Marraige questions

HeadPig

Pros:
- Good environment for bringing up children.
- Tax incentive.
- Possibility of "moving up" the "social ladder" depending who you marry.
- Some people enjoy the feeling of security.

Cons:
- Investing your entire adult life in another individual
- As a man, if you marry a woman your age, her looks will decline while your status only increases through beter earnings as you age. This creates an imbalance which could lead to unhappiness.
- Lost opportunities for having sex with many other women.
- Monogamy is unnatural for humans.
- If your partner becomes unwell you will have to reinvest all your time caring for her.
- Stress.


Before I get flamed, my pros and cons are my opinion and I'm quite entitled to voice that opinion.

iptba

HeadPig wrote: »

Cons:
If your partner becomes unwell you will have to reinvest all your time caring for her.

This is an interesting one I think. A lot of partners do become ill* incl. plenty long before old age. Wedding vows can include "in sickness and in health". Some people will stay around indefinitely but many will bail out eventually.

Another one that comes to mind is "for richer, for poorer"/similar. This can be related to ill-health e.g. some becomes unable to work or work full-time, affecting their earning capacity. Or it can be separate. Again, some will stay but many others won't.

It's frustrating for me that some people can break such vows without sanction. Although I'm not sure what can be done.

*as opposed to dying suddenly

Pawwed Rig

They are religious vows so are therefore unenforceable in a secular country

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are religious vows so are therefore unenforceable in a secular country

That may be so. But you do say them/"swear them" in front of other people and some people respect them much more than other people.

Pawwed Rig

That is true but short of an inquisition I don't see how you can force the issue. Most will make these vows in good faith at the time but life happens unfortunately

Peregrinus

HeadPig wrote: »

. . . Before I get flamed, my pros and cons are my opinion and I'm quite entitled to voice that opinion.

But nobody's ever had the right to express their opinions without being flamed for it. We, after all, have an entitlement to express our opinions about your opinions.

Bottom line: if you don't want your opinions commented on, it's probably a bad idea to post them to a discussion board.

Peregrinus

iptba wrote: »

This is an interesting one I think. A lot of partners do become ill* incl. plenty long before old age. Wedding vows can include "in sickness and in health". Some people will stay around indefinitely but many will bail out eventually.

Another one that comes to mind is "for richer, for poorer"/similar. This can be related to ill-health e.g. some becomes unable to work or work full-time, affecting their earning capacity. Or it can be separate. Again, some will stay but many others won't.

It's frustrating for me that some people can break such vows without sanction. Although I'm not sure what can be done.

You can’t break them without sanction. It’s precisely because you have made irrevocable promises of mutual support, etc, that your assets and income are up for grabs if the relationship breaks down.

iptba

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can’t break them without sanction. It’s precisely because you have made irrevocable promises of mutual support, etc, that your assets and income are up for grabs if the relationship breaks down.

Don't know. This would mainly seem to apply as a sanction to the person who contributed/brought in a bigger percentage of the assets and income.

Peregrinus

iptba wrote: »

Don't know. This would only seem to apply as a sanction to the person who contributed/brought in a bigger percentage of the assets and income.

Well, the question of who has the bigger income can of course change over the course of the marriage.

The point is, once you marry your assets and income are in play, should the relationship break down. You won't find out how that affects you in concrete terms unless and until it does break down. But I think you could make the case that the loss of control over (and privacy relating to) your assets and income that you suffer on marriage breakdown can be seen as a sanction for breaking the commitment you made.

But the problem with this analysis, I cheerfully concede, is is that this loss of control and privacy affects both parties, regardless of which (if either)of them has actually reneged on commitments made.

I think the real position is that the commitments that you make on marriage are either not the kinds of commitments that can be legally enforced (e.g. promises to love and honour someone) or they are commitments whose effect is mainly felt while the marriage is continuing (e.g. mutual support). The "sanction" for bailing on your marriage is that you can't entirely walk away from the commitments you made, because the commitment of support can be (and will be) enforced against you, at least financially. But being held, or partly held, to the commitment you freely made, isn't normally something we see as a punishment. If I make a bet with you and lose it, do you consider my payment of the bet a "sanction"? No, me neither.

iptba

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "sanction" for bailing on your marriage is that you can't entirely walk away from the commitments you made, because the commitment of support can be (and will be) enforced against you, at least financially. But being held, or partly held, to the commitment you freely made, isn't normally something we see as a punishment. If I make a bet with you and lose it, do you consider my payment of the bet a "sanction"? No, me neither.

The last part seems to assume everyone pays a sanction. An example I'm thinking of might be where a husband having contributed years financially becomes unemployed or unwell, with a wife who hasn't worked outside the home for years, or doesn't earn much, so that when they split, she isn't expected to support him financially.

---

One of the things that got me interested in this was this sort of angle:

http://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

The possibility of losing your job is bad enough. But for men, unemployment status can also make it more likely their wives will divorce them, a new study finds.

Whether or not a woman had a job, however, had no effect on the likelihood that her husband would decide to leave the marriage, the researchers said.

The findings reveal that despite more women entering the workplace, the pressure on husbands to be breadwinners largely remains, according to researchers at Ohio State University.

Peregrinus

iptba wrote: »

The last part seems to assume everyone pays a sanction. An example I'm thinking of might be where a husband having contributed years financially becomes unemployed or unwell, with a wife who hasn't worked outside the home for years, or doesn't earn much, so that when they split, she isn't expected to support him financially.

She may be, depending on the circumstances. But, I agree, the system is a bit rough-and-ready, and tends to focus on what people do actually earn, rather than on what they could probably earn. You can't meaningfully order someone to make a payment out of money that they don't have, even if you think they ought to have it.

But I have seen instances a bit like the one you describe, where the bulk of the capital assets are allocated to the invalided spouse, on the basis that the healthy spouse is in a better position to earn in the future, even if she isn't earning at present.

But, I stress, these aren't really sanctions, because they are not in any way related to the question of fault. Whether you will get assets and/or maintenance awarded to you depends on a number of factors, but it doesn not depend on whether you, or your spouse, is judged to be at "fault" in the breakdown of the marriage. So the fact that your earnings/assets are "in play" on the breakdown of the marriage is not so much a sanction for your part in the breakdown of the marriage as the consequence of your having married in the first place. Or, to put it more simply, your assets are in play not because you cheated on your spouse, but because you undertook to support your spouse, come what may.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are religious vows so are therefore unenforceable in a secular country

True; legally only no "fault divorce" exists in Ireland where any such vows (except for the vow to take care of each other financially) are ignored. This was not always the case and previously in other countries divorce required a breaking of one of the vows, most notably fidelity, which would be then penalized. Some US states still have this form of divorce.

The marriage contract is the only contract in existence that may be broken unilaterally without consequence. One may could have their home-making spouse leave them for another lover (both breaking the promise of fidelity and unilaterally terminating the marriage contract) and not only will they not be penalized, but there's a good chance they'll get the family home and the new lover will be able to move in.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, to put it more simply, your assets are in play not because you cheated on your spouse, but because you undertook to support your spouse, come what may.

Curiously, only financial support is considered. If one considers the traditional model, with one spouse as provider and the other as carer, only the former obligated to continue any support. The latter may have cared for their spouse through cooking, housework or similar duties, but once divorced no longer has to supply these. The provider is, on the other hand, obligated to continue providing, but loses the benefits of any support they used to get from their spouse.

As the onus is upon men to be the provider and the consequences of divorce are so much greater for the provider than the carer (especially if children are involved as there lies another societal prejudice), it's hardly surprising that two thirds of divorces are initiated by wives and men, increasingly, think thrice before - if not avoid altogether - getting married.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Curiously, only financial support is considered. If one considers the traditional model, with one spouse as provider and the other as carer, only the former obligated to continue any support. The latter may have cared for their spouse through cooking, housework or similar duties, but once divorced no longer has to supply these. The provider is, on the other hand, obligated to continue providing, but loses the benefits of any support they used to get from their spouse.

As the onus is upon men to be the provider and the consequences of divorce are so much greater for the provider than the carer (especially if children are involved as there lies another societal prejudice), it's hardly surprising that two thirds of divorces are initiated by wives and men, increasingly, think thrice before - if not avoid altogether - getting married.

That’s true, but I don’t think it’s unique to marriage. After all, if I sign a contract promising to work for you for a fixed term of six months, and then bail after a month, you will not be able to get a court order directing me to come back to work.

On a slightly wider note, there are some things the law simply cannot achieve, and one of them is the creation or maintenance of a relationship involving any degree of affection, emotional commitment, etc. A court cannot meaningfully order me to love my wife, and it won’t make a meaningless and unenforceable order.

Marriage has a lot of aspects, and the most important ones - loving, honouring, cherishing, caring - are simply beyond the reach of any law. If somebody promises to love, etc, me for the rest of my life, that means a great deal to me, but not because I imagine I can enforce it against them through the courts.

That’s why I think it’s wrong to see marriage as a legal relationship or a legal construct. Marriage is a relationship which has legal consequences, but that’s not the same thing.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s true, but I don’t think it’s unique to marriage. After all, if I sign a contract promising to work for you for a fixed term of six months, and then bail after a month, you will not be able to get a court order directing me to come back to work.

But you will get sued for damages because you bailed upon an agreed contract.

Marriage has a lot of aspects, and the most important ones - loving, honouring, cherishing, caring - are simply beyond the reach of any law.

Perhaps not, but it can put a financial value on many of them. For example, as per my previous example, the provider loses the support of the carer, while the carer retains the support of the provider. However the carer's support has a financial value; a cook or housekeeper at an hourly rate.

So there are may aspects that are in the reach of the law - it's just the law presently doesn't bother to do so.

That’s why I think it’s wrong to see marriage as a legal relationship or a legal construct. Marriage is a relationship which has legal consequences, but that’s not the same thing.

Marriage was a legal contract, but I agree it isn't any more.

For me, as a man, it's become a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one, with potentially severe consequences if it ends and which statistically heavily favours one gender over the other; and unfortunately I'm of the other. That doesn't mean I would never get married, but it would mean I'm less likely to do so.

HeadPig

Peregrinus wrote: »

But nobody's ever had the right to express their opinions without being flamed for it. We, after all, have an entitlement to express our opinions about your opinions.

Bottom line: if you don't want your opinions commented on, it's probably a bad idea to post them to a discussion board.

I don't care if people comment, just didn't want to incite a bunch of feminazis to say I was trolling.

pwurple

HeadPig wrote: »

- As a man, if you marry a woman your age, her looks will decline while your status only increases through beter earnings as you age. This creates an imbalance which could lead to unhappiness.

Maybe I'm a feminazi, but I'd say you get plenty of rolled eyes if you think a woman is only an equal in a marriage if she can maintain some kind of eternal youth. You might as well marry a decent shop mannequin if looks are all that is of value in a spouse. Everyone ages.

The Corinthian wrote: »

For me, as a man, it's become a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one, with potentially severe consequences if it ends and which statistically heavily favours one gender over the other; and unfortunately I'm of the other. That doesn't mean I would never get married, but it would mean I'm less likely to do so.

If that's your fear it's easily solved. Aim higher, marry up. Both my female relatives who are divorced are paying out maintanance to their ex-husbands.

The Corinthian

HeadPig wrote: »

I don't care if people comment, just didn't want to incite a bunch of feminazis to say I was trolling.

I think it fair to say that I am not a femnazi.

HeadPig wrote: »

- As a man, if you marry a woman your age, her looks will decline while your status only increases through beter earnings as you age. This creates an imbalance which could lead to unhappiness.

No matter what her age is, she'll get older, and so will you. While there are ways that will allow you to mitigate this somewhat and choose more wisely (meeting the parents will give you an idea of what it to come), you're both going to age - maybe well, maybe badly. But you will both age. And die.

I suggest you come to terms with that.

- Lost opportunities for having sex with many other women.
- Monogamy is unnatural for humans.

Then marry someone who doesn't have a problem with that. Either because they're happy to turn a blind eye, or are into open relationships or swinging or whatever. Not all marriages are sexually monogamous.

- If your partner becomes unwell you will have to reinvest all your time caring for her.

Or you might. Statistically, as a man, it'll probably be you.

- Stress.

Again, depends on whom you choose and their compatibility with you. Given that, I see your point, although that could just be the women in my life.

pwurple wrote: »

If that's your fear it's easily solved. Aim higher, marry up. Both my female relatives who are divorced are paying out maintanance to their ex-husbands.

The financial consequences are only part of the overall cost. Arguably the most severe involve the inequity in parental rights between genders. Marrying up isn't going to change that fact.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Most will make these vows in good faith at the time but life happens unfortunately

I was just thinking about this. I'm no lawyer* but if one has a legal contract, say in business, just because one signed up to it "in good faith" doesn't mean one can break it a few years later for any reason at all.

Anyway, don't expect you to have any answers/solutions, just thinking aloud.

* nor have I even taken any law module

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

The financial consequences are only part of the overall cost. Arguably the most severe involve the inequity in parental rights between genders. Marrying up isn't going to change that fact.

I could be flippant and say don't have children then, but you are correct. Men's rights towards their children is an utter disgrace. But that's a whole other discussion.

iptba

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Peregrinus.

iptba

HeadPig wrote: »

- As a man, if you marry a woman your age, her looks will decline while your status only increases through beter earnings as you age. This creates an imbalance which could lead to unhappiness.

Not sure about all of this. But I have heard it argued before that many men aren't at their peak attractiveness* (to the opposite sex) in their 20s, particularly their early 20s, so could "aim higher" by delaying.

*overall, not just in terms of their physical appearance

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

HeadPig wrote:

- Lost opportunities for having sex with many other women.
- Monogamy is unnatural for humans.

Then marry someone who doesn't have a problem with that. Either because they're happy to turn a blind eye, or are into open relationships or swinging or whatever. Not all marriages are sexually monogamous.

However, a problem is that one generally won't know this before dating somebody.

And one risks jeopardising the relationship by bringing it up.

It is perhaps a bit like the "opt out" option for cohabitation payments. The option is there but if one brings up and explores it, probably particularly if one is a male, one has a good chance of jeopardizing the relationship.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps not, but it can put a financial value on many of them. For example, as per my previous example, the provider loses the support of the carer, while the carer retains the support of the provider. However the carer's support has a financial value; a cook or housekeeper at an hourly rate.

So there are may aspects that are in the reach of the law - it's just the law presently doesn't bother to do so.

Just thinking about this a bit further: the whole reasoning for such laws seems a bit odd/contradictory.

This is perhaps clearer with some bigger financial successes. If somebody earns, say, $1 million a year, and an ex-partner is given half of what was earned, their input is valued at a lot more than any commercial prices for house keeping, child-care, etc. So they are being paid for extra input they give e.g. advice, encouragement.

But if this advice, encouragement, etc. was so crucial to the success of somebody, then one might expect somebody to do quite badly/not as well in the future, when they don't have it. So in the case of ongoing payments, why should they be calculated at these inflated rates which supposedly were only possible due to the input of the ex-partner who will no longer be giving such input.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

I was just thinking about this. I'm no lawyer* but if one has a legal contract, say in business, just because one signed up to it "in good faith" doesn't mean one can break it a few years later for any reason at all.

I'm no lawyer either, but I have sued for breach of contract more than once.

iptba wrote: »

However, a problem is that one generally won't know this before dating somebody.

And one risks jeopardising the relationship by bringing it up.

It is perhaps a bit like the "opt out" option for cohabitation. The option is there but if one brings up and explores it, probably particularly if one is a male, one has a good chance of jeopardizing the relationship.

Hardly something one would bring up on a first date and I would hope that one would not jump into marriage before having been together for a reasonable amount of time to see if you're compatible.

And if, after a reasonable amount of time together, you're afraid that asking such questions might jeopardize the relationship, then TBH you probably shouldn't marry that person anyway regardless of what the answer might be.

iptba wrote: »

Just thinking about this a bit further: the whole reasoning for such laws seems a bit odd/contradictory.

Of course it's odd and contradictory, but there's been practically no major reform of how we see marriage and/or divorce in decades, so it's bound to be a mess by now.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I was just thinking about this. I'm no lawyer* but if one has a legal contract, say in business, just because one signed up to it "in good faith" doesn't mean one can break it a few years later for any reason at all.

I'm no lawyer either, but I have sued for breach of contract more than once.

I only saw you had made the same basic point after I wrote that.

HeadPig

iptba wrote: »

Not sure about all of this. But I have heard it argued before that many men aren't at their peak attractiveness* (to the opposite sex) in their 20s, particularly their early 20s, so could "aim higher" by delaying.

*overall, not just in terms of their physical appearance

Of course this is true. Women prefer older men. I would estimate a man in his late thirties is at peak attractiveness, but could argue for later. Women are at their peak attractiveness from 18-25.

However, you don't see a whole lot of 21 year old women with 38 year old men because:

1. The older man would find the younger girl immature
2. The younger girl is orobably still "finding herself" and not willing to commit.

So men tend to sacrifice a little beauty for maturity and then you get combinations like 35 year old men with 27 year old women.

Or you get 30 year old men with 30 year old women as the men haven't realised the wife is about to hit the most precipitous slope in appearance at this age, while his status is set to increase. Big mistake.

It's actually quite basic. The flawed assumption at the back of all this is that men and women value physical attractiveness equally, which they evidently do not. If you ever observe a 50 year old ugly male celebrity with a 20 year old hot suoermodel this becomes obvious.

HeadPig

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then marry someone who doesn't have a problem with that. Either because they're happy to turn a blind eye, or are into open relationships or swinging or whatever. Not all marriages are sexually monogamous.

Why marry if you don't intend monogamy? Pointless.

HeadPig

The Corinthian wrote: »

No matter what her age is, she'll get older, and so will you. While there are ways that will allow you to mitigate this somewhat and choose more wisely (meeting the parents will give you an idea of what it to come), you're both going to age - maybe well, maybe badly. But you will both age. And die.

I suggest you come to terms with that.

Of course she will age, and so will I. But which would you rather (assuming personalities are equal)?

1. You are single and experience relationships and ONS until at 30 you marry a 30 year old woman. Within 5 years she is a lot less attractive. You have become more attractive as you earn more, are more experienced and are more alluring to women. However, you are obliged to stay with her.

2. You are single and experience relationships and ONS until at 35 you marry a 24 year old woman. If we give her until 35 years to lose her looks as well then that is 11 years. You become more attractive as you age etc. You are obliged to stay with her.

Personally, I'd choose the extra 5 years of youth and single enjoyment, and the extra 6 years of being (physically) attracted to my wife. But that's just me.

pwurple

Headpig, your theory just isn't backed up by reality. In reality it is mostly women who initiate breakups and divorces. It is also mainly women who pay any attention to their appearances. Men often relax and get fat, smelly and bald after a wedding. Their fashion sense completely vanishes. Also, more men than women are unemployed. So earning more and gaining this status your speak of is a total fantasy for plenty.

None of that stuff matters where love is involved. love is blind as they say. What actually happens in real life in grown up relationships (not tabloid magazine land), is that as people mature, what they find attractive also matures.


Or maybe their eyesight just declines.

wallycharlo

pwurple wrote: »

...In reality it is mostly women who initiate breakups and divorces...

That's an interesting fact, can you share some data to back that up?