Marraige questions

Peregrinus

Several studies from the US confirm that, in that country anyway, the substantial majority of divorces are initiated by women. This Wikipedia page cites three studies, yielding figures of between 65% and 71% for the percentage of divorces initiated by women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Statistics

This page has some figure for Australia. In 2007, 39% of divorce applications were by the wife, 28% by the husband and 34% by the spouses jointly: http://www.sexualhealthaustralia.com.au/page/interesting_stats1.html

In the UK, 66% of divorces are granted on the application of the wife, 34% on the application of the husband, and just 0.1% on the application of the spouses jointly:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2010/stb-divorces-2010.html#tab-Fact-proven-at-divorce

I can’t find any specifically Irish statistics, but the fact that women are more prone than men to initiate divorce seems to be generally true in the western world, and I’d be surprised if it was very different in Ireland. Most of the googling on this brings up, not discussions of whether this is the case, but of why it is the case, and what conclusions we should draw from it.

Of course, the fact that women initiate the divorce doesn’t mean that women initiate the breakup. Hard information on this question is difficult to find; if you ask the parties to a failed marriage which of them “initiated” the breakup, you are quite likely to get a different answer from each of them. The propensity of women to initiate divorce proceedings may simply reflect the fact that they tend to be the economically dependent party in the marriage and, therefore, they are more economically threatened by the breakdown of the relationship and have a more pressing need to have the economic fallout of the breakdown addressed and resolved.

On the whole, women do not benefit financially from marriage breakdown. Unsurprisingly, both parties end up worse off financially but, even with divorce settlements, women’s spending power declines more after divorce (relative to what it was before the marriage breakdown) than men’s. Women do not, therefore, have a financial incentive to end their marriages. But, if their marital relationships do break down, they probably do have a financial incentive to have the breakdown regularised by divorce.

I don’t think it makes sense to look at the financial effects of divorce separately from the financial effects of marriage. The fact is that in the US - and we have no reason to think it’s different elsewhere - women’s earning power is diminished by marriage (i.e. married women earn less than single women - and of course both earn less than men). Whereas , slightly surprisingly, men’s earning power is enhanced by marriage. The effect of the decline in a women’s earning power is more than offset by the efficiencies of running a single household, and the boost to household income from the husband’s earnings. However with marriage breakdown this cushion is removed, but the negative impact of marriage on the wife’s earning power is not reversed - i.e. the earnings of divorced women do not “bounce back” to the levels that never-married women can expect. The result is that it’s only on marriage breakdown that a woman really bears the negative impact on earnings of her decision to marry in the first place. One view of divorce settlements is that they do not serve to insulate (or partly insulate) women from the financial effects of divorce, but from the financial effects of marriage.

The Corinthian

HeadPig wrote: »

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

By what definition or standard of marriage? Many societies engage in polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and so on. The concept of having lovers outside of the marriage has historically been a standard much longer than not.

Unless, of course, that your definition of marriage is the only valid one acceptable. If so, let us know why.

HeadPig wrote: »

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

To begin with, all personalities are not 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.

As pwurple points out, not all men become more attractive with age.

Secondly, in your second example, you cite the wife would remain attractive until 35, before her looks begin to fail; by then, the husband you cited is 46. At that age many men can find themselves another woman if they want, but it becomes a lot more difficult. By 50 onwards, you want to be pretty lucky with your genes, not to mention charming and likely wealthy to attract women below 35.

pwurple wrote: »

None of that stuff matters where love is involved. love is blind as they say.

"Love is the delightful interval between meeting a beautiful girl and discovering that she looks like a haddock." - John Barrymore

wallycharlo wrote: »

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

It's actually a pretty well documented one, should you care to Google it. Here's a few to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Gender_and_divorce
http://www.adn.com/2012/06/24/2518581/most-of-the-time-wife-initiates.html
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the whole, women do not benefit financially from marriage breakdown. Unsurprisingly, both parties end up worse off financially but, even with divorce settlements, women’s spending power declines more after divorce (relative to what it was before the marriage breakdown) than men’s. Women do not, therefore, have a financial incentive to end their marriages. But, if their marital relationships do break down, they probably do have a financial incentive to have the breakdown regularised by divorce.

No one benefits financially from marriage breakdown (ex wives of multi-millionaires aside).

However a large part of why men are less likely to initiate divorce is that the consequences are generally higher; not only financially, but also in terms of loss of access to their children.

No shortage of men trapped in unhappy marriages out there, I'm afraid. I've had more than one use the expression "I can't afford a divorce" in conversation - one was repeating what his (US) lawyer said.

(i.e. married women earn less than single women - and of course both earn less than men).

Actually, that's not true. Unmarried, childless, women in their forties out-earn their male peers. Women in their twenties out-earn men in their twenties.

Women's pay begins to drop when they start a family - I remember reading that even being married won't make that much of a difference. It's having children and having to sacrifice career for them than makes the difference.

Whereas , slightly surprisingly, men’s earning power is enhanced by marriage.

Perhaps, but men’s spending power also tends to also decimated by marriage.

clairefontaine

I wonder how much cohabitation provides the illusion you are avoiding the painful unentanglements of a marriage when it dissolves. How different is it exactly? You still have to deal with custody arrangements, dissolution of health care proxies, property, possibly alimony depending on what state you are in, etc.

Aside from being able to remarry or recohabitate with ease and without being charged with bigamy, it appears to me that it is just as difficult with the same pitfalls especially if there are children and joint property involved?

I suppose the other thing marriage can afford you is spousal visa and citizenship privaleges and in the US joint benefits from employment such as health insurance, etc. And that doesnt really apply in Ireland.

iptba

pwurple wrote: »

Also, more men than women are unemployed

That may be so at the moment in Ireland. But even at the moment, more men are in full-time employment. A lot of women are either unavailable for work (full-time in the home) or work part-time.

iptba

The following figure shocked me:

"Among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by wives is a whopping 90 percent."

http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/faq/emotional/who-initiates-divorce-men-or-women.html

eviltwin

So glad I didn't read this thread while I was still single, such a very low opinion of not just marriage but relationships in general coming across from some posters.

Marriage isn't easy, like any relationship it evolves and changes and there will be obstacles but if you care about someone you find a way through because the payoff is worth it ( obviously there are some things that can't be but I'm talking about more trivial stuff here )

My relationship has had many ups and downs and sometimes it would have been easier to walk away and be done with it but we love each other, we love the life we have together so that made it worth fighting for. We've been a couple 17 years and married for 4, we both feel marriage has only enriched our lives. You have to go into it with your eyes open and realise that live will bring changes that affect ALL your relationships not just those with your other half.

There is a reason why marriage is still so popular - because when its with the right person its bloody great. I think there are some posters here who have been unlucky perhaps and have allowed that to colour their view. Its a shame but hopefully for most people it will be a decision they won't regret.

clairefontaine

eviltwin wrote: »

So glad I didn't read this thread while I was still single, such a very low opinion of not just marriage but relationships in general coming across from some posters.

Marriage isn't easy, like any relationship it evolves and changes and there will be obstacles but if you care about someone you find a way through because the payoff is worth it ( obviously there are some things that can't be but I'm talking about more trivial stuff here )

My relationship has had many ups and downs and sometimes it would have been easier to walk away and be done with it but we love each other, we love the life we have together so that made it worth fighting for. We've been a couple 17 years and married for 4, we both feel marriage has only enriched our lives. You have to go into it with your eyes open and realise that live will bring changes that affect ALL your relationships not just those with your other half.

There is a reason why marriage is still so popular - because when its with the right person its bloody great. I think there are some posters here who have been unlucky perhaps and have allowed that to colour their view. Its a shame but hopefully for most people it will be a decision they won't regret.

I know many friends who went through the devastations of their parents divorces, the fighting, the custody battles, the torn loyalties, etc and are now just scared ****less to risk it. But then these same people wouldn't cohabitate either. So it's not the legal contract as such that scares them but just the nature of long term relations. When you witness over the years the collapse of everything you hold safe as a child, it's nigh impossible to restore that faith.

On the other hand, marriage is caught somewhere in time and it doesn't mean he same thing to everyone. I know a couple who married out of college after cohabitating and then divorced when she did some work overseas. He filed for divorce and on the document the reasons listed were under cruelty -"didn't return phone calls."

There is the contract element too, but it is unlike other contracts, and yes pretty much all contracts are renegotiable or can be broken. Abraham's covenant is not a universally applied construct.

iptba

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t think it makes sense to look at the financial effects of divorce separately from the financial effects of marriage. The fact is that in the US - and we have no reason to think it’s different elsewhere - women’s earning power is diminished by marriage (i.e. married women earn less than single women - and of course both earn less than men). Whereas , slightly surprisingly, men’s earning power is enhanced by marriage

One of the main reasons is the pressure on men to earn quite a lot. I recall seeing a figure that something like 25% of married men in the UK have two jobs. Others may to try to take on more responsibility at work and/or work long hours.

Women worry less about the future when they marry, men worry more. I think that is interesting.

Just because a woman's earning power may decrease by getting married, doesn't mean her spending power decreases. Similarly just because a man's earning power increases, doesn't mean his spending power increases.

However with marriage breakdown this cushion is removed, but the negative impact of marriage on the wife’s earning power is not reversed - i.e. the earnings of divorced women do not “bounce back” to the levels that never-married women can expect. The result is that it’s only on marriage breakdown that a woman really bears the negative impact on earnings of her decision to marry in the first place. One view of divorce settlements is that they do not serve to insulate (or partly insulate) women from the financial effects of divorce, but from the financial effects of marriage.

"Earning" suggests money from work. Many women will get money from their ex-partners - indeed some will continue not to work even when their children are in secondary school and beyond.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

There is a reason why marriage is still so popular - because when its with the right person its bloody great.

This is something I simply don't understand; is it less good when you're together but not married? You state you and your spouse were together for 13 years before marrying - what was missing that marriage gave you?

I ask this because almost of the practical benefits that have been given can be achieved without marriage. This leaves more psychological benefits that seem related more to how we are taught to see marriage than anything else.

I think there are some posters here who have been unlucky perhaps and have allowed that to colour their view.

That is one of the most dismissive and ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. You presume that the only reason that anyone has a cynical (I would say realistic) view of marriage is because they've suffered a bad one. That many of those here, including me, have never been married, wouldn't enter your head for some reason, no more than the possibility that your attitudes twoards yours is because yours has been (to date) successful.

I've noticed that discussions on marriage often degenerate to this sort of nonsense, with married people taking offence at any criticism of the institution as somehow devaluing their marriage and lacking any real counter argument turn to the 'bitter' ad hominem explanation.

Personally, I'm not actually against marriage, but I'm not blind to the fact that it needs serious reform. And without such criticism, such reform will not come and if this occurs, marriage will continue to decline in the west, leaving governments to try to shore up the system by using stealth marriage legislation such as our cohabitation act.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is the contract element too, but it is unlike other contracts, and yes pretty much all contracts are renegotiable or can be broken. Abraham's covenant is not a universally applied construct.

Any contract can be broken, but you'll find that only the marriage contract can be broken, via no-fault divorce, without consequence for doing so. All others leave the person breaking or defaulting upon the conditions of the contract open to legal action and damages.

Or divine wrath, if you believe in that sort of thing.

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is something I simply don't understand; is it less good when you're together but not married? You state you and your spouse were together for 13 years before marrying - what was missing that marriage gave you?

I ask this because almost of the practical benefits that have been given can be achieved without marriage. This leaves more psychological benefits that seem related more to how we are taught to see marriage than anything else.

That is one of the most dismissive and ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. You presume that the only reason that anyone has a cynical (I would say realistic) view of marriage is because they've suffered a bad one. That many of those here, including me, have never been married, wouldn't enter your head for some reason, no more than the possibility that your attitudes twoards yours is because yours has been (to date) successful.

I've noticed that discussions on marriage often degenerate to this sort of nonsense, with married people taking offence at any criticism of the institution as somehow devaluing their marriage and lacking any real counter argument turn to the 'bitter' ad hominem explanation.

Personally, I'm not actually against marriage, but I'm not blind to the fact that it needs serious reform. And without such criticism, such reform will not come and if this occurs, marriage will continue to decline in the west, leaving governments to try to shore up the system by using stealth marriage legislation such as our cohabitation act.

Yes my marriage is just a disaster waiting to happen as are all of them. Change the record. You might not feel its something that holds any interest for you but not all married women are money hungry and not all married men are idiots who were bullied into it. Relationships aren't a combat sport.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes my marriage is just a disaster waiting to happen as are all of them. Change the record. You might not feel its something that holds any interest for you but not all married women are money hungry and not all married men are idiots who were bullied into it. Relationships aren't a combat sport.

Not entirely sure what you want to prove by that outburst, outside of my point about:

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've noticed that discussions on marriage often degenerate to this sort of nonsense, with married people taking offence at any criticism of the institution as somehow devaluing their marriage and lacking any real counter argument turn to the 'bitter' ad hominem explanation.

If so, thank you.

wallycharlo

The Corinthian wrote: »

...This leaves more psychological benefits that seem related more to how we are taught to see marriage than anything else...

I agree completely with this.

I've often encountered people who fail to comprehend how an unmarried couple who are co-habiting, having children together, owning their house together, etc, can possibly be as happy or in as stable a relationship as a similar couple who are married.

It's the word itself which conjures up some type of magical quality ...

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

I ask this because almost of the practical benefits that have been given can be achieved without marriage. This leaves more psychological benefits that seem related more to how we are taught to see marriage than anything else.

There is no difference between co-habiting and marriage apart from the legal ones that have already been dissected in this thread. You can go around the houses with solicitors and arrange some of them, but not all, notably income tax, automatic guardianship and inheritance tax.

Maybe there is a warm fuzzy feeling associated with having those ducks in a row, but that's about it.

My greek history is rusty, but as far as I remember co-habitation was regarded as marriage, from greek times, up until about the 1700's. The ceremony and contract aspect is quite a recent thing, brought in to iron out things like inheritance disputes.

Calling the co-habitation act "Stealth marriage" is a bit of a stretch, it's been the default since the dawn of civilisation.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Calling the co-habitation act "Stealth marriage" is a bit of a stretch, it's been the default since the dawn of civilisation.

I didn't call cohabitation stealth marriage; I called the Irish cohabitation act, with it's automatic financial entitlements and obligations once a couple is living together for at most five years, stealth marriage.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't call cohabitation stealth marriage; I called the Irish cohabitation act, with it's automatic financial entitlements and obligations once a couple is living together for at most five years, stealth marriage.

???
That's what I said... the cohabitation act.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

???
That's what I said... the cohabitation act.

Sorry, I misread you.

But I'm sorry, but it is essentially stealth marriage. Other than the fact the public is woefully unaware of it's implications (until their relationships end), it does essentially impose the financial obligations of marriage.

There is the option to draw up and sign an opt-out contract, but it's not binding as it may be overturned by any judge should they feel like it - which all too often happens in Irish courts in many disputes and even criminal cases.

Finally, of those things that you cited can't be achieved without marriage; the extra tax credits, yes. Avoiding inheritance tax, questionable (see earlier in the thread). But automatic guardianship? That's a little disingenuous, as by the same logic you could have argued that without marriage you don't get automatic inheritance rights.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I'm sorry, but it is essentially stealth marriage. Other than the fact the public is woefully unaware of it's implications (until their relationships end), it does essentially impose the financial obligations of marriage.

If the public is woefully unaware, do many couples who break up avail of the rights they have when a relationship breaks down? I'd imagine they just break up and go their separate ways.

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

If the public is woefully unaware, do many couples who break up avail of the rights they have when a relationship breaks down? I'd imagine they just break up and go their separate ways.

People tend to be unaware until something happens, then they inform themselves - few people know much about separation or divorce until they go through it themselves, I'd imagine. As such, I suspect far fewer are woefully unaware when breaking up, than they are when happily in a relationship.

Which of course does not change the fact of how the act is designed, of course.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

People tend to be unaware until something happens, then they inform themselves - few people know much about separation or divorce until they go through it themselves, I'd imagine. As such, I suspect far fewer are woefully unaware when breaking up, than they are when happily in a relationship.

Which of course does not change the fact of how the act is designed, of course.

Yeah, that's true about divorce, but the first thing you do if you want one is consult a solicitor, I'd imagine. When people come out of a long-term relationship, where they are living together I bet it's the last thing they think about in most cases.

clairefontaine

Malari wrote: »

Yeah, that's true about divorce, but the first thing you do if you want one is consult a solicitor, I'd imagine. When people come out of a long-term relationship, where they are living together I bet it's the last thing they think about in most cases.

Not if they have kids and joint property.

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

When people come out of a long-term relationship, where they are living together I bet it's the last thing they think about in most cases.

Until when talking it over with a friend, they're told that they have entitlements. Or when finding out about child support or the disposition of joint property (as Claire pointed out).

And it still doesn't change the legal entitlements that are imposed by the act - you can't really dismiss them by arguing "a sure, no one will ever go after the entitlements".

iptba

Malari wrote: »

If the public is woefully unaware, do many couples who break up avail of the rights they have when a relationship breaks down? I'd imagine they just break up and go their separate ways.

The cohabitation act only came into law relatively recently.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

Until when talking it over with a friend, they're told that they have entitlements. Or when finding out about child support or the disposition of joint property (as Claire pointed out).

And it still doesn't change the legal entitlements that are imposed by the act - you can't really dismiss them by arguing "a sure, no one will ever go after the entitlements".

I'm not dismissing it! And yes, Claire makes a good point.

iptba wrote: »

The cohabitation act only came into law relatively recently.

I know...

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I'm sorry, but it is essentially stealth marriage. Other than the fact the public is woefully unaware of it's implications (until their relationships end), it does essentially impose the financial obligations of marriage

Unawareness is widespread on all sorts of aspects of both marriage and co-habitation. That doesn't it make it stealthy, it means there is a lot of general ignorance around. I agree, it does impose the financial obligations of marriage, with none of the financial benefits. People should educate themselves about what they are doing.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Finally, of those things that you cited can't be achieved without marriage; the extra tax credits, yes. Avoiding inheritance tax, questionable (see earlier in the thread). But automatic guardianship? That's a little disingenuous, as by the same logic you could have argued that without marriage you don't get automatic inheritance rights.

I don't follow how this is disingenuous? You cannot get automatic guardianship unless you are married. You can gain guardianship some time after the childs birth, through a solicitor, with a seperate application per child, if the mother hasn't decided you are bad news since conception 10 months previously, and agrees. But there is no way to arrange automatic guardianship from the moment your child is born, apart from marriage. Am I wrong here?

You can also arrange inheritance with a will, but it is liable to tax unless you are married. There is a well-defined difference for both of these, that's why I mentioned them specifically.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Any contract can be broken, but you'll find that only the marriage contract can be broken, via no-fault divorce, without consequence for doing so. All others leave the person breaking or defaulting upon the conditions of the contract open to legal action and damages.

Or divine wrath, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Not always. It depends on what is built into the contract and why it was broken in the first place. There aren't hard and fast rules about it.

There are of course natural consequences to even no fault divorce. No fault just means they both consent to the divorce. And it's also in the contract that either party can leave at any time. It's not a prison sentence. The other qualifiers have to do with prison, abandonment, locked up in the looney bin, or one of the couple is contesting it or wants it faster so they have other clauses like cruelty and some other ones I can't remember. You can get your divorce then in a couple of months rather than having to wait out a whole year of seperation.

There certainly are no loopholes for citizenship or spousal visas when you co habitate. And certainly in US law, if you are with someone who has a child, unless you are married to them, as a step parent, you basically are a nothing.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

I don't follow how this is disingenuous? You cannot get automatic guardianship unless you are married.

You also can't get automatic inheritance rights unless you're married and you have to get the paperwork done on that too.

In fact the point to much of this discussion was that marriage made many things automatic and without it you have to go through a lot of red tape to put those things into place.

So unless you want to include automatic inheritance rights, automatic next-of-kin status and a myriad of other things, you can't really put guardianship on your list of 'you need marriage for'.

clairefontaine wrote: »

There are of course natural consequences to even no fault divorce. No fault just means they both consent to the divorce.

Actually 'no fault' means there's no culpability for the termination of the marriage contract.

And of course there are natural consequences to even no fault divorce, but they're not related to who broke the marriage contract. In every other contract in existence the option to take action against who broke the contract exists.

clairefontaine

No fault means they are both choosing to dissolve the marriage, so they are both agreeing to break the contract.

In many divorce courts, for example, adultery is breaking the contract, so you can sue for divorce even if the other party does not want to dissolve the marriage.

So, yeah you can take someone to court for breaking the marriage contract. They break it by committing adultery and then you take them to court to dissolve the contract.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at.

Peregrinus

clairefontaine wrote: »

No fault means they are both choosing to dissolve the marriage, so they are both agreeing to break the contract.

No. "No fault" means that a marriage can be dissolved without the need to show that either party has been at fault. It does not mean that the marriage can only be dissolved if both parties agree. Basically, if one party can persuade the court that the marriage has irretreivably broken down, then the court can grant a divorce, regardless of whether the other party wants this.

Woodward

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. "No fault" means that a marriage can be dissolved without the need to show that either party has been at fault. It does not mean that the marriage can only be dissolved if both parties agree. Basically, if one party can persuade the court that the marriage has irretreivably broken down, then the court can grant a divorce, regardless of whether the other party wants this.

Essentially all you have to say is you dont love the person anymore and you havent loved them for a long time