiggers most cases where a women is awarded alimony reflect the fact that she has been a stay a home mom, housekeeper etc, she has postponed her career for yours. It works the other way around as well, if the father is the stay at home dad then he gets it too.

 

half the marital assets, retirement and such, yes, she should get. Alimony? no. Unless there is some reason she can't go back to work.

 

and I see what you are saying, I do. but I think that it just downright sucks, for example, in the case of a cheating wife that gets all this. The guy didn't ask for it to happen. She gets to be a skank, and still gets to take his children from him full time, money, and even sometimes the dreaded alimony.

 

on the flip side a cheating man, IMO, deserves to be taken to the cleaners. There ought to be laws on the books with regards to infidelity.

[willowthewisp]

Read it all again. Dont you see how marriage is a prenup that protects the woman? I am talking about modern marriage. If you got married a christian up till the 19th century it was for life, unless you got the pope to agree to a divorce. Good luck with that.

 

Today marriage is just a prenuptial agreement as stipulated in the divorce laws, nothing more, nothing less. Signed marriage papers have zero influence on your relationship as a couple, they dont force you to stick toegether when times get tough, they merely open you up to the break up rules that are divorce.

 

You say if he trades me in for a younger model, I want to be protected by the divorce laws. Well some man tell themselfs, if she wants to go find herself some day, I do not want to be exposed to the divorce laws the way they are. If a woman refuses to sign a prenup it shows that she believes the marriage is not going to last and that she will regret having signed it.

 

It shows the women beleives that the man is not committed to a marriage for life and is taking precautions for when the marraige fails, because he thinks it will fail. If a man asked me for a pre-nup I woul think he did not love me and did not intend to commit for life.

 

I believe in marriage for life, I do not believe in divorce only in cases of adultery and abandonment (abuse comes under abandonment). For me when you marry your spouse becomes family, just like your children are and you wouldn't just up and leave your children because they did something you didn't like etc so why would you do that to a spouse?

 

I unerstand that in todays society perhaps my values and morality is rare, but don't tarnish everyone with the same brush.

[Tiberius]

Yes but the man can not stop a divorce if its going to happen. If you do not sign a prenup it shows you do not think the marriage will last, like I said

 

But in the end its all about what you can get away with and how much leverage you have. Some men are great catches and can find a great woman to agree to have a family without marriage if thats what they want. Other woman are beautiful with a good income of their own and can choose a nice man willing to marry or to cohabit if they fear the odds of losing in divorce.

 

Our society has become more free. Gay people can marry and even adopt children or have children of their own. Women are not forced to stay married and men can have a family without signing marriage papers if they choose to do so, its already happening. You are looking to get whats best for you, in your opinion its marriage. Everybody else should do the same. In the end people are in a bad situation because of their own choices.

 

But seen as you are a lawyer and lawyers make good money in the uk as well, its more likely anyway that you will be the one to contribute significantly more financially unless you are lucky enough that the man you fall in love with, just happens to be as educated as you in your field or a different field. So he probably wont ask for a prenup, but you might end up considering drawing up one.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Tiberius

[willowthewisp]

Well you argue a prenup is insulting to you because the man implies you are going to leave. Yet you argue you need marriage in case the man is going to leave. So you say men can not be trusted and women need marriage AND the divorce laws to be protected, yet if a man argues that women can not be trusted and they need to protect themselves from divorce, then that is insulting to the woman.

 

Because thats what you are saying. Men can not be trusted enough to be in a committed relationship, without the full protection of modern divorce laws.

 

No, I argued that divorce laws are the way they are to protect the vulnerable. Vulnerable because the stay at home parent has given up their earning capacity by being out of the workforce for many years rearing children. That can be mom or dad.

 

I also said that the reason a prenup is insulting is because it suggest that the man or women asking for it is not committed to the relationship and sees the possibility of it failing. Personally I would not wnat to marry someone who sees me as an option that they have to protect themself from.

 

In addition I never said the purpose of marriage was to offer the protection of divorce laws, the purpose of marriage is to become a life long family unit, security in knowing that your spouse is committed to the realtionship come what may. I then said that the divorce laws protect either spouse (whichever is the more vulnerable) in the event that either spouse leaves.

 

When a court in the UK divides the assests etc the whole circumstances of the marriage, children and the cause of the marital breakdown and the conduct of the spouses is taken into account in that decision, the judge has complete discretion.

[willowthewisp]

Yes but the man can not stop a divorce if its going to happen. If you do not sign a prenup it shows you do not think the marriage will last, like I said

 

But in the end its all about what you can get away with and how much leverage you have. Some men are great catches and can find a great woman to agree to have a family without marriage if thats what they want. Other woman are beautiful with a good income of their own and can choose a nice man willing to marry or to cohabit if they fear the odds of losing in divorce.

 

Our society has become more free. Gay people can marry and even adopt children or have children of their own. Women are not forced to stay married and men can have a family without signing marriage papers if they choose to do so, its already happening. You are looking to get whats best for you, in your opinion its marriage. Everybody else should do the same. In the end people are in a bad situation because of their own choices.

 

But seen as you are a lawyer and lawyers make good money in the uk as well, its more likely anyway that you will be the one to contribute significantly more financially unless you are lucky enough that the man you fall in love with, just happens to be as educated as you in your field or a different field. So he probably wont ask for a prenup, but you might end up considering drawing up one.

 

Not signing a prenup does not show that someone does not think a marriage will last, it shows that the person asking for it thinks the marriage will not last.

 

Saying people end up in bad situations because of their own choices is very simplistic. For example, should I tell a client who comes in that it is her fault she has been left with a 3 weeks old baby and no where to live because her cohabiting bouyfriend has gone off with her best friend? Sometimes people abuse trust, sometimes people lie and use other people and it is not the fault of the person who has been subjected to these behaviours because they didn't see what was happening, that is precisely why the law intervenes. Your argument is like saying we should not have laws on murder because people who get murdered should have looked out for themselves better.

 

The bolded part is the epitiomy of the decline of morality and values and exactly why society is in ruin.

 

Anyway, this thread is becoming insulting and sexist against women and I prefer not to continue in this discussion.

Edited March 30, 2011 by willowthewisp

[Tiberius]

No, I argued that divorce laws are the way they are to protect the vulnerable. Vulnerable because the stay at home parent has given up their earning capacity by being out of the workforce for many years rearing children. That can be mom or dad.

 

In addition I never said the purpose of marriage was to offer the protection of divorce laws, the purpose of marriage is to become a life long family unit, security in knowing that your spouse is committed to the realtionship come what may. I then said that the divorce laws protect either spouse (whichever is the more vulnerable) in the event that either spouse leaves.

 

When a court in the UK divides the assests etc the whole circumstances of the marriage, children and the cause of the marital breakdown and the conduct of the spouses is taken into account in that decision, the judge has complete discretion.

 

I dont see how the thread is becoming sexist and insulting against women. Sounds like a generic frase for I dont agree with what you say, only that you can attach a stigma to a person by using that frase, by painting him as a womanhater.

 

You can tell your client that this isnt the 19th century anymore and that thesedays a single mother can work and support herself and her baby at least as far as the material wellbeing goes. And the father will be made responsible for the children as well through child support payments as he should.

 

Thats what modern marriage is. Essentially its just a prenup contract with set laws that can be tweaked to an extend by an additional prenup contract. When you say marriage is forever you are thinking of the old days, where marriage was forever unless the pope granted a divorce, but only in extremly rare circumstances, at least for christians. That is the marriage you are thinking of. Thats the marriage people think of when they say its forever. However the reality is that thesedays marriage is untill either party decides to end it at least in the majority of the cases. If you want the relationship to be forever you can have that without marriage as well and marriage is not going to make it happen.

 

It isnt just men who fear the divorce laws, it is women as well else you would not see so many successful women complain that there are no suitable men around. Not saying you are like that, but many women are like that and do not like the prospect of entering a marriage, when he stands to gain and she stands to lose.

 

Also But in the end its all about what you can get away with and how much leverage you have isnt a sign of moral decay its just a fact of life. A woman who built a good life for herself has a nice income and can introduced her boyfriend to a father who is happily married in his marriage has good chances to convince the man she loves to get married if that is what she wants. A woman who earns very little on the other hand, who has to heavily rely on the financial support of her boyfriend to keep their standard of living and who introduces him to a mother who took her father to divorce court, wont generate quite the same interest in men and therefore will have less options.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Tiberius

[willowthewisp]

I dont see how the thread is becoming sexist and insulting against women. Sounds like a generic frase for I dont agree with what you say, only that you can attach a stigma to a person by using that frase, by painting him as a womanhater.

 

You can tell your client that this isnt the 19th century anymore and that thesedays a single mother can work and support herself and her baby at least as far as the material wellbeing goes. And the father will be made responsible for the children as well through child support payments as he should.

 

Thats what modern marriage is. Essentially its just a prenup contract with set laws that can be tweaked to an extend by an additional prenup contract. When you say marriage is forever you are thinking of the old days, where marriage was forever unless the pope granted a divorce, but only in extremly rare circumstances, at least for christians. That is the marriage you are thinking of. Thats the marriage people think of when they say its forever. However the reality is that thesedays marriage is untill either party decides to end it at least in the majority of the cases. If you want the relationship to be forever you can have that without marriage as well and marriage is not going to make it happen.

 

It isnt just men who fear the divorce laws, it is women as well else you would not see so many successful women complain that there are no suitable men around. Not saying you are like that, but many women are like that and do not like the prospect of entering a marriage, when he stands to gain and she stands to lose.

 

How about we hand the newborn over to the father and let him nurse and work and look after a newborn instead? But first we should open up his stomach and insert something that grows for 40 weeks, then subject him to 28 hours of pain and exhaustion, then hand over the child, inflict some emotional pain (equivelent to being cheated on) and then tell him he can "go figure it out and work and do everything".

 

This thread is sexist towards women because of the attitude that is being conveyed, there is no thought for the womens perspective whatsoever, evrything is being looked at from a male viewpoint. In my posts I referred to the vulnerable as mom or dad, whoever the caretaker is. That is why I said the thread has become sexist, nothing to do with being a women hater and why I decided to discontinue the discussion.

[Tiberius]

You only think of the scenario where the man leaves a poor woman with a newborn. The majority of divorces are initiated by women. Sure there are the cases you describe, but more often the wife simply does not want to be with the husband anymore.

 

I could see your point of view if the divorce laws would only come into effect, if the man wants to replace the wife with a younger model as you put it, or if the husband abbandons the family. But the divorce laws are the same for everybody, even for good men who have a wife who wants to go find herself.

 

But like I said I am sure that wont be anything you will have to worry about. You are building yourself a good career you have a father who is happy in his own marriage, if a man is looking to marry, thats more or less what he is looking for and of course a woman to fall in love with.

[tinktronik]

How about we hand the newborn over to the father and let him nurse and work and look after a newborn instead? But first we should open up his stomach and insert something that grows for 40 weeks, then subject him to 28 hours of pain and exhaustion, then hand over the child, inflict some emotional pain (equivelent to being cheated on) and then tell him he can "go figure it out and work and do everything".

 

This thread is sexist towards women because of the attitude that is being conveyed, there is no thought for the womens perspective whatsoever, evrything is being looked at from a male viewpoint. In my posts I referred to the vulnerable as mom or dad, whoever the caretaker is. That is why I said the thread has become sexist, nothing to do with being a women hater and why I decided to discontinue the discussion.

 

I didn't find this to be the case. Is it possible that your own perspective is causing you to see this when it is not in fact there?

[willowthewisp]

You only think of the scenario where the man leaves a poor woman with a newborn. The majority of divorces are initiated by women. Sure there are the cases you describe, but more often the wife simply does not want to be with the husband anymore.

 

I could see your point of view if the divorce laws would only come into effect, if the man wants to replace the wife with a younger model as you put it, or if the husband abbandons the family. But the divorce laws are the same for everybody, even for good men who have a wife who wants to go find herself.

 

But like I said I am sure that wont be anything you will have to worry about. You are building yourself a good career you have a father who is happy in his own marriage, if a man is looking to marry, thats more or less what he is looking for and of course a woman to fall in love with.

 

Perhaps it is different in the US then? Here the fact the women has walked for no good reason (abuse, adultery by left spouse etc) is taken into account when the divorce laws are applied. I know the laws in the US are based upon common law as they are here but some of them differ greatly, for example in the US a man sucessfully sued a well known fast food chain because his coffee was hot and he spilled it on himself. the same case, same chain when to court here and our courts said "don't be riduculous, how have they been negligent, you wnat to drink luke warm coffee? the essence of coffee is that is hot, if you spilled it on yourself that is your own clumsiness" pretty much.

 

Same with defemation laws, US values freedom of speech more highly than reputaion and livilhood, pertains to your constitution I believe, here more value in the balance between freedom of speech and right to protect reputaion is placed on reputation. I guess the same is true of divorce laws.

[carhill]

Do you feel like there is merit or longevity to be gained from this, or is it just one of those core beliefs you'd rather not have to explain? I ask out of genuine curiosity, because I have lived with (2) girlfriends in the past - it didn't work out in the end with either of them but I'm not so sure cohabitation hurt our chances. Maybe I am wrong.

Thanks for the question.

 

Simply put, I value my personal space and my sexual partner count is low because I believe in long-term, committed relationships. I don't go looking for a girlfriend. I look for a life partner. That's perhaps the difference between being 51 and 20-something, though, when I was that age, I was looking for a life partner as well, so I guess your assertion about this philosophy being a core belief appears to be valid.

 

Since my recent divorce robbed me of the ability to retire when I wanted to, I simply will use legal means to make sure no woman ever does that to me again. At 51, I don't have that many more productive years left in my profession, so I want to make the most of that time.

 

If you haven't yet been through marital cohabitation and divorce, I'll suggest doing it to gain further insight as to where *some* men's perspective comes from. A lot of guys I know who are my age and divorced say they'll never get married again and will 'shack up' before ever legally committing to a woman again. I simply disagree with that perspective. The world continues to rotate

[tinktronik]

You know your situation and SO better than anyone on this board, especially myself. But you also strike me as someone who wants to be informed, be it good or bad news.

 

Best wishes for your upcoming little one. It ain't easy being pregnant and not much fun. Bet you can't wait until your baby's born since the waiting seems endless. Don't know why human babies have to take so long compared to other animals. I totally can relate to the impatience, since mine is less than a year old!

 

TBF, you're right, I am a person who likes to be informed good or bad. I will double check and probably triple check the laws just to be informed. We were actually pretty thorough as we looked extensively into AI before deciding to try for a baby together. There's a lot of days where I wish I could be like many other people and just blissfully and blindly walk into marriage #2 or #3.... But my marital impressions were lasting ones, I know what it can cost and how very wrong it can go ... for either sex. Maybe someday i will get there. You never know.

[Tiberius]

Perhaps it is different in the US then? Here the fact the women has walked for no good reason (abuse, adultery by left spouse etc) is taken into account when the divorce laws are applied. I know the laws in the US are based upon common law as they are here but some of them differ greatly, for example in the US a man sucessfully sued a well known fast food chain because his coffee was hot and he spilled it on himself. the same case, same chain when to court here and our courts said "don't be riduculous, how have they been negligent, you wnat to drink luke warm coffee? the essence of coffee is that is hot, if you spilled it on yourself that is your own clumsiness" pretty much.

 

Same with defemation laws, US values freedom of speech more highly than reputaion and livilhood, pertains to your constitution I believe, here more value in the balance between freedom of speech and right to protect reputaion is placed on reputation. I guess the same is true of divorce laws.

 

Actually I do not live in the us. I live in Germany, its past my bedtime I know . If the divorce laws in the uk take into account the conduct of the spouses and the reasons of the break up then thats a good thing. But in America and in Germany as well the divorce laws are the divorce laws, the reason of the break up has no impact on them. A man who abbandons his family is treated the same as a man who is confrtonted by divorce by a woman who simply falls out of love.

[d_in_gr]

Lurker here if you don't think men don't get intentionally screwed in divorce read this article.

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-04-03/news/family-court-judge-sheds-light-on-unfair-child-support-practices-in-texas/

[Tiberius]

Way I see it, the problem isnt marriage, but that marriage has been tampered and twisted with and today it has only the name in common with what marriage was in the early 20th century and before. You can modernize marriage only so much before it ceases to be marriage.

[TheLoneSock]

Thanks for the question.

 

Simply put, I value my personal space and my sexual partner count is low because I believe in long-term, committed relationships. I don't go looking for a girlfriend. I look for a life partner. That's perhaps the difference between being 51 and 20-something, though, when I was that age, I was looking for a life partner as well, so I guess your assertion about this philosophy being a core belief appears to be valid.

 

Since my recent divorce robbed me of the ability to retire when I wanted to, I simply will use legal means to make sure no woman ever does that to me again. At 51, I don't have that many more productive years left in my profession, so I want to make the most of that time.

 

If you haven't yet been through marital cohabitation and divorce, I'll suggest doing it to gain further insight as to where *some* men's perspective comes from. A lot of guys I know who are my age and divorced say they'll never get married again and will 'shack up' before ever legally committing to a woman again. I simply disagree with that perspective. The world continues to rotate

 

While I'm not sure going through a divorce is something I should pursue merely for insight, I still understand what you are (I think) trying to say. I guess this scares me even further then, because if someone as upstanding as yourself, who upholds their core beliefs so strongly and does things (seemingly) by the book, still ends up on the divorced end of things - and furthermore someone of an older, wiser generation - that creates an extremely grim outlook. The world does continue to rotate, as you say, but I think it is a whole different world all together now - one where the statistics are highly unfavorable to marriage.

 

Lurker here if you don't think men don't get intentionally screwed in divorce read this article.

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-04-03/news/family-court-judge-sheds-light-on-unfair-child-support-practices-in-texas/

 

Remind me to never move to Texas.

[threebyfate]

TBF, you're right, I am a person who likes to be informed good or bad. I will double check and probably triple check the laws just to be informed. We were actually pretty thorough as we looked extensively into AI before deciding to try for a baby together. There's a lot of days where I wish I could be like many other people and just blissfully and blindly walk into marriage #2 or #3.... But my marital impressions were lasting ones, I know what it can cost and how very wrong it can go ... for either sex. Maybe someday i will get there. You never know.

Ha...blissfully and blindly, not quite. Post-nup here and only because we got pregnant during our engagement period. It would have been a prenup, otherwise.

 

But considering your experiences, I don't blame you for not wanting to get married again. Just bear in mind that what you experienced isn't the average marriage, same as I know that not all men cheat.

 

I'm the type of the person who hopes for the best but ensures she's hedged for the worst. Since H. is such a wonderful father, there's no way even if our marriage doesn't work out, that I would punish my son by not giving his father equal custody. Since neither he nor I are financially dependent on each other, if we split, it will be a smooth transition even if he cheats. With children, it's best to be adult about it since children not only learn by being actively taught, they also learn from osmosis.

[trippi1432]

Read it all again. Dont you see how marriage is a prenup that protects the woman? I am talking about modern marriage. If you got married a christian up till the 19th century it was for life, unless you got the pope to agree to a divorce. Good luck with that.

 

Today marriage is just a prenuptial agreement as stipulated in the divorce laws, nothing more, nothing less. Signed marriage papers have zero influence on your relationship as a couple, they dont force you to stick toegether when times get tough, they merely open you up to the break up rules that are divorce.

 

You say if he trades me in for a younger model, I want to be protected by the divorce laws. Well some man tell themselfs, if she wants to go find herself some day, I do not want to be exposed to the divorce laws the way they are. If a woman refuses to sign a prenup it shows that she believes the marriage is not going to last and that she will regret having signed it.

 

Interesting discussion, wish I had gotten in on it earlier....what if it isn't the woman who is asked to sign the prenuptial, but is the man instead. This is coming from 12 years of living together and knowing that the man has serious financial issues (gambling and drinking) that a divorce in the US won't protect.

 

Is it wrong to say that the benefit is if you marry you stay in for the long haul because if a man were marrying for love and not money, a prenuptial would not be needed. On the other hand, if you have to listen to your future FIL tell your intended for 5 years that he has such a "rich" future with you...(and you know that means in his mind that you won't be living off food stamps and disability...wanker)...well, you can imagine the influence.

 

I had a prenuptial to protect my retirement and pension mostly, my exH signed it but was not happy about it a year later after his friends at work told him he was a moron for signing it. He left 2 years later because I was too materialistic (his words). I simply wanted a house...not a mobile home in a rat infested trailer park with my children playing with the Drug Lords children. I don't live in the richest neighborhood, I just wanted average.

 

Marriage does not protect or "molest" men as much as it used to (at least not in my state)....the laws have gotten more 50/50...it really comes down to who hires the sharpest divorce attorney. I was totally crapped in my first marriage....no support, no car, no way to care for our child. He filed the divorce and I had no money for a lawyer....fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...shame on me. As far as women have come in being more equal to men in earning potential, I feel a prenuptial is a standard agreement to protect both parties as a marriage certificate means little to nothing anymore in this day and age of infidelity, regardless of gender.

[Steadfast]

Marriage does not protect or "molest" men as much as it used to (at least not in my state)....the laws have gotten more 50/50...

 

I have to agree, at least in custody cases.

 

The courtroom is an eerie place; it totally exposes lies and cover ups. The judges and attorneys have heard it all so many times they're all running on auto pilot. In fact, all parties pretty much know beforehand who the stinker is. The play is between the lawyers and judges. In most cases, you're not given a chance to talk. It isn't like television...not even close. The judge is just hoping for one good parent to step up. If you're bad you'll be exposed. Male or female-

[Darren Taylor]

It is different in the US then? Here the fact the women has walked for no good reason (abuse, adultery by left spouse etc) is taken into account when the divorce laws are applied.

 

 

It's different here. Many states are no fault states(California, my home state is one of them) meaning that even when adultery occurs, that cannot be held against the individual. As a man, my only chance of getting custody of my child is if I can prove my wife is a drunk or a druggie. And even then, that's no guarantee.

 

For those of you that used to watch the show Step by Step, Sasha Mitchell went through a similar. His wife was a druggie and beat the kids to the point where he intervened and beat her ass. He got arrested and fought for like 2-3 years, but eventually won custody. Even in the case of a multi-millionaire, it took him a few years and an arrest to get custody of his kids.

[threebyfate]

The courts look to primary caregiver while the marriage was still intact in order to ensure for continuity for the children. If men weren't the primary caregiver prior to the dissolution of the marriage, why would they suddenly want to become one now? Or is it that it's the same old excuse?

[callsign]

that they dont get married to begin with and prefer having children and a family without signing marriage papers.

 

Do you think their fear of divorce is justified or exaggerated ?

 

Got divorced 2 years ago. At 57, I'm trying to live on 36 and a half percent of my paycheque. That's whats left after the child support and taxes are taken. Hmmm, my retirement. What retirement, every well layed out plan I had for a comfortable retirement is gone. New mortgage means my house won't be payed off as planned, half the 401K is gone, her savings were kept in an off shore account so what was declared in court amounted to chicken feed. I'll be paying child support until I'm 65. Don't get me wrong, I want to take care of my kids, but having them nearly equal time should mean nearly equal financial resposibility. The ex makes twice as much as I. Six figures if she wants to schedule a normal 40 hour week. In Illinois, she could make a million dollars a year and I'd still have to give her that 28% of my cheque. It ain't right and any lawyer will tell you so, but there is no incentive to change these antiquated laws because they're too good for business.

[SummersEve]

The problem I have with this thread is the self-centeredness of it. Just because you are a male and got divorced and have less than you did does not mean your wife does not also have less than she did. It is simple math, two households on the same salary sucks all around. If you think being a single mother is easy then you are really too stupid to breed in the first place. What an arrogant thing to say. And your CHILDREN should come first. If they did (overall) then the highest group living in poverty in the US would not be children. Who cares if you want more for yourself. Too bad, you need to take care of your children, everything was never all yours in the first place, and by the statistics on child poverty, as a group you are certainly NOT paying enough.

 

My recommendation to both sexes is (1) first of all, don't be stupid in the first place. How many couples do you know where it was an ill-advised marriage in the first place? 75%? Yours? (2) Second, when you get a spouse, treat them right. Most people who are divorced seem to feel they were an innocent victim. Most are lying. Usually it takes two to build and two to destroy. And just because you can rundown a laundry list of your spouse's faults and sins does not mean you acted right yourself. What did you do to contribute to the divorce? What did you ever do to try to fix the problems? (3) Third, travel light. Consider having one child instead of three. Live beneath your means, save and invest. Then even if it's divided by two, or any of the other bad things that can come your way, you will do better. Then, just in the sake of not driving everyone around you crazy, don't whine. Don't be so self-centered that you always think you got were the victim who was innocent and got the short end of the stick. Realize that that's probably ridiculously false. And even if it's true, you probably deserved it anyway for being stupid.

 

Who can look back on all of those three things and still say they are the only poor innocent non-retarded victim out of the three (the three sides being them, spouse, AND children)? I would really like to know. The worst loser in divorce is, by far, the CHILDREN, not some grown man who thinks all the marital assets and salary should still be all for himself. Just going on and on about himself and "what SHE got" with a butt-ignorant no mention of the children at all shows a huge gap in maturity.

Edited March 31, 2011 by SummersEve

[tinktronik]

Ha...blissfully and blindly, not quite. Post-nup here and only because we got pregnant during our engagement period. It would have been a prenup, otherwise.

 

But considering your experiences, I don't blame you for not wanting to get married again. Just bear in mind that what you experienced isn't the average marriage, same as I know that not all men cheat.

 

I'm the type of the person who hopes for the best but ensures she's hedged for the worst. Since H. is such a wonderful father, there's no way even if our marriage doesn't work out, that I would punish my son by not giving his father equal custody. Since neither he nor I are financially dependent on each other, if we split, it will be a smooth transition even if he cheats. With children, it's best to be adult about it since children not only learn by being actively taught, they also learn from osmosis.

 

I understand that I got caught in a 1 in a 1,000 situation. Everything that could go wrong did.

 

I agree that children need both parents. Regardless of what an a** my ex can be my children get a lot out of knowing him and being active in his life. His actions bring a lot of possible sadness for them in the future but young men not knowing their father could easily bring those same things. He brings a lot of positive principles and examples as well.

 

You know, I think a big part of my problem is that I am not capable of judging something without looking too long and too hard and getting stuck weighing out options and possibilities. I just cannot look at a possible future marriage without considering that there is SOME chance it could happen again.

 

In the event that me and my SO split, as he has some occasional problems with mental illness, my intent is to give him fairly free access to his child in the event he is medicated but those occasional bouts with his illness cause him to be so impaired as to not be capable to care for a child on his own for any sustained period of time. However, even if things ended badly I can absolutely see what he has to offer any child, much less his own, in the way of reaching for the stars, creativity, drive, intelligence, ect. There is a lot to offer that I would be robbing my child of should I choose to restrict his access. I do not expect financial support from him in the event we split. I went into this decision with my eyes peeled WIDE open.

 

Maybe I can hire someone to teach baby optimism? :lmao: