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.
What we really need to change isn't so much our divorce laws, but our societal habits and core precepts. A more fatalistic and communitarian world-view would, in my view, be preferable in so many ways; not only as regards relationships and jobs, but education, infrastructure, advancement of science and the arts, and overall betterment of the human condition. I don't mean repudiation of private property or collective-farms. But I do mean a system where the taking of risks is incentivized, or dis-incentivized, in a way beyond merely free-market pressures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
So glad I'm happily married when I see people having such discussions. Will never have to worry about this and am not letting fear dictate my life.
I rejoice whenever I hear of happy marriages, and far from biliously envying Dewdrop or regarding her position as somehow spurious or illegitimate, I wish her and her partner a long and happy life together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
In some ways I find his (?) viewpoints interesting, as I believe economics and rational choice theory can explain much of how people act socially, as can biology and animal life history strategies. But there are limits; significant limits to this line of reasoning, and indeed, we have to account for "illogical" choices and adoption of logical fallacies in decision making as well.
I'm convinced that the freedom to choose is often the freedom to blunder. And I agree with Timberline that many of our choices are irrational. For a husband to leave his nagging, aging wife is an irrational choice, a choice driven by hormonal bravado and self-delusion. If he considered rationally his own options, the pros and cons, he would stay and make the marriage work. His chasing after self-interest is in actuality contrary to his self-interest, only he's blinded by hubris. The drawback of freedom isn't necessarily that we'd be free to rationally maximize our own benefits, to the detriment of those of others, but that we'd actually short-change our own selves. This would be fine if the resulting failure only affected us personally. It would be fine if my leaving a good woman would only mean that I'd later be fleeced by some scheming arm-candy, or spent the remainder of my life alone. But there's a counterparty to my misadventure; namely, it was the former partner who was left. Something – some system – needs to protect that counterparty from my deleterious choice.
I think it depends on your circumstances when your in the dating market. If you are marrying someone out of a plethora of choices then there is likely less worry. But if you are forced to settle due to a lack of options then marriage might be a bad idea.
Even if they made the laws gender neutral and the outcomes of divorces were generally gender neutral, people will still get married less and less. People are not naturally monogamous. As long as sex and companionship remain available from a multiple of people, most will not want to settle for just one over the long term. Marriage now has huge disincentives, especially for men. The laws will not change and marriage will become increasingly rare. The birth rate will continue to decline. This is the the trend is most developed societies, so the USA will follow the same path.
I think it depends on your circumstances when your in the dating market. If you are marrying someone out of a plethora of choices then there is likely less worry. But if you are forced to settle due to a lack of options then marriage might be a bad idea.
for me the OP never clarified HOW they would 'reform divorce laws'
it's one of those things that seems abstract when you are on the frontside of it, but once you pass thru the meatgrinder and come out the other side, you'll be like *holy *^@#@# I'm never gonna do THAT again!!!*
The divorce rates runs about 50/50 in California, I suspect we'll see it go 80/20 (for the worse) in our lifetime. It just doesn't make rational sense for a man to get married without a pre-nup.
Even if they made the laws gender neutral and the outcomes of divorces were generally gender neutral, people will still get married less and less. People are not naturally monogamous. As long as sex and companionship remain available from a multiple of people, most will not want to settle for just one over the long term. Marriage now has huge disincentives, especially for men. The laws will not change and marriage will become increasingly rare. The birth rate will continue to decline. This is the the trend is most developed societies, so the USA will follow the same path.
As soon as this fact ceases to be ture then the game changes entirely. When you get thrust back into the dating world and it becomes apparent that those you are interested in are not interested in you thats when life starts to suck.
Yea everyone gets it, no one has a gun to your head but when your options are nil and you cant get no strings sex to save your life thats kinda the last resort if you ever want to have sex again.
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.
