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.
Isn't it better, monetarily, for a man to remain married? What do divorced men who were previously in a residential setting do? My hunch is that they would go live in an apartment complex and write a support check, which is probably larger than it needs to be, and get a second bedroom with futons for their joint custody visits. I think that the economics are better when you raise kids under one roof, no? I think that simply visualizing the potential outcome like the one I've described is enough to keep a lot of men single or a lot of them running to the doctor for a vasectomy. It's a sad situation, where people may want to procreate, but have to factor in the high probability of divorce. Then, there's the societal AND religious guilt trip that you should get married and have children. We really live in some effed-up times.
It's better monetarily and in terms of a man's right to be a father.
I stayed for the better part of 19 years--for my kids. They were angry with me when I finally walked out--with them. But within ten years, maybe less, when they were older and wiser they both told me they're glad I did it, that they only wanted us to stay together for selfish reasons. All I managed to do was teach them how to stay in a miserable relationship. They learned well I'm sad to say. Now they say they wish I'd done it sooner. But I was too sucked into that 'stay for the kids' bs.
I'm glad to hear this can work out because I feel very guilty about ending my 14-yr marriage and creating major upheavals in my kids lives.
Actually, the problem is in the word "marriage" which is basically a LEGAL union, not a relationship commitment alone. The marriage can and will last until the contract is dissolved regardless whether the parties even like each other, nevermind whether there are children, common interests, or if they live separate and apart. In fact, I know one couple where the "husband" is still legally married to a woman he has not lived with in over 20 years. She refuses to grant him a divorce and he doesn't "need" to be divorced. They manage their finances separately, their son is an adult and hasn't lived with either of them in almost 10 years.
So in that case, did the marriage last? Legally yup, over 30 years--in reality it was over 20 years ago.
I did the legal document (contract) thing once but I have no reason to have the government interfere in or sanction my relationship this time around.
What you are describing is "Co-habitation" A marriage is supposed to be so much more. Believe me, the kids know if you are not happy.and you're teaching them very low expectations for what should be a mutually caring, loving & affectionate relationship.
Of course it can, though who would want to stay in a loveless marriage? My parents were married for 42 years until my mother finally left. They stayed married "for the children." They barely exchanged a word between them for years. Who wants to live like that? It was painful enough witnessing it!
Isn't it better, monetarily, for a man to remain married? What do divorced men who were previously in a residential setting do? My hunch is that they would go live in an apartment complex and write a support check, which is probably larger than it needs to be, and get a second bedroom with futons for their joint custody visits. I think that the economics are better when you raise kids under one roof, no? I think that simply visualizing the potential outcome like the one I've described is enough to keep a lot of men single or a lot of them running to the doctor for a vasectomy. It's a sad situation, where people may want to procreate, but have to factor in the high probability of divorce. Then, there's the societal AND religious guilt trip that you should get married and have children. We really live in some effed-up times.
Not necessarily. The law and divorce decree will determine that financial support. The longer the marriage is will usually provide a larger spouse alimony if the H has more wealth / income. It also depends on how money is managed in the marriage. Who is spending more, who is accumulating more debt in the name of both person's credit? The financial aspect is just one factor of the equation. A man who has self-confidence would likely see it as he has the means to financially support the decision.
Seriously, mutual agreements and different cultures which are accustomed to this do not count. When you enter a marriage for love, you expect better.
Sure one has expectations. However, the other person also have his/her own expectations. The question is, do both people have the ability to "unsaid" those expectations and have the skills to find compromise?
I think those unsaid expectations are not brought by in "young and inexperienced" couple in order to avoid conflict to the "infatuation, in love feelings." That's where "love is blind" stems from, the ability of one who's in love to "not see" or not deal with possible issues and conflicts, and enters into a marriage full of unsaid expectations.
It can work, it happens all the time. I just wouldn't want to be involved in it.
Pretty much sums it up for me too
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.
