Marriage in today's society: is it worth it for men?

DoYouEvenLift

Can other younger posters give their opinions and expectations of what they think of marriage nowadays and if it's a choice you'll consider yourself in the future either out of your own choice or societal pressure as it's the "thing to do"?

Can older posters with all kinds of experience, happily married and divorced etc., give their opinions and suggestions?

pwurple

Depends.

If you are planning on having children, I'd say it's a useful package of inheritance rights, guardianship rights and next of kin status changes, all wrapped up in one neat packet.

If you are marrying UP, ie someone who earns much more than you, or has more assets than you, then certainly, you will be better off if it ends up in a divorce. (assets tend to be split in a divorce, with the poorer person ending up with more than they started with, and the wealthier getting less than they started with).

It's supposed to impart some longevity, but I'd imagine no more than any long-term relationship.


Now, if you are marying someone of much lower income/means to yourself, and it ends badly.... you'll get screwed over financially.

Love is a mystery as far as I am concerned and it very hard to describe a happy marriage, although I suspect its underlying personality traits that make a relationship work, all the love in the world wont solve innate selfishness, or cure someone with chips on their shoulders.

Looking around me its middle age couples with a happy marriage, grown up children, and their mortgage paid off who are having the best lifestyle. Lots of holidays, lots of sex and the companionship of a long and happy marriage with very little money worries( not always rich ). The thing is to have the happy marriage in the first place.

skallywag

I have a child and house together with my long term partner and have no intention of getting married at the moment.

Seriously?

If you remove kids from the equation then there is absolutely no reason for a guy to get married. It may be the romantic thing to do, but that's rarely a good reason to sign yourself to getting fleeced at a later point.

Once kids are added to the mix well there are some small benefits (as pwurple documented), but it’s not exactly like you'll not get totally screwed over if the marriage goes south anyway.

So my advice is if there aren’t kids in the equation avoid it, kids though can perhaps make it worth it for the advantages in law which marriage grants both you and your children.

ancapailldorcha

Seriously? wrote: »

If you remove kids from the equation then there is absolutely no reason for a guy to get married. It may be the romantic thing to do, but that's rarely a good reason to sign yourself to getting fleeced at a later point.

There are the benefits that pwurple has mentioned which you draw attention to in the middle of your post.

My 2 cents; I'd be very cautious about the whole affair. If I met someone, I'd want to wait about 12-24 months before moving in and then at least a year before entertaining the notion of marriage. Of course, if I considered living with her then I'd already be considering marriage but I'd like to remove as much uncertainty as is reasonably possible.

I think it's very sad, though not without reason that there are men who'd reject the idea based purely on the worst case scenario. What if it goes wrong? Well, what if it works out? Again, I'd be very cautious as I've mentioned in the previous paragraph of this post but I think I'd like to at least experience true love and go from there though with me approaching 30 with the sexual experience of a eunuch that doesn't seem likely.

eviltwin

Seriously? wrote: »

So my advice is if there aren’t kids in the equation avoid it, kids though can perhaps make it worth it for the advantages in law which marriage grants both you and your children.

Does marriage really make a difference if guardianship is in place? I'd hope our family law courts have moved with the times to give equal status to a cohabiting father as to a married one. Or are things still in the dark ages.

pwurple

eviltwin wrote: »

Does marriage really make a difference if guardianship is in place?

Yes. Inheritance issues are not addressed by guardianship.

Seriously?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's very sad, though not without reason that there are men who'd reject the idea based purely on the worst case scenario. What if it goes wrong? Well, what if it works out?

Perhaps by turning this around on its head we can shine a light on the topic, you ask what if it works out?
So my question is if kids are removed from the conversation what benefit are there for the guy "if it works out" in a marriage over the same for a non-married couple?

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

Yes. Inheritance issues are not addressed by guardianship.

I don't get you. I know you can't inherit your cohabiting partners house etc without being stung for tax but that shouldn't make a difference to access in the case of a relationship breakdown. Is an unmarried father who has guardianship and in a relationship going to be treated more unfairly in the family law courts to one who happens to be married.

eviltwin

Seriously? wrote: »

Perhaps by turning this around on its head we can shine a light on the topic, you ask what if it works out?
So my question is if kids are removed from the conversation what benefit are there for the guy "if it works out" in a marriage over the same for a non-married couple?

Inheritance tax is a big one if you happen to own a property. This is the reason I got married. I saw someone being hit with a huge tax bill after the death of a partner, no way am I going to give money to the Gov for a MY house. Apart from that I don't see any reason beyond the romantic side of it to get married, marriage hasn't really added anything to our relationship if I'm being honest.

DoYouEvenLift

skallywag wrote: »

I have a child and house together with my long term partner and have no intention of getting married at the moment.

I think that's what I'll be leaning towards when I'm older, except children.

ancapailldorcha

Seriously? wrote: »

Perhaps by turning this around on its head we can shine a light on the topic, you ask what if it works out?
So my question is if kids are removed from the conversation what benefit are there for the guy "if it works out" in a marriage over the same for a non-married couple?

I would have thought that it would be nice to make it official by having a nice day out with those closest to you. If you remove kids then there is inheritance which becomes easier if you're married IIRC.

the evasion_kid

For me no it wouldn't be worth it,I've had relationships were one or both of us has changed over time,or ones that end with a thoughtless action or words..for a man nowadays there's really no benefits from it,a few tax breaks,not worth the risk of the roasting you'd get in a divorce court.

DoYouEvenLift

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I would have thought that it would be nice to make it official by having a nice day out with those closest to you. If you remove kids then there is inheritance which becomes easier if you're married IIRC.

You can have a nice day out with your family and friends any time you want with a bit of planning. A wedding is literally just that + a couple of silly rings + legal documents. Engagement rings are also another farce that should be cut out. Completely a materialistic marketing coy to be honest. Surely the size and relative cost of a bigger ring doesn't correlate with a mans love for his partner? Especially now that we are working towards equality with the help of feminists and such.

fits

Tax, inheritance, next of kin decisions - eg in hospitals, these are all good reasons.
I don't think the financial implications of marriage breakdown is as unfavourable to men as is sometimes made out... As long as both parties are working.

Also is it worth it for women that what I want to know!

DoYouEvenLift

mariaalice wrote: »

Also is it worth it for women that what I want to know!

Seeing as marriage and weddings are basically catered to women, why would you even have to ask that question?

Seriously?

mariaalice wrote: »

Also is it worth it for women that what I want to know!

Well hasn't marriage always been viewed as a way of securing the fathers wealth and support for the woman and her offspring?

The laws seemed very much structured around this assumption in my view.

DoYouEvenLift

Seriously? wrote: »

Well hasn't marriage always been viewed as a way of securing the fathers wealth and support for the woman and her offspring?

The laws seemed very much structured around this assumption in my view.

Always good to see women enter arguments relating to men and make it about the opposite sex, huh?

Go make your own thread about that, mariaalice, if you feel like it's necessary, please. Although, let's be honest, who could possibly think it is? Lots of positives to being a woman in a marriage, even if the marriage doesn't work out in most cases.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Seeing as marriage and weddings are basically catered to women, why would you even have to ask that question?

Because how does she know she is not going to end up on her own with two children struggling to survive while her partner has frecked off. It does happen.
I don't think any woman should consider having children unless she is a hundred present sure the relationship is rock solid in every way.

DoYouEvenLift

mariaalice wrote: »

Because how does she know she is not going to end up on her own with two children struggling to survive while her partner has frecked off. It does happen.
I don't think any woman should consider having children unless she is a hundred present sure the relationship is rock solid in every way.

Maybe she should consider having a solid career before deciding to go through with one of life's most important milestones: giving birth to a new human being. Is it her partners fault she didn't choose to do so?

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Always good to see women enter arguments relating to men and make it about the opposite sex, huh?

Go make your own thread about that, mariaalice, if you feel like it's necessary, please. Although, let's be honest, who could possibly think it is? Lots of positives to being a woman in a marriage, even if the marriage doesn't work out in most cases.

Lots of women earn more than their partner and while woman can often come out of a marriage with a better arrangement, that's only if either party are well of or in a well paid profession, in today society its often how are the debts to be divided not the assets.

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Maybe she should consider having a solid career before deciding to go through with one of life's most important milestones: giving birth to a new human being. Is it her partners fault she didn't choose to do so?

Having a child is the responsibility of both parents and its best for the child to be raised in the home. That means the parent who stays home takes the biggest career hit, it also makes life a hell of a lot easier for the parent who goes out to work. It's virtually impossible to 'have it all' when you have kids, if people only had them when they had enough money to cover all eventualities no one would have any. It's hardly unreasonable to expect the working parent to pay maintenance in the event of a breakdown.

DoYouEvenLift

mariaalice wrote: »

Lots of women earn more than their partner and while woman can often come out of a marriage with a better arrangement, that's only if either party are well of or in a well paid profession, in today society its often how are the debts to be divided not the assets.

Then lots of women should have nothing to worry about. Like I said, go make your own thread on that topic and have a whinge about it.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Maybe she should consider having a solid career before deciding to go through with one of life's most important milestones: giving birth to a new human being. Is it her partners fault she didn't choose to do so?

Maybe its the social circles I inhabit but every woman I know who has children both friends and relations has a very solid career both before and after having children, all would have third level education and nearly all would have had the children in their thirties.

I cant think of a single woman I know who is at home fulltime with children.

DoYouEvenLift

mariaalice wrote: »

Maybe its the social circles I inhabit but every woman I know who has children both friends and relations has a very solid career both before and after having children, all would have third level education and nearly all would have had the children in their thirties.

I cant think of a single woman I know who is at home fulltime with children.

Isn't that lovely!

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

Tax, inheritance, next of kin decisions - eg in hospitals, these are all good reasons.
I don't think the financial implications of marriage breakdown is as unfavourable to men as is sometimes made out... As long as both parties are working.

I must see if there are studies on the division of assets and debts at some point. I'm inclined to believe you but it's obviously something that warrants further investigation.

DamoKen

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Then lots of women should have nothing to worry about. Like I said, go make your own thread on that topic and have a whinge about it.

Not having a go at you but female opinions have always been welcomed in this forum. Fair enough there is whataboutery from time to time but at the same time I at least am always interested in what the other "half" have to say even if I don't agree with it. As has been pointed out time and again on threads in this forum gender issues don't exist in a vacuum, this cuts both ways

Macavity.

I'm very cynical about this whole topic. I see a lot of couples getting married in their thirties or later and I can't help but feel that they are only doing it because it is "the thing to do" or else just to have children/a family. I've noticed a few women in their late thirties getting married to men they wouldn't have been seen dead with a number of years back, and I can't help but feel their only reason is to have a family. And I'm not just saying there's women who do this, I'm sure there are plenty of men in the same situation. It's actually incredibly depressing when you think about it. Also, it's definitely not worth it if you earn significantly more than your partner IMO.

I don't think I will ever get married, mostly because I don't really connect with people and have difficulty developing non superficial feelings for people. I would hate to end up marrying someone I can just about tolerate, which seems to be how it goes for so many couples.

DoYouEvenLift

Macavity. wrote: »

I'm very cynical about this whole topic. I see a lot of couples getting married in their thirties or later and I can't help but feel that they are only doing it because it is "the thing to do" or else just to have children/a family. I've noticed a few women in their late thirties getting married to men they wouldn't have been seen dead with a number of years back, and I can't help but feel their only reason is to have a family. And I'm not just saying there's women who do this, I'm sure there are plenty of men in the same situation. It's actually incredibly depressing when you think about it. Also, it's definitely not worth it if you earn significantly more than your partner IMO.

I don't think I will ever get married, mostly because I don't really connect with people and have difficulty developing non superficial feelings for people. I would hate to end up marrying someone I can just about tolerate, which seems to be how it goes for so many couples.

Yeah, I think societal pressure hits a lot of people and puts them into panic mode which can make them rush into things and that's not just for relationships and marriage either. But fear of being alone in their old age and having nobody is probably a huge part of decisions made by people like those. I'm cynical as fuk when it comes to having and raising kids as I feel like some people have them for selfish reasons and some people underestimate how big of a decision it is and the dedication it takes and half arse it once they're a few years in and the children suffer by not being raised and taught right.

I also know some couples like ones you described and its always funny how defensive and judgemental they get when they ask you when you plan on settling down and getting married and you explain that you more than likely won't be getting married or having kids and they react like you're conspiring to commit a crime just because your opinion and ideals don't match their realities.

quadrifoglio verde

Considering a cohabiting partner will have rights under the civil marriages bill, men richer than their spouses will get screwed.

DoYouEvenLift

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Considering a cohabiting partner will have rights under the civil marriages bill, men richer than their spouses will get screwed.

No worries, feminazis should be demanding and protesting for these kinds of things any day now!

ancapailldorcha

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Considering a cohabiting partner will have rights under the civil marriages bill, men richer than their spouses will get screwed.

I completely forgot about this. Once a couple cohabit for 2 years or more then they're essentially married in some regards in the eyes of the law. If I was living with someone for longer than that then I'd just get it out of the way.

pwurple

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't get you. I know you can't inherit your cohabiting partners house etc without being stung for tax but that shouldn't make a difference to access in the case of a relationship breakdown. Is an unmarried father who has guardianship and in a relationship going to be treated more unfairly in the family law courts to one who happens to be married.

Sorry, i didn't know you meant specifically access.
Inheritance tax bill is what I meant by marriage making a difference over cohabitation, even when there is guardianship in place. Guardianship doesn't change inheritance procedures.

Manach

From a tradition PoV, marriage is a benefit to society as it offers a public statement from the man. That he shall place no other women before the one he has chosen and that he seeks stability for the possible children of their union. In today's rather sceptic and individualistic age, that there is an inherent worth in such sentiments is a wonder and bewilderment to the many others, but the worth for a man is that it is a characteristic of a man.

The Friendly Newcomer

I personally really want to get married and I just have to find the right girl. I see marriage as the seal of love for a couple so the notion that marriage is only for couples with kids etc is nonsense imo. The amount of couples that are happily married by far outweighs the separated couples in my area.

Bepolite

I got bored about halfway down, there are some real cynics in here!

In relation to children; absolutely get married. If you're not sure about any of the foregoing (getting screwed financially, her/him leaving etc.) then you shouldn't be having children in the first place. Children have the right to two parents 100% involved in their lives without the distraction of another family off somewhere else. In my view if this happens you've failed as a parent. Marriage is pretty much the only way (at present and that should change) to make a proper legal commitment before embarking on parenthood. There are a myriad of legal implications which are also then taken care of.

The next stage is if you don't to have kids, do you make the same commitment to a partner? In my case I did, in anyone elses up to you.

Otherwise just shack-up and enjoy it while it lasts. Just don't bring children into the mix unless you are 100% sure. Of course people get things wrong; I'm not countenancing a couple staying together for the sake of the children only, but at least if it does go pear shaped the legal framework is there.

Finally I also think marriage gives you more impetus to work on a relationship rather than just thinking it's not working out, time to move on. There are fully committed couples which don't need this extra crutch so I leave it only as an ancillary point OP.

Lux23

So if you think there is no good reason to get married today, why do you think men married in the past? I find some of the attitudes here really strange.

Bepolite

Lux23 wrote: »

So if you think there is no good reason to get married today, why do you think men married in the past? I find some of the attitudes here really strange.

Because having a bastard was a HUGE social stigma for everyone involved. Thankfully social attitudes have changed. Unfortunately this has had the side-effect of making some sections of the community very balse on having children. That said I'm not sad we no longer have the social equivalent of a gun pointed at someone's head.

The Friendly Newcomer

OSI wrote: »

The fact that so many of the opinions are based on "I'd get financially screwed when it fails" says a lot really.

I find that kind of sad. The romantic in me is crying.

Bepolite

OSI wrote: »

The fact that so many of the opinions are based on "I'd get financially screwed when it fails" says a lot really.

There is an element of that and their should be to be fair. One partner (usually the woman but not always) is going to forego many years of potential career building time to look after children; that partner is going to want some sort of safety net.

I guess I'm the weirdo here given that if my wife and I ever had children I'd be the one to put things on hold. She's much better qualified than me and my second career has the advantage that coming to it later is not the disadvantage it is in other fields. I also married 'up' as someone put it. If I give up the better part of a decade to raise children I want some guarantee - no matter how sure we are that we're committed.

Holsten

I think it's a completely outdated practice that has zero benefits for a man without children.

Spending a huge amount of money on a wedding, the ring, the ceremony, the paperwork... everything about it just makes me think, HELL NO!

I'll never get married, I doubt I'll ever want children so it's no brainer for me.

Stheno

Seriously? wrote: »

Well hasn't marriage always been viewed as a way of securing the fathers wealth and support for the woman and her offspring?

The laws seemed very much structured around this assumption in my view.

Not quite in terms of the divorce laws we have, either spouse may be required to pay maintenance so husband to wife or vice versa, and it does happen.

Same with child maintenance, if the children stay with the father, then the mother would usually be ordered to pay maintenance.

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Considering a cohabiting partner will have rights under the civil marriages bill, men richer than their spouses will get screwed.

That's already in place, former partners without children after five years in a relationship have rights such as maintenance, and it's two years if there is a child involved, as part of the Civil Partnership Bill that was brought in a couple of years ago.

miamee

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

No worries, feminazis should be demanding and protesting for these kinds of things any day now!

That particular law is not exclusively applied to men. Depending on the financial circumstances of a couple it may be the woman who has to pay the man.

fits

Stheno wrote: »

Not quite in terms of the divorce laws we have, either spouse may be required to pay maintenance so husband to wife or vice versa, and it does happen.

Same with child maintenance, if the children stay with the father, then the mother would usually be ordered to pay maintenance.



That's already in place, former partners without children after five years in a relationship have rights such as maintenance, and it's two years if there is a child involved, as part of the Civil Partnership Bill that was brought in a couple of years ago.

Spousal maintenance is not really awarded in Ireland as far as I know. Just child maintenance.

aquestionortwo

Is there anything that getting married achieves that can't be had otherwise?

How complicated are the alternatives?

I have a lot of issues with the idea of marriage and the way it has been sold by hollywood as being essential to a successful long term relationship, and if a woman ever wants me to marry her, I'm going to make her convince me - perhaps via a lengthy written argument

I'm certainly never going to get married for her. I think that's a terrible idea, forgoing my own beliefs to satisfy (what I believe to be) some irrational insecurity.

Furthermore, I've been with quite a lot more women than the average, and I'm no closer to finding one that I'd be ready to commit to forever. I see people my age (25) starting to get married and I can't help but feel that
(a) They are completely naive and possibly more scared of being alone than they are certain of wanting to spend 50+ years with someone.
(b) They are settling, which I think is an insult to your partner.

Imagine you walk into a shop full of chocolate bars. You taste a Mars, a Bounty and a Twix. There are still millions of untasted bars on the shelves. Do you really think it's an intelligent decision to declare that Twix is the bar for you, and you're certain its the best choice.


Overall, I think its a fairly stupid concept that has been muddied(just look at divorce statistics) to the point where it has no place in the modern world.

Stheno

fits wrote: »

Spousal maintenance is not really awarded in Ireland as far as I know. Just child maintenance.

It is provided for in law, up to €500 per week in the district court, compared to up to 150 per week per child.I personally know of three women who through seperation/divorce agreements, agreed to pay spousal maintenance to their husbands as they were the better off, and a few guys also doing the same

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html

Here's a (slightly extreme) example of it being enforced through the courts in May of this year, and being backdated for quite a long time iirc

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-grants-woman-divorce-orders-husband-to-pay-weekly-maintenance-of-400-30293733.html

Stheno

aquestionortwo wrote: »

Is there anything that getting married achieves that can't be had otherwise?

Significant tax benefits can be achieved both through PAYE and the likes of inheritance tax.

The right to be recognised as your partners legal partner and have a say e.g. in what happens if they have a living will and how it is progressed should they become ill.

CollyFlower

My situation is... Live apart! worked for me for 15 years,

Seriously?

Stheno wrote: »

Not quite in terms of the divorce laws we have, either spouse may be required to pay maintenance so husband to wife or vice versa, and it does happen.

Same with child maintenance, if the children stay with the father, then the mother would usually be ordered to pay maintenance.

The problem is that while the laws may in theory be equitable, their application when it comes to gender has not been so.

Overwhelmingly courts have sided with the mother for example when determining maintenance :
http://arcmedlaw.com/wp/docs/Headline_Findings_phd_ROS.pdf

"100% of maintenance orders were made in favour of the wife; where the husband was the primary carer no application came before the court for maintenance from the liable wife."

That said with the male education crisis, in future it is likely that women will be increasingly be the breadwinner for the household. It will be interesting to see how divorce settlement in terms of custody of the kids (if mums working will the father be more likely to get custody and maintenance) will be handled in the future and how willing women will be to forgo time with the family to secure finances for the household.