Spending your life with someone ...isn't the same as marriage.

[carhill]

Ha, yeah, sometimes practicality wins out. We had mediated and done legal stuff prior but my wife filed so, one, she'd get a chance at filing fee waivers which I never could due to my financial status and, two, it was more face saving for the sheriff to serve me at my quiet country shop than for her to be served at her city salon. I still laugh at the look on the sheriff's face when the smiling guy went to sign his clipboard. I said 'you?' He said, 'yeah'. I said, 'Yep' Men understand these things.

 

Now, had we not been married none of that would have occurred as we always kept our business and real estate holdings separate otherwise. Still, that legal thing caused the lawsuit to end the partnership.

 

Myself, I'm still of the mind I'll be married to a partner I live with so that's how things will go with me. Others do what works for them.

[Miss Peach]

A thousand times this.

 

Marriage only serves to make separate assets joints assets. It's function is purely financial.

 

OP, I too was cheated on by my ex wife and got hosed in divorce. My life is much better now, but I had to work my ass off to make it that way. There is no woman alive that could ever convince me to agree to marriage a second time. I have far more money and assets to lose, which is really why they want marriage in the first place.

 

I make it no secret that I will never marry again. I tell any woman I date that. Some are ok with it, some aren't. But it's not something I will ever compromise on.

 

It's about what you want. If you don't want to get married, then don't. I'm not out to provide a better life for anyone except my daughter, and I also clearly communicate that. Stick to your guns.

 

If she walks because of it, then let her go. She wasn't the one for you and valued what the institution of marriage can bring her more than you as a person.

 

I've eliminated so many women as potential partners by refusing to marry, and that's a good thing. When you make it clear that your assets are off the table and you're not interested in having any more kids, the women who stick around truly care about YOU and not just your utility value.

 

You're entitled to have whatever view of marriage you want.

 

I was hosed in my divorce too since I married a guy who lost everything early in our marriage and I wound up supporting him and he spent everything as soon as I brought it in.

 

However I ended a longer relationship because I realized I DO want to be married at some point and I was dating a guy who was like you. I have my own assets and income. I do better than most men I have dated/met. I am not doing it to get anything financial from a man.

 

Having said that, there is no way I will ever get married without a prenup and possibly even a trust as 'insurance'. Even though I don't plan on marrying unless I'm sure, things so happen and nothing is guaranteed. I really don't want to have to build up my assets a third time.

[underpants]

Spending your life with someone ...isn't the same as marriage. If my husband said he wanted to spend his life with me...without marriage..I'd have left him on the spot. It's against my personal belief to cohabit eternally. Maybe if I was divorced I'd think differently..but not if I didn't have kids and it was a first marriage.

 

I would not be happy just cohabiting and many other women feel this way too.

 

I am a woman and do not feel that way.

 

A lifetime commitment without a marriage certificate can be more much more meaningful in many cases. I've seen very 'committed' partners outside the binds of 'marriage'. It happens.

 

Some married people walk life on a tightrope thinking they have a net. Nobody has a net.

 

A prison with no walls. That sounds better to me.

 

Read up on George Takei's life, very interesting. Married now, recently, but many decades cohabiting. If ever a couple loved each other George and Brad.

 

Catherine Hepburn loved Spencer Tracy and lived with him for years. Whatever the circumstances she loved that man.

 

I do understand that people can very much love each other and be secure in that without the confines of government oversight and the threat to absolve you of half your net worth should you make a life decision the other bound party may not agree to.

 

To each their own.

[She's_NotInLove_w/Me]

A thousand times this.

 

Marriage only serves to make separate assets joints assets. It's function is purely financial.

. . . {edited}. . .

I've eliminated so many women as potential partners by refusing to marry, and that's a good thing. When you make it clear that your assets are off the table and you're not interested in having any more kids, the women who stick around truly care about YOU and not just your utility value.

 

What you are describing is more of the CIVIL UNION aspect of partnership. . . By MY PERSONAL definition, marriage is reserved for someone who you are so head over heals for that common sense and logic go out the window. . . THAT WOMAN that I am willing to risk it ALL for! If she enters your life you will know it. And with a significant net worth, it makes sense to establish a pre-nup (for her too) - but that AGAIN speaks to the LEGAL and CIVIL aspects of a modern relationship. When you REALLY LOVE HER, marriage will be without question the minimum you will want to do for her.

 

Just as it may be (from your point of view) a problem with society today that men pay women (and often times a lot of $$$) after the marriage fails, I see a much bigger problem today. Both young men and women of today have cheapened themselves and think nothing of sharing their bodies with complete strangers. . . A minimum of sexual partners and experiences with the opposite sex enhances love, marriage (including it's longevity) as we know it. We are meant to be monogamous and pair up to raise a family and provide stability for our kids. In any mammal the likely hood of a male (who is larger, more muscular, more physically powerful and masculine compared to his partner) truly caring and raising his offspring with 100% commitment, increases sharply when the likelihood that he has fathered his offspring increases. That is a basic genetic reason why we chose to pair off, marry and remain faithful. . .

 

I realize I am way off on a tangent here, and in a way I may have strengthened your argument, in that if you are past the stage of rearing children in any way shape or form, that perhaps the basic value of marriage as a family unit is lessened. . .

 

But the legal, logical and basic aspects of a civil union, are VERY VERY different from the reasons for marriage, true love, a family unit, and healthy and happy couples and families.

 

So, IMHO, for your young daughter to avoid marriage is incorrect, regardless of income, earning potential, and all the logic and legal aspects. She deserves the best chance and making a lifelong commitment to her partner and creating a family with all the strengths and benefits that offers. For you, perhaps not so much. I get it. But I bet if the right woman (admittedly, she's likely a needle in a haystack) came along for you, you should not ABSOLUTELY close your heart off from the possibility of marriage (albiet with a pre-nup). . .

Edited January 29, 2016 by She's_NotInLove_w/Me

[ManyDissapoint]

Yes, not every woman is out to annihilate a man emotionally and financially through divorce. Not every lottery ticket is a loser either. Doesn't make playing the lottery a viable way to manage your financial security.

 

Can every woman honestly say they would enter a marriage with no hesitation if they were making $200,000, working 70 hour work weeks and their husband was making $45,000 working part time?

 

Ignoring for a moment that most women want (on a visceral) level a man who outearns her, if she were just plain old head over heels with a broke man, she should still wonder what would happen to her financially in a divorce.

 

What's one of the first things that women will say when bragging about their man? He's so ambitious ($), he's so hard working ($$), he's got a great job ($$$).

 

I know there are a few of these cases cropping up of women paying alimony to men, but they are rare for a reason--women simply never let it get to that point.

 

EDIT: Marriage law needs to be rewritten. No more no-fault. No more irreconcilable differences. One year alimony max. No more "I got used to a certain lifestyle", no more spending child support money on personal trifles, cheating on your spouse or abandoning your marriage without working on it should mean you give up on ALL of the financial benefits of marriage / divorce. Maximum of 1 year alimony. I say this as someone who WANTS to get married but I cannot do it in the ethically degenerate society we live in.

Edited January 29, 2016 by ManyDissapoint

[ManyDissapoint]

That's because most men don't have the GUTS to do it themselves.

 

You love quoting stats but fail to realize the facts behind them. Most men won't initiate a divorce because they don't want to look like a failure - even if the divorce is due to their own shortcomings in the marriage (cheating, gambling, alcoholism, and the list goes on).

 

Most let the woman do it.

 

My first husband was the biggest serial cheater on the planet. I left him. I was the one who had to divorce HIM because he would have stayed married - and cheating - forever. He wasn't going to be the one to initiate a divorce so I had to.

 

You think my situation is unique? Hardly. There are PLENTY of women who had to do the same thing. Jeez.

 

Yes and there are women who happily cheat in the marriage and yet it is the man who files for divorce. So the numbers are not changed much.

[GunslingerRoland]

I get that some couples don`t want to go through the formality of marriage. But whether you go through the ceremony or not, there is a big difference between committing to spend the rest of your life with someone and just living with them.

 

 

As for the whole idea of avoiding marriage to avoid financial costs, I`m not sure I buy into that. The only reason men pay more often is because they make more money more often. This is often that man`s choice to have the woman work less or not at all. Men can just as easily as women use financial status as a deciding factor in who we will date, but rarely do.

 

 

And really most of the cases I`ve heard of men having make significant payments to their ex wife was when the wife took time off to raise children.

[Miss Peach]

I know there are a few of these cases cropping up of women paying alimony to men, but they are rare for a reason--women simply never let it get to that point.

 

I had to pay it in my divorce. My lawyer told me most of her cases were with women who were with 'deadbeats' as she called it who paid alimony. This isn't as uncommon as most men think.

[Mr. Lucky]

Can every woman honestly say they would enter a marriage with no hesitation if they were making $200,000, working 70 hour work weeks and their husband was making $45,000 working part time?

 

What's missing from the higher earning partner's fear of asset dilution is a realistic assessment of what the SAH parent, usually the wife, is giving up in future earnings. She's not enjoying the accrual of Social Security, 401K earnings, pension accumulation, future business equity, networking contacts or a compelling job resume.

 

So despite the self-righteous indignation of the wage-earning spouse, there has to be a way to make that person whole should the marriage dissolve. I understand most MGTOW adherents brought home the bacon but someone else cooked it. If you put on a dance, at some point you have to pay the band...

 

Mr. Lucky

[ManyDissapoint]

What's missing from the higher earning partner's fear of asset dilution is a realistic assessment of what the SAH parent, usually the wife, is giving up in future earnings. She's not enjoying the accrual of Social Security, 401K earnings, pension accumulation, future business equity, networking contacts or a compelling job resume.

 

So despite the self-righteous indignation of the wage-earning spouse, there has to be a way to make that person whole should the marriage dissolve. I understand most MGTOW adherents brought home the bacon but someone else cooked it. If you put on a dance, at some point you have to pay the band...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

I find it amusing that whenever this discussion comes up, people only consider the opportunities lost from not being in the workforce as a SAH person. What about the toll that hard work takes on you? This takes many forms from physical ailments to psychological ones. Work graveyard shift for 14 hours straight in a coal mine, cement plant or similar hardcore blue collar jobs and tell me if there is no toll on overall health. You want to compare that to vacuuming the house and cooking supper?

 

The stay at home advocates think that if they weren't staying at home supporting the family, they would be a CEO of a fortune 500 company, putting around the golfball in their corner office and networking with other bigshots.

 

What stops a SAH person from improving themselves at home? You can learn languages, listen to audio books, even learn computer programming while doing whatever and enrich yourself. New skills like languages are non-negotiable. If you learn something like that on your own that is instantly marketable--whether you've been employed in the last decade or not.

 

You get to spend more time with kids if there are any--a blessing and a curse but many would kill for it.

 

Look if a breadwinner cheats on his SAHW, she has every right to collect alimony. If she cheats on him, she deserves absolutely nothing. That is my position. This goes for both genders.

[ManyDissapoint]

I had to pay it in my divorce. My lawyer told me most of her cases were with women who were with 'deadbeats' as she called it who paid alimony. This isn't as uncommon as most men think.

 

Well your lawyer probably has a specialty in such cases which means women like you will gravitate toward her. Of course they would seem more common to her.

 

It's just so banal to point out over and over again that there are exceptions to everything. Really this is a discussion about how unfair no-fault divorce is to the higher earner, be them man or woman. I sincerely hope that you didn't have to pay much alimony to your ex husband. There are also deadbeat women. Something that is never discussed for some reason.

[Mr. Lucky]

What about the toll that hard work takes on you? This takes many forms from physical ailments to psychological ones. Work graveyard shift for 14 hours straight in a coal mine, cement plant or similar hardcore blue collar jobs and tell me if there is no toll on overall health. You want to compare that to vacuuming the house and cooking supper?

 

Ignores the physical reality of hands-on child rearing.

 

What stops a SAH person from improving themselves at home? You can learn languages, listen to audio books, even learn computer programming while doing whatever and enrich yourself. New skills like languages are non-negotiable. If you learn something like that on your own that is instantly marketable--whether you've been employed in the last decade or not.

 

Again, you've obviously never taken care of one - or more !!! - small children. Years ago, I covered for my wife with our 2 yr old daughter and 3 yr old son for two weeks while she visited family, I was lucky if I had time to shower. Learn computer programming? :lmao: Get real.

 

I was never so happy to go back to work...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Dirt]

Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the government. It isn't a lifetime commitment otherwise you wouldn't be able to dissolve it through divorce. Any meaning one adds to it, beyond it being a contract, is something you do on your own but in no way can it be enforced by the government.

 

As a high income earner who isn't religious and doesn't want kids, I'll never marry. In a few years I'll be able to pay off my house and well that'll be nice but I'll never put myself in a position where I could make another mortgage payment.

 

married men tend to be healthier and men benefit from marriage far more than women.

 

Bustle

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201510/is-marriage-worth-it-women

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/08/children-with-married-parents-are-better-off-but-marriage-isnt-the-reason-why/

Children raised by married parents 'are better behaved' - Telegraph

 

I'm unmarried and healthy. A lot healthier than a lot of overweight, married men I see at work or the grocery store. If I gained 50lbs, getting married magically wouldn't fix that, my own desire to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle, married or not, would.

 

How would getting married make me make more money? My career is maxed out and I have no desire to level up. I'm happy with the $145K/year I make. My salary would have increased at the same rate it did, whether or not I was married, because it was based on my effort alone that I put in at work.

[Mr. Lucky]

How would getting married make me make more money? My career is maxed out and I have no desire to level up. I'm happy with the $145K/year I make. My salary would have increased at the same rate it did, whether or not I was married, because it was based on my effort alone that I put in at work.

 

Is it news to you that many of the benefits of marriage aren't financial ???

 

Mr. Lucky

[carhill]

If we remove all financial and legal benefits of marriage, what remains, generally, is spiritual and social, with those being less quantifiable and more personal.

 

As example, as a strong believer, my father would not have sired a son or lived with a woman without being married, and he wanted the seal of approval of the church so petitioned the Vatican after his first wife left to annul the marriage so he could remarry with the Church's blessing. While I might think all that is nonsense, it meant a great deal to him and following the church's precepts brought him a sense of direction and peace. A person without such faith would not care about such things and living together would be fine.

 

Something similar could apply socially, if in a demographic where married people tended to socialize with other married people and they were the predominant social entity of the demographic. Sure, one can always pick different friends or social contacts. No problem. Still, that's how social groups exert pressure on people to conform. It may not be as prevalent today but was in our past, especially before society became so easily mobile. Again, each person assigns their own value. Some don't care so marriage, from a social standpoint, means little to nothing to them. Others value the social aspects greatly.

[ManyDissapoint]

Ignores the physical reality of hands-on child rearing.

 

 

 

Again, you've obviously never taken care of one - or more !!! - small children. Years ago, I covered for my wife with our 2 yr old daughter and 3 yr old son for two weeks while she visited family, I was lucky if I had time to shower. Learn computer programming? :lmao: Get real.

 

I was never so happy to go back to work...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Not every partner who stays at home is taking care of three children.

[carhill]

What I noticed, having been around a SAHM for a couple decades was that, when she wanted to be employed, she made the choice and was employed literally within days. This occurred more often once I was deemed safe enough not to burn the house down. Heh. Still, even back in the 'old days', a SAHM wasn't some dependent child. Those I knew were, often, women who could work, and did work back before they were married or began to have children. The difference, of course, was jobs. They weren't college educated professionals, in general, though a few were. A more entry-level job is far easier to come by or retain than a highly compensated professional career when one 'takes a break'. That part makes sense. It's the same, nowadays, for men as well. The workplace, with both men and women competing for jobs, is very competitive. If a man takes family leave, or becomes a SAHD, he can, and often does, take a career hit. In my industry, I'd essentially have to start all over.

 

I guess that stuff ties into the differences between marriage and voluntary partnerships which are not marriage. Unless the parties enter into a legal partnership, choices made, like me suspending my career to care for our children, can end up with the partners exiting without any adjustment for their respective contributions. Of course, that goes back to the legal and financial stuff, the bundle of rights and responsibilities which attend to a legal partnership.

 

Another area of potential difference is health. If or when a person is unable to act on their own behalf in matters of care, the practitioners look to others, with a legal spouse being the first among them. Of course, a person can name other attorneys in fact through legal documents but, absent that, a person's spouse or next of kin is where things generally go. That loving partner who's not legally married can get left out in the cold, even if they are cohabiting, and especially if a conflict arises with next of kin. In that sense, living together, or spending one's life with someone, isn't the same as marriage. With time, effort and money, sure, it can.

[Httm]

Some people want to be married before they start a family and even if they don't want children would want to someday be married. I don't know why you'd question the sense in that.

 

It's called a lifelong commitment.

 

A marriage is not a commitment. People end marriages and get multiple marriages. People are also not punished in any way for adultery. Marriage is simply a financial contract. It is not a commitment.

 

If you want someone to be commited to, you need to find that relationship. A financial contract/marriage will not make something into a commitment. The people do.

[SolG]

I take from the bulk of posts here that most of you live in places where marriage affords greater legal protections than other types of unions. Where I live that is not the case. Here, once you have cohabited with a partner for a certain period of time the relationship becomes subject to the same family laws covering assets and children as a marriage. There is legally no difference between a registered or commom-law marriage. I think this makes a difference.

 

I think marriage is ONE way to spend your lives together; it is by no means the only or most legitimate in my opinion. What matters I think is a mutual understsnding and expression of the commitment... whatever that may be. I know many people in long-term common law unions--replete with kids and mortgages, etc--that are just as stable as their solid married peers. And of course conversely many marriages that are as rocky as their equivalent dysfunctional commom-law counterparts. In fact, I think I'd be hard pressed to tell who's married or not without explicitly knowing!

 

Im probably a case in point... but in a slightly different way. I'm single... but I'm married. My xH and I have been separated for many years. Once the required six-months separation had elapsed, we legally disolved all our joint entanglements and divvied up assets 50/50 and filed all the appropriate orders to be deemed legally as separate entities. Our child was no longer a minor so custody wasn't an issue.

 

When a year had lapsed, we looked at the final step; divorce. What we found was that it only purpose filing would serve would be to free us up to remarry. Since neither of us were looking to do that at the time, it seemed like a monumental waste of time and money! We decided to put that off until necessary. We'll file jointly when/if one of us decides to marry.

 

So here we are.... ostensibly single, but technically married! And it makes no difference to the way we relate or live our lives. We make those choices; our actions define our relationship not its legal status. And I think that's true of all relationships.

 

Marriage, just like any type of commitment is a choice and its meaning is what the two people involved decide it will be. But that understanding needs to be shared.

[xxoo]

 

How would getting married make me make more money? My career is maxed out and I have no desire to level up. I'm happy with the $145K/year I make. My salary would have increased at the same rate it did, whether or not I was married, because it was based on my effort alone that I put in at work.

 

You've stated that you don't have kids.

 

But you might have found it a lot harder to rise to your level at work if you had kids and did not have a primary parent to depend upon. It's a lot harder to build that career when you're needing to take sick days for sick kids, be at carpool, be home for homework and taking kids to sporting events, etc. You'd probably be working much, much harder and still not be as productive at work.

 

The reality is that many high earning parents are depending on another parent to prioritize the kids' needs.

[MJJean]

I take from the bulk of posts here that most of you live in places where marriage affords greater legal protections than other types of unions. Where I live that is not the case. Here, once you have cohabited with a partner for a certain period of time the relationship becomes subject to the same family laws covering assets and children as a marriage. There is legally no difference between a registered or commom-law marriage. I think this makes a difference.

 

In the U.S., the law, corporate policies, and federal and state governments still favor married people over couples who are unmarried.

 

Only 14 states still recognize Common Law marriages and most of those only recognize ones under very specific circumstances and if the couple met those conditions before a certain year.

 

So, yes, it is very different legally. That is one of the reasons homosexuals and their allies fought for the right to marry. Civil Partnerships or Civil Unions could provide some legal benefits and protections, but not nearly as many as marriage. And they weren't recognized by other states that did not allow them nor were they entirely recognized by the federal government.

 

Not to mention that we are a majority Christian nation and we also have a lot of people that are not Christian, but are conservative in their views. This seems to be especially true among immigrants from Asia, India, and the Middle East. These people still see marriage as the ideal, the true commitment, and anything else as less.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Yes, not every woman is out to annihilate a man emotionally and financially through divorce. Not every lottery ticket is a loser either. Doesn't make playing the lottery a viable way to manage your financial security.

 

So are you saying that the chances of a woman annihilating a man financially and emotionally through divorce are about the same as winning the lottery? :bunny: I agree with that! Of course it happens but it doesn't represent "the state of marriage" or even the state of divorce for that matter.

 

In my state the higher earning partner is going to pay alimony, if anybody is.

[Woggle]

Not to disrespect those who place value on marriage but what really matters is your commitment and devotion to the other person and not a piece of paper. Marriage is just a formality.

[dreamingoftigers]

Not to disrespect those who place value on marriage but what really matters is your commitment and devotion to the other person and not a piece of paper. Marriage is just a formality.

 

In a sense, it is if YOU BELIEVE it is.

 

Personally I just couldn't invest in someone emotionally or financially as much if we weren't married.

 

That, and frankly, I'd lose my church membership if I insisted on co-habitation. I don't "blame the church" for that. I knew what I signed up for when I became a member. I just personally feel pretty "usery" about cohabitation. And on more than one occasion I've have seen men use it as an excuse to cheat "we're not married."

[Mr. Lucky]

Not every partner who stays at home is taking care of three children.

 

You're being disingenuous. Absent wealth, child care is far and away the primary reason a spouse exits the work force in what would otherwise be prime earning years.

 

A marriage is not a commitment. People end marriages and get multiple marriages. People are also not punished in any way for adultery. Marriage is simply a financial contract. It is not a commitment.

 

Simple question - in general terms, do you believe both partners should exit a marriage with a roughly equal share of the marital assets ?

 

Mr. Lucky