Roquentin wrote: » what is sad is when an individual inherits the family business and ends up having to sell it to appease the other half.
riding_shotgun wrote: » because women can make up all sorts of lies in court in order to get what they want and the man can do little about it if a split happens , the woman gets the house
BD45 wrote: » Damn. So even if you co-habit you're screwed. Is there anything you can do to protect your house?
dark crystal wrote: » According to the last Irish census, there was actually a 10% rise in marriage since the previous census. Remarriage rose by 550% between 1996 and 2011, with divorced men two thirds more likely to remarry than divorced women. Surely that refutes the fact that men are turning away from marriage and relationships? In fact, men are more likely than women to marry more than once![/url]
BD45 wrote: » Forgive me naivety, but why do you think you'd lose your house if you split?
The Corinthian wrote: » I suggest you double check your facts before you jump to conclusions. To begin with during the same period that you say marriage rose by 10%, the population rose by just over 8%.But more importantly since the previous census, the rate of marriage per 1,000 of the estimated population has been in decline, from 5.2 in 2006 to 4.3 in 2011 (Source). Depends on the situation. Say a man purchases a house, even before ever knowing his future spouse. He marries, they both move into the house which then becomes the 'family home' to which she then has a claim to. They divorce and she successfully is awarded half (maybe more). Naturally the man cannot pay off the value of her share and he is thus forced to sell it. Ergo he loses 'his' house - although legally it became 'their' house the moment they married and moved in.
The Corinthian wrote: » I suggest you double check your facts before you jump to conclusions. To begin with during the same period that you say marriage rose by 10%, the population rose by just over 8%. But more importantly since the previous census, the rate of marriage per 1,000 of the estimated population has been in decline, from 5.2 in 2006 to 4.3 in 2011 (Source).
dark crystal wrote: » According to the last Irish census, there was actually a 10% rise in marriage since the previous census. Remarriage rose by 550% between 1996 and 2011, with divorced men two thirds more likely to remarry than divorced women.
Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.
dark crystal wrote: » Remarriage rose by 550% between 1996 and 2011, with divorced men two thirds more likely to remarry than divorced women.
dark crystal wrote: » And up again to 4.5 during the following two years.
Also, how do you account for large number of men who remarry after divorce, if they have been burned so badly once already?
strobe wrote: » Divorce was only legalised in ireland in 1996? Of course remarriage has risen. What with it previously being an impossibility for anyone other than widows and all. Takes a huge amount of grasping to read anything at all into that. Odd stat. Edit: Nicked me to it Nokia. Edit: I've no pony in this race btw, have no idea if marriage is on the up and up or in decline, or holding steady. But that's a daft stat to roll out.
The Corinthian wrote: » Alternatively you could be an idiot for thinking the opposite. Equally valid viewpoint. Seriously though, I'm not really calling you an idiot, but am pointing out that what you've done is essentially no less dismissive or insulting as doing so. Instead, have you asked yourself why you and some others are effectively turning to name-calling at the mere suggestion that there is some form of financial transaction? Instead of turning around and suggesting that there is something wrong with someone who thinks this way, had you thought about why they might think this way without dismissing it out of hand? That perhaps modern relationships are becoming too materialistic, that it is increasingly difficult to have any kind of relationship without financial ties being foisted upon the parties involved? That many of these financial obligations don't even make sense in a World allegedly striving for equality? That it seems to affect one gender significantly more than the other? That for at least one of those parties relationships are looking less and less attractive? More and more dangerous? Or would you prefer to continue ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room and just assume that those pointing to it must be some sort of heretical madmen?
The Corinthian wrote: » What, no admission that what you posted was incorrect? 4.5 is still a decline from the 2006 figure. It is also entirely possible that what we are witnessing is a backlog of previously cohabiting couples marrying because there's no longer much to be gained from not doing so. Either way, your figures were flawed if not consciously misleading. Stupidity? Seriously, I've not seen any figures that support this claim and given that the other claim was ultimately misleading, I'm going to have to pass on commenting on something that also may ultimately be false.
conorhal wrote: » I pointed out that neither is purely a financial transaction, there is an economic component to both relationships to be sure, one greater than the other, but that doesn't preclude an emotional component, a power dynamic one etc. etc.
There IS however something wrong with a person that visits a prostitute and sleeps with his wife and sees both as the same thing, a mere financial transaction.
nokia69 wrote: » I suspect the men who remarry are men who were the ones one called a halt to their first marriagethey were trading up to a better model
dark crystal wrote: » What I posted wasn't incorrect - it was there in black and white. Marriages rose by 10% during the period stated.
You added context to that fact and I concur. However, it did rise marginally again in the following two years, rather than decline.
riding_shotgun wrote: » women nowadays are told that by society that what their man owns , they own , fleecing is actively encouraged and backed fully by the courts
RDM_83 again wrote: » Is that common in ireland though, i might believe it for the States but divorce hear is a long slow process that can still involve social judgement. I'm sure the situation may change in terms of assets loss too, if both partners are educated these days women tend to earn equivalent amounts (and greater for women before marriage). Maybe part of this fear among some men is because they have a thought at the back of their mind that their financial position and status helped them gain the relationship, I know in my industry a few of the lads a couple of years older have had talks about kids with their partners and that they would be the ones to stay home because of the low earnings and insecurity. In short if your poor gold diggers aren't much of a worry if some one is with you they actually have a deeper bond :-P (and IMO a lot of guys are just as much to blame)
lufties wrote: » It seems the man suffers the most from divorces..modern day feminism achievements and divorce laws do not equate.
eternal wrote: » Every single goddamn post you write regardless of the topic comes back to your partner. The unoriginality of your existence is a hindrance to my viewing pleasure, just so you know.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Interesting that none of the proponents of spousal support actually responded to my infidelity query. Let's turn the tables for a moment. Imagine a woman is the main breadwinner and she discovers that her husband has been riding half the town while rejecting her sexually, and living off her work. Is it remotely fair that she must continue to support his lifestyle after dumping him for being such an asshole? In my book, not at all. This is currently the reality for people who dump cheating partners who are dependent on them. It's bollocks. And in my view, marriage encourages crappy behaviour like this, because you can take risks like that knowing you can still mooch off the person you're no longer in love with.
Chocrealo wrote: » It's simple enough really, if you have kids you should be obliged to pay for half their expenses, you shouldn't be obliged to pay for your spouses expenses.
Saralee4 wrote: » And what about the rest of the story? Was he looking after the kids? Was she abusive towards him? Was he abusing her? Did he do alk the tasks in the home? Was she a workaholic and never home? People have answered your question already and explained that these situations are not black and white and even if you know such and such and he/she told you this and that, you don't know all the reasons and each case should be worked out fairly in court.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Yes, she should have to pay if that's what a court decides. For every person who has to support someone who cheated on them, there are many more who find themselves single through no fault of their own.
Chocrealo wrote: » Yes there are circumstances were a spouse deserves compensation of some form, but it shouldn't be the default scenario that the husband must pay the wife compensation. In the scenario where one spouse decides to stay at home they are already being compensated by having their bills and expenses paid for. If their career is important to them they should stay in the workforce and pay for childcare equally.
Baby Jane wrote: » I don't think trafficking is a myth, it's just probably not as regular an occurrence as some would claim (I'm not against prostitution by the way, minus the obvious negatives of course). I remember this documentary being pretty damning: http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2012/0206/293201-040212primetime/
