Marriage? Yeah never happening.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Marriage? Yeah never happening.[/quote]
^ Smart man!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
- My ex-wife and her new man (whom she left me for and with whom she lives an has lived in what would clearly qualify as a defacto common law marriage for the past several years) have a household income and lifestyle that exceeds mine significantly. They own three homes in three different states, travel extensively, are absolutely loaded with âstuff,â etc.
I still have to pay her alimony. No matter what.[/quote]
Another point:
If the situations were reversed, would you seriously consider cutting off the receiving of alimony payments? Personally, I think a lot of men would.
A woman? NEVER.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Marriage? Yeah never happening.[/quote]
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
Marriage? Yeah never happening.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If a woman is married to a somewhat wealthy man,[/quote]
Okay so lets boil it down to two situations then:
-
Couple get married and both are at the bottom of their earning potential. While not poor, they couldnât be considered wealthy by any stretch.
-
Couple get married in the middle or just past their earning potential and one spouse is considered on most scales wealthy.
Fact pattern:
One spouse doesnât work in both situations, the non-wealthy one in option 2.
Neither marriage had children involved (we can get to that later.)
Both were married for 15 years.
Both divorced
What is âfairâ in a divorce settlement for option 1 is very different than option 2, speaking in general terms.
Now I say this because couple in situation 1, built their life and wealth together, while couple two did not. In fact one spouse had the wealth coming into the agreement.
Do you agree with me so far or no?
Is hours in really the best metric to use? Iâm not saying it isnât but for shit and giggles, what other ways would there be to measure input into, what the state and you by signing onto the marriage contract, agree is shared assets?
Very much agreed.
Sure it does. If you add kids into situation 1 above, your perception of the stay at home spouseâs investment into the and family and career doesnât change?
No, you are correct, but letâs not pretend if you had a partner that handled the doctorâs visits, sick days, facilitation, lunches, cloths, laundry, pickup and drop off at football practice, etc, so you didnât have to take time off work to do that, and instead took your time for games, fun times, vacations, work later during the week to have weekends, etc etc etc, it wouldnât be easier.
She either does on average or she doesnât on average, lol. ANd if we take single parent households out, I would say, yes on average, women tend to do more of the facilitation and logistical work with kids.
Agreed. Just like it was everyoneâs choice to get married, have the kids, and invite the state into their lives.
Well thatâs the thing. A large portion of the paygap myth is the fact that family focused choices tend to put women into roles in the workforce that have lower monetary pay. (Typically have better benefits like insurance and flex time, but dollar per hour are lower.)
So yes, while it is choice, it is often harmful to a career for a women to have a couple kids. ITâs a trade off, economics.
[quote]
I wasnât going after YOU, buddy - just the industry standard. [/quote]
I donât agree with the industry standard simply because it is the industry standard. I donât think there should be a standard.
I do however know that you canât take two people whoâve made decades of joint choices that leave one of the people assed out when they split.
My buddy is a stay at home dad, and his wife makes serious coin as a pharmacist. If in 12 years they split, and he has a 22 year gap on his resume, totally lost as to new developments in his field, and seriously reduced earning potential, yet all three kids are in college, decent humans and positive contributors to society, what should happen to the assets in that situation?
Just the assets. Iâm not the biggest fan of alimony on principle, so lets say we both agree it should end as a practice, unless the couple agree to it in the terms of a divorce.
Compensation is a tough word to use here, lol. But weâll get to that.
[quote]staystrong wrote:
Sometimes it feels like most people view marriage not as a choice but as something that everyone ânormalâ does, like itâs bizarre that they would consider it a choice in the first place. You love someone, you have to marry them right? What other option could there possibly be?[/quote]
There is a couple things at play here:
One is that, yes, its a social norm. Things become social norms for a reason.
Two is that it is in societies best interest to see committed coupling this way, because coupling tends to lead to children. Society needs children, and it needs children who arenât fucking animals. Two parent kids tend to be much less fuck ups than those who come from single parent households. Look up the stats and studies. The numbers are insane. Kids that got in trouble in life, you know like arson, rape, murder, larceny, etc, tend to come from single parent homes.
And third, and I think most damaging is because of the above people see marriage as an âinstitutionâ when it isnât. So a bunch of dolts who are insecure in their relationships think âwell if we get married weâre committed and that will solve all the insecurity problems.â This is false and why people get divorced 20 times. They didnât want to work on their relationship pre-vows, and find out marriage doesnât solve any problems and then are like âshit I have to work on this stillâ
I would say out of all the young men on this thread that say âI wonât ever get marriedâ that havenât been yet, only about 10% of you will actually refrain from being married at least once in your life. Most of us that are married said the same shit, lol.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]staystrong wrote:
Sometimes it feels like most people view marriage not as a choice but as something that everyone ânormalâ does, like itâs bizarre that they would consider it a choice in the first place. You love someone, you have to marry them right? What other option could there possibly be?[/quote]
There is a couple things at play here:
One is that, yes, its a social norm. Things become social norms for a reason.
Two is that it is in societies best interest to see committed coupling this way, because coupling tends to lead to children. Society needs children, and it needs children who arenât fucking animals. Two parent kids tend to be much less fuck ups than those who come from single parent households. Look up the stats and studies. The numbers are insane. Kids that got in trouble in life, you know like arson, rape, murder, larceny, etc, tend to come from single parent homes.
And third, and I think most damaging is because of the above people see marriage as an âinstitutionâ when it isnât. So a bunch of dolts who are insecure in their relationships think âwell if we get married weâre committed and that will solve all the insecurity problems.â This is false and why people get divorced 20 times. They didnât want to work on their relationship pre-vows, and find out marriage doesnât solve any problems and then are like âshit I have to work on this stillâ
[/quote]
That all makes sense, though the last paragraph bothers me to no end in real life. Iâve seen it with people from all age groups already, from early stages of a relationship to people who are currently married. Blows my mind people somehow think another step in the relationship is going to eliminate the current problems. âIf we move in together, Iâll be more trusting of you because [whatever bs reason]ââŠuh no, you likely wonât.
[quote]
I would say out of all the young men on this thread that say âI wonât ever get marriedâ that havenât been yet, only about 10% of you will actually refrain from being married at least once in your life. Most of us that are married said the same shit, lol. [/quote]
Fair enough lol. Circumstances change, beliefs shift, and lives change over the years. I know my perception on marriage has shifted in the past couple years, and very well could in the future.
[quote]staystrong wrote:
Fair enough lol. Circumstances change, beliefs shift, and lives change over the years. I know my perception on marriage has shifted in the past couple years, and very well could in the future.[/quote]
Part of it is you just kinda get caught up in the whole thing. And the notion of a âbiological clockâ is very real.
Weâve been raised in a society where it is was you do, and we have a biological need. (Womanâs would be to tie you down to provide, and yours would be to stick you dick in anything warm and wet, lol.)
Youâre literally trying to buck tens of thousands of years of evolution and thousands of years of social norms not getting married. (Assuming one has/wants a âlife partnerâ and kids.) Some will do it, and find a woman willing to go along, most wonât though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still have to pay her alimony. No matter what.[/quote]
How long do you have to do that?
Up to a certain amount overall?
Cheaper to keep her.
Get my house, get my money, get my kids, fuck other guys.
Logical ending to such a scenario.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Cheaper to kill her.[/quote]
Iâm not sure what to think yet.
In about two weeks my girlfriend and I will be living together for real, i.e., actually combining households and not going between living at each others places every few months.
Her income exceeds mine, my assets exceed hers (at least for the moment). Weâve spent the last several years just generally âgrowing upâ, with some breakups, some bad fights, and now we are where we are. Still some things to work out, but weâve got a lot figured out at this point.
Things are heavily leaning toward marriage and then kids at this point. Not immediately, but soon. Sheâs been very clear about being married before having kids, and her âbiological clockâ is ticking.
Given that weâre both breadwinners, and that we both want children, whatâs the advice?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Iâm not sure what to think yet.
In about two weeks my girlfriend and I will be living together for real, i.e., actually combining households and not going between living at each others places every few months.
Her income exceeds mine, my assets exceed hers (at least for the moment). Weâve spent the last several years just generally âgrowing upâ, with some breakups, some bad fights, and now we are where we are. Still some things to work out, but weâve got a lot figured out at this point.
Things are heavily leaning toward marriage and then kids at this point. Not immediately, but soon. Sheâs been very clear about being married before having kids, and her âbiological clockâ is ticking.
Given that weâre both breadwinners, and that we both want children, whatâs the advice?[/quote]
Sounds perfect. If she earns more than you you know she isnât a gold digger. Sounds like you are winning at life to be honest.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Cheaper to kill her.[/quote]
[/quote]
Tim Lambesis?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Cheaper to kill her.[/quote]
[/quote]
Tim Lambesis?[/quote]
Hey Megan!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
So first you claimed you supported Sowell on the issue, who does not support a woman getting half, but rather a woman getting compensated for lost labour, commensurate to what she could earn each year she was married in a job attainable for someone with her qualifications and experience.
Now you are saying a woman should receive half.
[/quote]
You are so fucking lost it isnât even funny. Come back when you read posts or arenât acting like an intellectually dishonest asshole.
This entire post is completely made up garbage, and anyone who can read knows this.
Please find one time where I said anyone should âget halfâ? You canât and you know it.
[/quote]
I can tell you own a sledge hammer.