Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read many of your posts. I can understand how some men have the perception of marriage as not being advantageous. I disagree with the use of your word profit though. For average people no one profits, and everyone's standard of living goes down once the couple has two households.
Thank you for reading.
Once again, the problem is NOT marriage. Marriage itself is inherently good for people and society. The problem is easy access to divorce and the devastating effects, which causes people (mostly men) to not want to get married. This gets simplified with the phrase "marriage is bad for men" but it is inaccurate since not all couples divorce.
If people do not profit from divorce, where did the phrase "take HIM to the cleaners" come from? If he is being taken to the cleaners (aka losing), then who is the winner in that situation?
Also, profit is in the eye of the beholder. To some people, being able to stay home and not work IS profiting. I have a cousin who is an average truck driver, really good guy. His ex wife stopped working after the divorce and lives off the child support (2 kids). She lived in the same house (same standard of living), drives a better vehicle, goes on vacations often, and actually has a better quality of life since she lost nothing and gained free time. Is that not profiting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsy84
As far as your statements about breakups being less adversarial when a couple isn't married, that may be true in some cases, but the longer any couple has been together the messier things can get. It certainly doesn't mean legal action can't occur.
It's actually true in most cases. I'll concede things can get messy in one of the nine states where common law marriage statutes can catch someone unexpectedly. But this is the exception, not the norm.
Can you give examples where cohabitation breakups are equal to divorces in a non-common law marriage state simply because people were together a long time?
Anyone sue for anything, but it's less likely for a long, drawn out legal battle to occur if two people cohabitated in a non-common law marriage state. A person's claim would get thrown out faster than a divorce situation would have been resolved, and the legal fees would be greatly reduced.
trust me....there are good men out there....I was lucky to snag one almost 17 years ago!!! they are far and in between but they are there! I wish you the best of luck in finding the man of your dreams.....
I'll answer your questions, but if you notice I'm not really concerned about benefits and disadvantage of marriage. Easy access to divorce and all the downfalls of such is the real problem, and when people speak about marriage not being worth it for men, divorce is the major cause given, 2nd being the "milk for free" crowd.
In the post you quoted, I was clearly talking about the end result when things don't work out. As I said before, marriage is just fine for men as long as it doesn't end in a devastating divorce. Outside of child custody, in a non-married situation, it's much less devastating if the other person wants to leave you, and that person can't profit from splitting up the family.
I get your talking about divorce. Why would divorce be devastating for men? How less devastating in a long term cohabitation if you have jointly acquired property and other assets? How does one person profit from dissolution of assets if both have contributed equally to acquiring assets?
Quote:
Right, and this is no longer guaranteed with easy access to divorce. Without his consent, your hypothetical father's "wealth" can potentially be placed into the hands of, and spent by a person he no longer is on friendly terms with. After the split there is no guarantee the children's inheritance won't be wasted. That potential issue is a strike against getting married vs. cohabitating and having an undisturbed, direct line to giving his children their inheritance.
If your alluding to the ex-wife spending a childs inheritance, normally inheritance can be put in trust until a child is 18 or 21. I agree marriage is not as important for legitimacy anymore as the law requires the collection of child support and allows for inheritance without a legal marriage.
Quote:
I didn't say divorce was ONLY devastating for men. I said not getting married is more beneficial for men, and getting married is more beneficial for women. Note the word "more" vs "only".
That being said, with kids in the picture, the woman has a better shot of receiving an income transfer since she is statistically more likely to keep the kids and hence the house. Also, women in general marry up, so even if she is contributing, it's not necessarily equal. That's not women's fault, that's men's consequence for marrying down. That tradition seems to be changing toward a marriage of equals and I'm happy about that.
You said divorce was devastating for men. How is it devastating?
Yes the custodial parent receives some support for the children. This is true with or without marriage. Its not devastating, it is helping to support your children. Most property is split 50/50, often the custodial parent stays in the house. That does not mean its free and clear. The mortgage is paid by the one keeping the house or ½ of the equity is reimbursed to the other party. Most smart people marry those on an equal financial and educational level. Are you trying to say men are devastated due to paying alimony? These days alimony is almost a moot point.
You still have not explained how men are at a disadvantage in divorce. Both parties stand to lose assets, both parties lose income. Basically both are starting over with less than they had before.
Quote:
There is a world of difference. Dealing with child custody is devastating enough and yes it is similar in both married and non-married breakups. But, to add additional financial / legal issues to the pie only makes it worse and creates a more adversarial situation in a breakup that doesn't exist for non-married couples. I don't see how separation of assets and debt are a factor in non-married couples. Since there's no marriage license, those issues are resolved personally, or at least outside of "family court".
Division of assets will still be settled by a court if there are disagreements, just like in a divorce. Even with a marriage license, a couple can resolve division of assets personally if they choose to do so. If children are involved the same financial/legal issues are dealt with by family court.
Quote:
Predictability that it wouldn't end on a whim and losing your kids, home, assets. After the devastation, being forced to pay monthly for that other person's decision, even if that person was a cheater or caused the demise on their own.
The incentives men had back then are the same they have today that people on this forum always list as benefits for marriage. The difference is the big cliff at the end, which they can be pushed off at any time.
I assume the short direct answer is no fault divorce. Men have always been susceptible to losing their kids, etc. in divorce. Actually men have it better now. There is more chance for men to get full or shared custody now, with women working CS is calculated on both incomes so often is less than before and the home and assets were paid for jointly, so men shouldn’t feel like the 50% his ex-wife gets was actually paid for by him.
No fault allows both parties to end a bad marriage without having to spend a fortune on PIs and attorneys proving infidelity, abuse or addiction. It prevents people from being financially forced to stay in devastating living situations.
Once again, the problem is NOT marriage. Marriage itself is inherently good for people and society. The problem is easy access to divorce and the devastating effects, which causes people (mostly men) to not want to get married.
Easy divorce is ESSENTIAL for women's survival and well-being. Women are at the power disadvantage in marriage, so they need an escape hatch. Women shouldn't be held prisoner to a bad marriage or a violent, alcoholic husband (this was common in earlier eras), a pedophile or other unhappy or abusive situations. Men, also, shouldn't be chained to a marriage gone awry or an abusive spouse. The fact that easy divorce has lead some people to take marriage less seriously is a small price to pay for women's and children's safety.
I get your talking about divorce. Why would divorce be devastating for men?
Divorces can also devastate women if she is the breadwinner and he is the primary caregiver, but that is less likely as more men marry down than women. Also, less women are likely to marry a man who will stay at home and care for the children.
Women usually file and usually win in the areas that matter most. (Getting the house, the most time with the children, and income transfers).
Divorced men (not all, in general) lose daily life with their kids since the mother is more likely to obtain custody after divorce, plus lose their home since the kids live in it, losing half of their other assets and retirement, pay his and her attorney fees for the process, and pay a monthly stipend for that luxury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
How less devastating in a long term cohabitation if you have jointly acquired property and other assets?
Because in this scenario the parties are subject to contract law, not the whims of a family court judge. Contract law would require the parties to split the assets based on the contract they signed obtaining those assets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
How does one person profit from dissolution of assets if both have contributed equally to acquiring assets?
You're assuming they contributed equally. That is not the norm in the many divorcees I've had as clients. Usually it's lopsided in one way or another. Sometimes who pays the most or all changes with job losses, new children, etc. Sometimes one party bought the asset on their own (especially houses and retirement accounts) but it was considered joint due being married. I know the law sees that as "contributing equally" but that's not reality. It's unfair to kick someone out of the house they bought using their credit and paid the entire mortgage for.
My solution is to distribute the shares of profit based on the contributions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
If your alluding to the ex-wife spending a childs inheritance, normally inheritance can be put in trust until a child is 18 or 21. I agree marriage is not as important for legitimacy anymore as the law requires the collection of child support and allows for inheritance without a legal marriage.
I agree with using a trust. This is not the norm, unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You said divorce was devastating for men. How is it devastating?
Asked and answered above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Yes the custodial parent receives some support for the children. This is true with or without marriage. Its not devastating, it is helping to support your children.
Not my children, I have the privilege of enjoying my child at home everyday, and thus do not have to pay child support. More men should take that approach and probably would if it were offered upfront. I am fine with child support if a parent turns down equal custody. I am against people running to the courts as a way to "punish" others. I see this too often.
Child support is not always used to support the child. Many times it is used to subsidize the lifestyle of the custodial parent. I have seen this countless times, at various levels of the income and class scale. I've run the numbers, and enjoying my child at home everyday costs much less than the percentage the state would require if I were a non-custodial parent paying child support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Most property is split 50/50, often the custodial parent stays in the house. That does not mean its free and clear. The mortgage is paid by the one keeping the house or ½ of the equity is reimbursed to the other party.
Not always. I read a lot of divorce decrees in my business and I've seen many wives awarded ownership of the house, while the husband was required to pay the mortgage while living elsewhere. Sometimes they are awarded 1/2 of the equity, but not always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Most smart people marry those on an equal financial and educational level. Are you trying to say men are devastated due to paying alimony? These days alimony is almost a moot point.
Asked and answered above. I am not referring to alimony since most men don't pay it, even though that is included as "devastation" in situations where it is paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You still have not explained how men are at a disadvantage in divorce. Both parties stand to lose assets, both parties lose income. Basically both are starting over with less than they had before.
Asked and answered above. Both do not lose equally. Both do not lose the house. If one person earned the assets and the other earned nothing because they spent their income on themselves, or didn't work and stayed at home, they cannot lose if they started with zero. You are speaking on situations where people split up and go their separate ways. That is not the case with shared homes that only one party can obtain, and shared children that one person usually obtains primary custody for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Division of assets will still be settled by a court if there are disagreements, just like in a divorce.
Civil court, not family court, with more equitable and predictable rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Even with a marriage license, a couple can resolve division of assets personally if they choose to do so. If children are involved the same financial/legal issues are dealt with by family court.
Yes they can, but most people in divorce situations aren't mature enough to do this. Family court is part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I assume the short direct answer is no fault divorce.
Yep, that's the problem. If one wants to break their committment with a no-fault divorce, they should be required to leave with nothing but what they came into the marriage with. Kids should be 50/50 custody unless one of the parents turns it down. There is no fault, so neither party should profit or be punished. (Profit equals financial or more time with the kids, as that is worth more than money to many like me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Men have always been susceptible to losing their kids, etc. in divorce.
No, that is not true. Actually, in the past men received the kids. I don't want to go back to that either, I want true equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Actually men have it better now. There is more chance for men to get full or shared custody now,
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
with women working CS is calculated on both incomes so often is less than before and the home and assets were paid for jointly, so men shouldn’t feel like the 50% his ex-wife gets was actually paid for by him.
Yes, they have it better but it's still not good enough. 50/50 custody with no money transfers should be the goal. It is better for society and not being in a single mother-only household is statistically better for the children.
You're assuming on the home and assets. I explained above how I've seen many lopsided and even zero contributions. Jointly doesn't necessarily mean equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
No fault allows both parties to end a bad marriage without having to spend a fortune on PIs and attorneys proving infidelity, abuse or addiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
It prevents people from being financially forced to stay in devastating living situations.
I'm not trying to get rid of no-fault, I simply want to remove the profit motive (kids+money) that encourages it. See above for my solutions to make no-fault better.
Easy divorce is ESSENTIAL for women's survival and well-being. Women are at the power disadvantage in marriage, so they need an escape hatch. Women shouldn't be held prisoner to a bad marriage or a violent, alcoholic husband (this was common in earlier eras), a pedophile or other unhappy or abusive situations. Men, also, shouldn't be chained to a marriage gone awry or an abusive spouse. The fact that easy divorce has lead some people to take marriage less seriously is a small price to pay for women's and children's safety.
I fully agree that women shouldn't be held prisoner to a bad marriage. But how are women at a power disadvantage? Is there some law that i am unaware of forcing women into marriage? Last i checked, women and men both enter marriage of their own will and choosing.
Easy divorce is ESSENTIAL for women's survival and well-being. Women are at the power disadvantage in marriage, so they need an escape hatch. Women shouldn't be held prisoner to a bad marriage or a violent, alcoholic husband (this was common in earlier eras), a pedophile or other unhappy or abusive situations. Men, also, shouldn't be chained to a marriage gone awry or an abusive spouse. The fact that easy divorce has lead some people to take marriage less seriously is a small price to pay for women's and children's safety.
I'm not trying to lock anyone into a marriage they don't want to be in or are getting abused. In fact, you're speaking about FAULT divorce, I was speaking about NO FAULT divorce. Here's my solution that preserves your easy access yet makes the situation more fair to all sides:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
If one wants to break their committment with a no-fault divorce, they should be required to leave with nothing but what they came into the marriage with. Kids should be 50/50 custody unless one of the parents turns it down. There is no fault, so neither party should profit or be punished. (Profit equals financial or more time with the kids, as that is worth more than money to many like me).
I think marriage is a really unattractive proposition for men in today's society. Why? Because marriage has so little to offer men now. Once upon a time having a wife meant having someone to care for your children while at work, someone to clean, someone to cook, someone to encourage you, someone to have sex with, basically someone to help you out and make life more enjoyable and easy. But now, wives aren't really helpers, they're quite the opposite.
You haven't even mentioned the financial consequences of likely-divorce.
What financial advisor would recommend a contract where, based on emotions going south, you could end up forking over monthly cash without being in the contracted relationship anymore?
of course this goes both ways, but with men still earning more than women on average, it mostly falls on them.
In reference to who spends most of the consumer money and why divorced (and ripped off) men almost always do so much better after divorce.
TATISTICSWomen account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:
91% of New Homes
66% PCs
92% Vacations
80% Healthcare
65% New Cars
89% Bank Accounts
93% Food
93 % OTC PharmaceuticalsAmerican women spend about $5 trillion annually…
Over half the U.S. GDP
And how much of that money is theirs not their husbands. Women for the most part always want tp spend and get new things. That is why women probably buy more things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
