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.
So what? Whether that statement is true or not (seems to be a myth per SD2020's link), it does not mean that when/if you marry your own marriage automatically has a 50% chance of ending in divorce.
I think that statistic is worthless...and parroted by certain groups in an attempt to further their agenda.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. The same applies to same sex marriages or those who divorce. It has no bearing on my marriage. None at all.
For most of my life I was basically anti-marriage, for me. It was a personal belief, I had no desire to promote a marriage free agenda, I could care less if others agreed, and I could care less if other's got married.
I guess the difference was I wasn't bitter about anything, it was just another decision based upon who I was at the time, and I was not unhappy.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
There's no way around it? How about updating the sexist divorce laws that give women incentive to leave with cash and prizes?
Egh I don't see how the divorce laws are sexist as it seems they generally stipulate the lower earning partner gets the 'cash and prizes' so it's not a gender sexist bit in my opinion.
I agree, they don't marry with that intention, they divorce with that intention...but that's sort of the point. Not overly surprised you missed it.
You want to see the divorce rate drop? Make it so that when a no-fault divorce is initiated, the filing party leaves with NOTHING except child support, where applicable.
All of the sudden you'd have a bunch of women who suddenly have the fortitude to stick it out.
I don't think it's a gender thing. My ex divorced me and tried to take money that he legally couldn't touch. Got a laugh out of that when his own lawyer said he couldn't touch pre-martial assets (all that retirement money I saved since I graduated college and got my first job). He didn't start saving until we married and I set up an IRA for him. He was miffed because there were A LOT more of those than martial assets (which is what you split--and what he spent down to nothing right before he told me he was leaving). He did leave me with a lot of debt though (we also got to split the marital debts and he had a fistful of secret credit cards all maxed out).
For the record though, I was the filing party. He left, starting living with his lover and partying it up and I wanted to buy a house. I wanted to be 100% sure that house would be mine and he wouldn't try to claim it as another "marital asset" after what he tried with my retirement fund. So I filed and made sure the divorce was finalized before I bought. Plus, like I said, he was partying it up--get got so drunk he passed out on a city street--guess who he called for help after the police. Last thing I needed was his drunk butt getting into a DUI and killing someone and me getting sued as his spouse. Of course, I also wanted to be able to move on with my life. So I filed.
To be fair to him, he's cleaned up his life. His new lover is much better and (actually) reminds me a lot of myself if I were a man. I even get along great with his new lover (we watch the same shows on History channel and are both a couple of Doctor Who nerds).
Anyway, I could have gotten alimony. $50 a month for 6.5 years (we were married 13 years and he made $120k a year at the time of divorce and I made $85k at the time of divorce--that $50 was some kind of formula for income and such. In my state, it's gender neutral though). I didn't want it. I wanted nothing from him but for him to no longer be my husband.
I am better off financially though. He is and he can't figure it out. Suddenly when he left he has a lot less money. I think he figured he was spending half and I was spending half. The truth of the matter was he spent money like crazy and still does. He and his lover make close to what we made as a married couple. As for me, I make a lot less (I am up to $90k a year now thanks to a raise) but I have so much more spending money and extra cash that I never had when married that it's crazy. Now that the debt is gone, I am saving (total) close to $2000 a month (including what my employer matches for my 401k).
Egh I don't see how the divorce laws are sexist as it seems they generally stipulate the lower earning partner gets the 'cash and prizes' so it's not a gender sexist bit in my opinion.
Nothing sexist about it. It is more about equitable division. I do take issue with future support or an expectation that either are entitled to a standard previously held without contributing to that end.
In my divorce I assumed most of the debts, I also kept more of the assets.
I agree, they don't marry with that intention, they divorce with that intention...but that's sort of the point. Not overly surprised you missed it.
You want to see the divorce rate drop? Make it so that when a no-fault divorce is initiated, the filing party leaves with NOTHING except child support, where applicable.
All of the sudden you'd have a bunch of women who suddenly have the fortitude to stick it out.
I don't think it's a gender thing. My ex divorced me and tried to take money that he legally couldn't touch. Got a laugh out of that when his own lawyer said he couldn't touch pre-martial assets (all that retirement money I saved since I graduated college and got my first job). He didn't start saving until we married and I set up an IRA for him. He was miffed because there were A LOT more of those than martial assets (which is what you split--and what he spent down to nothing right before he told me he was leaving). He did leave me with a lot of debt though (we also got to split the marital debts and he had a fistful of secret credit cards all maxed out).
For the record though, I was the filing party. He left, starting living with his lover and partying it up and I wanted to buy a house. I wanted to be 100% sure that house would be mine and he wouldn't try to claim it as another "marital asset" after what he tried with my retirement fund. So I filed and made sure the divorce was finalized before I bought. Plus, like I said, he was partying it up--get got so drunk he passed out on a city street--guess who he called for help after the police. Last thing I needed was his drunk butt getting into a DUI and killing someone and me getting sued as his spouse. Of course, I also wanted to be able to move on with my life. So I filed.
To be fair to him, he's cleaned up his life. His new lover is much better and (actually) reminds me a lot of myself if I were a man. I even get along great with his new lover (we watch the same shows on History channel and are both a couple of Doctor Who nerds).
Anyway, I could have gotten alimony. $50 a month for 6.5 years (we were married 13 years and he made $120k a year at the time of divorce and I made $85k at the time of divorce--that $50 was some kind of formula for income and such. In my state, it's gender neutral though. It's whoever earns more. If he left me just a few years earlier when he was still in the military, I would have had to pay him as I earned more than he did then). But I didn't want it. I wanted nothing from him but for him to no longer be my husband.
I am better off financially though. He is and he can't figure it out. Suddenly when he left he has a lot less money. I think he figured he was spending half and I was spending half. The truth of the matter was he spent money like crazy and still does. He and his lover make close to what we made as a married couple. As for me, I make a lot less (I am up to $90k a year now thanks to a raise) but I have so much more spending money and extra cash that I never had when married that it's crazy. Now that the debt is gone, I am saving (total) close to $2000 a month (including what my employer matches for my 401k).
I don't think you have a very firm grasp of statistics. If you flip a coin 49 times and it's heads every time, what is the chance the 50th flip will come up tails?
I'll wait. I'm a single loser anyway who is dusting my comic book collection in my mom's basement as we speak, so I really don't have anything better to do.
To put it in basic terms... the statics came from a math error a journalist made and it was repeated over and over. The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate.
In 2003, for example there were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But to say 50% of marriages ended in divorce is wrong because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying (and it's not including all the other thousands of couples who married in previous years).
So for example. In a certain town there are 5000 married couples. 100 new couples get married that year and 50 other couples divorce. The conclusion was there was a 50% divorce rate that year. But 50% of the couples married didn't get divorced... see where the error was made?
I agree, they don't marry with that intention, they divorce with that intention...but that's sort of the point. Not overly surprised you missed it.
You want to see the divorce rate drop? Make it so that when a no-fault divorce is initiated, the filing party leaves with NOTHING except child support, where applicable.
All of the sudden you'd have a bunch of women who suddenly have the fortitude to stick it out.
Nominal child support at that, not the 25% of net income that it is today. If the NCP makes good money "child support" can be enough to support the kid, her and her new boyfriend and thats not what its for. I have seen $1200/month child support paid out. Im sorry to say but if a woman cant suck it up and make things work for the kid then its not going to be private schools and expensive activities anymore, thats life.
To put it in basic terms... the statics came from a math error a journalist made and it was repeated over and over. The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate.
In 2003, for example there were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But to say 50% of marriages ended in divorce is wrong because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying (and it's not including all the other thousands of couples who married in previous years).
So for example. In a certain town there are 5000 married couples. 100 new couples get married that year and 50 other couples divorce. The conclusion was there was a 50% divorce rate that year. But 50% of the couples married didn't get divorced... see where the error was made?
The only way it could be accurate is if you took it back to the average life expectancy in time so if you took it back to the 1930's or 40's and averaged from there it would be accurate. Even if its not 50% its certianly not low.
The only way it could be accurate is if you took it back to the average life expectancy in time so if you took it back to the 1930's or 40's and averaged from there it would be accurate. Even if its not 50% its certianly not low.
Oh, I was using those numbers for a clear example and just as an example. I would have to say divorce is higher than in the 30s (not the 40s though... that's pretty clear)(Robert Hughes: What is the real divorce rate in the US?). It's going down though. We are back to about 1960-65 levels.
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.
