Afraid of marriage/divorce - 21 y/o

The Corinthian

captainpants23 wrote: »

lazygal and The Corinthian have given me some of the possible, debatable benefits of being married, NOT reasons to get married.

If you are confident that the person you're with is going to be a life-long partnership, then marriage makes sense in so far as it simplifies many social, legal and financial matters - that is, if you're going to be a life-long partnership, then marriage makes no difference other than making life easier for you both, socially, financially and legally.

Of course, one can also argue that given the risks, are those advantages really worth it? But, in fairness, everyone has their own threshold before they would - I'd have a particularly high one, which is why I've never married (although at this stage it wouldn't make much difference either way, I suspect), while others have quite low ones (I recently reconnected with an old friend who finally married in 2008, and separated in 2010).

Ultimately, that's another discussion, TBH.

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

I guess I must have insulted someone here.. nothing I can say seems to be the right thing *shrugs*

No really, who are these others you spoke of? All these people with bad experiences in this thread?

captainpants23

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you are confident that the person you're with is going to be a life-long partnership......

No-one can be confident that the person they are madly in love with today, will not turn their stomach in ten years time. And with the deck so totally stacked against men in family law in this country for the foreseeable future, a man would have to a hopelessly deluded optomist to be signing a legal contract with such potentially ruinous implications.

The Corinthian

captainpants23 wrote: »

Avoiding the cost of an engagement ring, a wedding, a mortgage, 18+ years of continual child-related expense per child, more than makes up for any piddling tax saving. And thats before you factor in the financially-ruinous potential divorce.

Calm down. You're getting a wee bit excitable...

An engagement ring and a wedding are not technically required for a wedding. Sure, your bride to be could demand it, but if that's the case then that's the reason you shouldn't marry her, not the cost of the ring or wedding.

18+ years of continual child-related expense per child are the same, regardless of whether you're married or not, or (for that matter) were even in any kind of relationship with the mother, let alone a committed one.

Finally, as for factoring the financially-ruinous potential divorce... OK, I don't really have a comeback to that.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

An engagement ring and a wedding are not technically required for a wedding. Sure, your bride to be could demand it, but if that's the case then that's the reason you shouldn't marry her, not the cost of the ring or wedding.

I'm afraid the choice would be vastly decreased if one used these criteria, in Ireland anyway.

captainpants23

The Corinthian wrote: »

Calm down. You're getting a wee bit excitable...

An engagement ring and a wedding are not technically required for a wedding. Sure, your bride to be could demand it, but if that's the case then that's the reason you shouldn't marry her, not the cost of the ring or wedding.

18+ years of continual child-related expense per child are the same, regardless of whether you're married or not, or (for that matter) were even in any kind of relationship with the mother, let alone a committed one.

Finally, as for factoring the financially-ruinous potential divorce... OK, I don't really have a comeback to that.

Just because it is technically, theoretically possible to avoid the marriage-related costs I listed, doesn't mean that it is very probable you will avoid these costs in a real-life situation. I know very few men who were able to marry on the cheap. I know lots who paid through the nose for the dubious privilege. My view is that if a man consents to the ludricous idea of getting married, he has fatally weakened his bargaining position.

captainpants23

iptba wrote: »

I'm afraid the choice would be vastly decreased if one used these criteria, in Ireland anyway.

Making it abundantly, vociferously clear to women that you are utterly unwilling to spend any money on an engagement ring/fancy white wedding/wailing brats, is a very effective way to avoid long-term commitment.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I'm afraid the choice would be vastly decreased if one used these criteria, in Ireland anyway.

Well, I'm not disagreeing, but that's another discussion.

captainpants23 wrote: »

My view is that if a man consents to the ludricous idea of getting married, he has fatally weakened his bargaining position.

Rather adversarial approach, methinks. My view is, whatever about being careful, if you have to view marriage with someone in such terms, to such an extent, you're probably better off not getting married.

captainpants23

The Corinthian wrote: »

Rather adversarial approach, methinks.......

Well, marriage is a legal contract between two counterparties. An adversarial approach before the contract has been signed is much more useful than any adversarial approach a man could take in Irish Family Court. How many women turn down the guy with the BMW for the guy with the bus-pass? They get the best possible deal they can for themselves. There is no best possible deal for men, just avoiding the wretched legal institution of marriage altogether.

Pawwed Rig

lazygal wrote: »

Extra tax credits.

There is none really unless one of the couple decide to give up work. The extra bit you get in that case will be a fraction of the wage you have given up.

captainpants23

lazygal wrote: »

We ......... wanted to make sure we cemented the relationships.

How many different euphemisms do women have for "making sure the no-good b*st*rd pays, pays, pays if he does a bunk"??

captainpants23

captainpants23 wrote: »

How many different euphemisms do women have for "making sure the no-good b*st*rd pays, pays, pays if he does a bunk"??

Not even a token effort to disguise the misogyny?

lazygal

captainpants23 wrote: »

How many different euphemisms do women have for "making sure the no-good b*st*rd pays, pays, pays if he does a bunk"??

Wow you have a low opinion of men, my husband in particular. I'm not even sure how to respond to that, suffice to say my husband and I have no plans to make sure each other 'pays, pays. pays' for anything. It's a adult relationship based on mutual love, affection, trust and understanding. Not on how much I plan on getting out of him.

I'm actually wondering what's happened to you to give you such a low opinion of both sexes, that makes you view men as idiots who are tricked into marriage and women as bullying harridans who have only monetary interests in mind when they decide to marry.

The Corinthian

I never thought I'd end up defending marriage...

captainpants23 wrote: »

Well, marriage is a legal contract between two counterparties. An adversarial approach before the contract has been signed is much more useful than any adversarial approach a man could take in Irish Family Court.

Look, I understand where you're coming from and completely agree that:

• Marriage (and family law) is especially punitive for men.
• Marriage isn't even necessary to have a life-long relationship and/or family (although as with the cohabitation bill, damned if the Government will let you choose for yourself).
• In practical terms, marriage really doesn't offer a Hell of a lot; social acceptance, some tax credits, cuts out a lot of red tape on things like inheritance, but nothing remotely worth the (average) risk of it failing.

All these things add up into a proposition that understandably has caused many men to avoid or even reject it outright and scream for reform in something that still bizarrely imposes gender roles on men (as a provider) while releasing women from theirs.

However, there are numerous cases where it does make sense. If a couple are together for years, it can simply be a way of eliminating a lot of red tape surrounding inheritance, medical and taxation issues in one stroke. If one can reasonably be assured that it is not going to end, then yes it does make sense to marry (remember, practically all the downside in marriage is in its failure).

So while I would share your views to an extent - I am not married and never have been - I also do feel that there are circumstances in which I might marry in the future (although I sorted out most of the aforementioned red tape a long time ago).

Candie wrote: »

Not even a token effort to disguise the misogyny?

I agree that his views regarding marriage are getting blurred with those on women, but he does make a valid point. Divorce is designed solely so that the shared financial contributions of a marriage continue after the marriage has ended (why this makes sense, I'm not sure), other contributions, such as home making, care or even sex are lost, without recompense. And that even before we get to the gender biases that exist in court.

So with something so starkly gender driven, its understandable that the two topics may become blurred, even if I think it mistaken to do so.

Personally, I'd prefer a reform of the institution myself; to look at whether it even makes sense that we pretend that someone with whom we may be married to for only ten years is entitled to an income for the next fifty or to a share of their spouses assets that may have been earned years before they ever met.

We still seem to treat marriage as a permanent union, even after it's ended. The only contract in existence where either can break it and suffer no penalty for doing so. Does it make sense to continue doing so?

The Corinthian

lazygal wrote: »

Wow you have a low opinion of men, my husband in particular. I'm not even sure how to respond to that, suffice to say my husband and I have no plans to make sure each other 'pays, pays. pays' for anything. It's a adult relationship based on mutual love, affection, trust and understanding. Not on how much I plan on getting out of him.

No one who's happily married ever thinks that way. If you were about to divorce him, your comments might carry more weight, TBH.

Not to say that you would, of course; there's plenty of amicable divorces too.

I'm actually wondering what's happened to you to give you such a low opinion of both sexes, that makes you view men as idiots who are tricked into marriage and women as bullying harridans who have only monetary interests in mind when they decide to marry

.
Back to the "he must have had a bad experience to feel this way" rebuttal, I see.

Maybe he's just a bit pissed that the law and society treat men as little more than workhorses to 'provide' and sacrifice for everyone around us? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if you were so blatantly discriminated against in family law?

lazygal

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one who's happily married ever thinks that way. If you were about to divorce him, your comments might carry more weight, TBH.

Not to say that you would, of course; there's plenty of amicable divorces too.
.
Back to the "he must have had a bad experience to feel this way" rebuttal, I see.

Maybe he's just a bit pissed that the law and society treat men as little more than workhorses to 'provide' and sacrifice for everyone around us? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if you were so blatantly discriminated against in family law?

I don't think that's fair to say at all. Society and the law treat everyone in a particular way, like pregnant women not being allowed to avail of certain treatments for medical conditions and having to take unpaid sick leave due to pregnancy complications. That makes me feel like women aren't really valued at all, sure we have 'brilliant, amazing maternity services' but the surrounding support for pregnant women is non existent. But I don't see that as society and the law treating me as little more than an incubator for children, its the product of a system that really hasn't though through what pregnant women might need. It's not like women don't get a raw deal from society and the law on some points.

captainpants23

Candie calls me a misogynist, lazygal calls me a misandrist. Which is it? I don't hate women any more than they hate each other. Some women I really like and get on with. Usually women who are married already. No pressure, fun to talk to, and laugh knowingly when I give out about marriage. Talking the way I talk about marriage to a married woman is great craic. And a great way of testing if what I am saying is true. As to some personal shock-horror story of being ruined financially and emotionally by some devil-woman, this doesn't exist. I have felt this way about marriage ever since I saw the difference between the reality of marriage and the marketing puff about marriage. It is a pretty stark contrast, if you take the time to spot it.

And a failed marriage can be one that doesn't end in divorce. How many couples who are married for 20+ years still love/like each other? How many couples can't stand each other after the initial glow has passed, but are mature enough see that divorce isn't really a much better option and decide to tough it out for the kids? Marriage is the end of hope and the antithesis of love.

captainpants23

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think that's fair to say at all. Society and the law treat everyone in a particular way, like pregnant women not being allowed to avail of certain treatments for medical conditions and having to take unpaid sick leave due to pregnancy complications. That makes me feel like women aren't really valued at all, sure we have 'brilliant, amazing maternity services' but the surrounding support for pregnant women is non existent. But I don't see that as society and the law treating me as little more than an incubator for children, its the product of a system that really hasn't though through what pregnant women might need. It's not like women don't get a raw deal from society and the law on some points.

I fail to see how countering my argument about the injustice of marriage for men, with an example of injustice and difficulty faced by pregnant women in Ireland, invalidates my argument. If anything, it strengthens my argument against marriage and all that usually goes with marriage.

captainpants23

Candie wrote: »

Not even a token effort to disguise the misogyny?

Why bother?

awec

This post has been deleted.

captainpants23

And lets not forget all the good, sound reasons why women should avoid marriage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi_mSrvy52Q

awec

This post has been deleted.

Playboy

awec wrote: »

Lazy generalisation - no more of these.

If you can't contribute constructively then please don't contribute at all.

Back on topic please everyone!

I think you are being a little unfair here. He didn't say all women behave in a particular way. There is a valid point though that there exists within society today an attitude that is portrayed through the media and socially of women screwing men for every penny he has if he crosses her. Now women taking men to the cleaners in this fashion in Ireland may or may not be reflective of reality but may be in the UK or the USA for example. We have all heard of "a woman scorned" or are familiar with the Eddie Murphy skit from Raw re 'Half'. It does imo seem almost acceptable amongst society, women and the media that if a man cheats or betrays a woman then she is entitled to financial revenge! At least that's how I see it.

Panthro

Playboy,
Please refrain from questioning a Mod decision on thread in future, doing so is against the Charter.
If you do wish to question a Mod decision, please do so via PM in future,
Please and Thank you.

Fukuyama

Why are people always accused of being sexist when discussing the opposite gender in anything other than a positive light? Geeze...

Frankly my opinion on marriage has been cemented in place.

It just doesn't make sense to place ones nut sack on the cutting board and hope the guillotine never drops as some kind of gesture.

Why not just avoid the guillotine and live together or whatnot.

Another good point has been raised also. Divorce rates in Ireland are low but is that because older generations are 'stuck in their ways' or a general stigma? How many marriages are loveless shells, constant battles and passive aggressiveness.

I wouldn't go as far to say love isn't a part of marriage. But when the love is gone you're still left with this legally binding contract. The fine prints a fúcker too... even when you're split payments can still come due.

I honestly don't even know any more. Call me a misogynist I don't care. I know I'm not.

I, however, also know I'm not an idiot. And entering into a contract like that, eyes masked with love or not, is idiotic.

iptba

I think plenty of men across time hadn't decided they would get married.

However, dating can play with one's mind

e.g.

"Pretty women scramble men's ability to assess the future"
http://www.sensualism.com/beauty/pretty-women.html

And generally the individual women who men might marry are pretty to them (different people can have different preferences in this area).

Also, I think men can something akin to being "addicted" to particular women.

So just because somebody thinks they can decide they won't get married, doesn't necessarily mean they won't get married.

The Corinthian

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think that's fair to say at all. Society and the law treat everyone in a particular way, like pregnant women not being allowed to avail of certain treatments for medical conditions and having to take unpaid sick leave due to pregnancy complications.

You're joking, seriously. Have to take unpaid sick leave? Men don't even get unpaid paternity leave, let alone complain that it's not paid!

No one can suggest that women do not suffer discrimination, but to suggest that at this stage it's even in the same ballpark as what men face is frankly offensive.

Playboy wrote: »

It does imo seem almost acceptable amongst society, women and the media that if a man cheats or betrays a woman then she is entitled to financial revenge! At least that's how I see it.

In theory that doesn't work like that in Ireland. In Ireland, we have only what's called no-fault divorce, which means that either party may break the marriage contract without penalty.

This means that the guy who'll cheat on his wife will not be legally punished for the transgression, but it can also mean that a wife may cheat on her husband, have him thrown out of the family home and then have her new lover move in.

I say in theory, because judges do take such transgressions into account. Problem is that this is where the biases kick in - those few men with custody of the children will typically be awarded little or no maintenance for those children, for example. I don't think I've ever spoken to any male custodial parent, who's ever gotten a penny from the mother.

Nonetheless, I do think this discussion is getting a bit too polarized. While I do think that some here are a bit delusional where it comes to marriage, I also think that others are paranoid.

Just as it is ridiculous for a happily married person to use themselves as an example of when marriages fail, it is nonsensical to presume the worst possible case scenario for any hypothetical future spouse they may have.

Both sides of this debate are getting far too emotional about this.

mariaalice

Think about this if marriage brake up/divorce is so awful why do people get married for a second time.

captainpants23

mariaalice wrote: »

Think about this if marriage brake up/divorce is so awful why do people get married for a second time.

Ever watched a compulsive gambler throw money away on successive bad bets? I have. That is the analogy I would use to explain the phenomenon you have raised.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

Think about this if marriage brake up/divorce is so awful why do people get married for a second time.

I don't know. Why do people keep on entering physically abusive relationships?

I suspect that people want to believe in the fairy tail, and perhaps many are luckier and wiser second time round. The only statistic in that regard, that I'm aware of, is that second marriages have a much higher failure rate that first ones.

listermint

Dean0088 wrote: »

Why are people always accused of being sexist when discussing the opposite gender in anything other than a positive light? Geeze...

Frankly my opinion on marriage has been cemented in place.

It just doesn't make sense to place ones nut sack on the cutting board and hope the guillotine never drops as some kind of gesture.

Why not just avoid the guillotine and live together or whatnot.

Another good point has been raised also. Divorce rates in Ireland are low but is that because older generations are 'stuck in their ways' or a general stigma? How many marriages are loveless shells, constant battles and passive aggressiveness.

I wouldn't go as far to say love isn't a part of marriage. But when the love is gone you're still left with this legally binding contract. The fine prints a fúcker too... even when you're split payments can still come due.

I honestly don't even know any more. Call me a misogynist I don't care. I know I'm not.

I, however, also know I'm not an idiot. And entering into a contract like that, eyes masked with love or not, is idiotic.

How many are not loveless shells ? How many are happy and loving and very much family orientated fulfilled existences.

Like you i dont have the stats to hand but wont make ridiculous assumptions all the same.