Why Do Men Get Married These Days?

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I also take issue with the idea that alimony recipients “sacrificed” their career so they could stay home with the kids (or to watch Opera and eat bonbons)and needs to be compensated, while the breadwinner sacrifices time at home with his kids, took on whatever occupational health problems come with his field, etc… to go and win the bread and receives nothing in compensation, because clearly he was the lucky one to be toiling away while she was at home pushing the kids on the swing.

Being a stay at home mom / house wife is it’s own reward. They don’t need to be comped for their careers after divorce. They get compensation every single day they’re not at work, and should be nothing but grateful after the fact.[/quote]

Being a stay at home parent and keeping house is not its own reward, especially when it provides leisure time to the other spouse he or she wouldn’t have had if they were both working and had to split those duties. If the person is actually working, it can be hard and demanding. It is a luxury for the couple if one of them can work within the home, assuming the stay at home spouse is actually working.

What about the situation where the man hits his fifties and decides that his twenty-two year old secretary is a better fit for his lifestyle than his homemaker wife of twenty-five years? She’s been out of the job market for that long and probably has no current marketable skills. Should she get nothing while she tries to get back on her feet and find a job? I’m not talking about perpetual alimony, here.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

He already gives off a scent that sends good women running, so the letter in not needed.
[/quote]

Ouch.[/quote]

Should I feel bad?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Sorry, you believe it is “the norm” for men to use prostitutes?

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Sorry, you believe it is “the norm” for men to use prostitutes?[/quote]

No, he believes it is the norm for men to shell out some sort of service or good in exchange to get women to like them enough to want to go to bed with them. At least, that’s what I’ve gleaned from reading orion’s posts.

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Sorry, you believe it is “the norm” for men to use prostitutes?[/quote]

No, he believes it is the norm for men to shell out some sort of service or good in exchange to get women to like them enough to want to go to bed with them. At least, that’s what I’ve gleaned from reading orion’s posts. [/quote]

I read it as more of the “world’s oldest profession” type of thing

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I also take issue with the idea that alimony recipients “sacrificed” their career so they could stay home with the kids (or to watch Opera and eat bonbons)and needs to be compensated, while the breadwinner sacrifices time at home with his kids, took on whatever occupational health problems come with his field, etc… to go and win the bread and receives nothing in compensation, because clearly he was the lucky one to be toiling away while she was at home pushing the kids on the swing.

Being a stay at home mom / house wife is it’s own reward. They don’t need to be comped for their careers after divorce. They get compensation every single day they’re not at work, and should be nothing but grateful after the fact.[/quote]

Being a stay at home parent and keeping house is not its own reward, especially when it provides leisure time to the other spouse he or she wouldn’t have had if they were both working and had to split those duties. If the person is actually working, it can be hard and demanding. It is a luxury for the couple if one of them can work within the home, assuming the stay at home spouse is actually working.

What about the situation where the man hits his fifties and decides that his twenty-two year old secretary is a better fit for his lifestyle than his homemaker wife of twenty-five years? She’s been out of the job market for that long and probably has no current marketable skills. Should she get nothing while she tries to get back on her feet and find a job? I’m not talking about perpetual alimony, here.[/quote]

I agree with most of this, though I do think there is an intrinsic reward for a parent able to be home to care for children and home. Leaving an infant to return to work is very difficult, and I would say that both parents are happier when their newborn can avoid daycare to remain in its nice, clean home environment. I think going forward that it’s nice to take a kindergartener to its first day of school, chaperone field trips, etc. This all assumes a dedicated stay-at-home mom, obviously. A lazy or indifferent one is not an asset to the family, but then in what context is a lazy, indifferent person an asset? No team welcomes them.

I think Broncoandy and I have a different view of outside work, as well. I find that intrinsically rewarding, too, though I recognize that there are jobs I’d be miserable doing. Still, a job well done brings much more reward than television and candy, imo.

Further, it’s very nice to come home to a hot dinner. My evening leisure time seems much longer when an hour of it isn’t spent cooking. To be able to come in and change, put my stuff away, and look at mail while dinner is being made is probably not going to rocket me to greater success in my career, but it does make me a happier worker. I will probably hire someone to come in a clean eventually, because we’d rather do other things on the weekends. I’d be overjoyed if someone took on my laundry to boot. There are, of course, people who do that and the cooking, but they are out of my price range.

I don’t see it as “sacrificing” a career when a parent stays home, I see it as a mutual decision. The downside of that decision only comes in the event of a divorce or marital dissatisfaction (e.g. she’s a shitty SAHM and won’t get a job). But then, many women find themselves with men who leave something to be desired, work-ethic-wise.

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re right, Lanky. I understand.

I would say more but not going to air any more dirty laundry.[/quote]

Yeah, just to make sure, I’m not commenting on your situation specifically. I just know the last thing the courts want is to wade through all the dirty details of a marriage through he said/she said.

I’m not even sure what the right answer is, I just know there are no perfect solutions and a lot of bad options. [/quote]

It certainly gets trickier when you’re talking about a long term partnership of twenty or thirty years, where one spouse forwent developing his or her career to raise children or make life more comfortable for the spouse who made the money. And I’m not even sure that one bad act, even if it is grounds for divorce, is also grounds to lose equity in the marriage. Just speaking in general, not regarding push’s situation.[/quote]

Not that I’m disagreeing with you here, but I think it is much less tricky in fact it’s crystal clear that the scenario you describe is why and rightfully so, why alimony exists in the first place. Infidelity is irrelevant other than perhaps something to consider in judging the character of a person while determining custody if kids are still in the picture.
[/quote]

I’m not talking about infidelity, I’m talking about a decision to break the marital contract to move on to a new partner, either in the manner Nephorm offered or in the case of a SAH wife leaving the marriage for another arrangement. There should be a downside to acting in poor faith.

Though I think generally there is a remedy for the latter scenario. My understanding of alimony is that it is time-limited and can be challenged if the (usually wife) moves into another cohabitation or marriage. The guy leaving for his secretary will of course pay spousal support, and rightly so.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
“You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, that is something you are free to do and it accords with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could avoid.” -Franz Kafka

I’m inclined to agree with Franz. [/quote]

You would like to buy a house. It’s the American Dream, and you think it is a good one. You know quite a few people who have purchased houses that ultimately fell down or had major problems. You aren’t particularly handy, you don’t have money to pay someone else to do repairs or major remodeling, and you lack the knowledge necessary to pick a house that is structurally sound.

Do you still buy a house, or do you find alternative living arrangements?[/quote]

You know the answer to that. I do. Because I believe that home ownership offers benefits that go well beyond its fiscal superiority over renting, and I want those very badly. To me there’s a deep satisfaction in pride of ownership. If the thing falls down, I’ll simply dust myself off, take some time to regroup financially and emotionally, and try again. The world won’t end.
[/quote]

You also have a much higher tolerance for financial risk than I do, so I’m not sure how to address that.[/quote]

I would say that my risk tolerance is higher than yours generally, which comes down to my belief in the truth of Kafka’s statement. Sure, I can try to prevent unhappiness, but have I gained happiness in so doing? My belief is no.

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
… she is not assisting me in any way in the pursuit and capture of those hard-earned dollars…[/quote]

This is a more important thing than most pro-alimoney folks realize. For some reason the same sort of people who will point at a career and insist you couldn’t have / didn’t build without her insist that you should have no problems maintaining it without her. Not to mention the whole inequality of her being able to opt out of her role as a house wife whenever she wants, while you are required to continue your roll as the provider for as long as the court sees fit. Shits slavery.[/quote]

Valid point, for sure. No easy answers. [/quote]

It is a valid point.

Me: “Providing” Before, During and After Divorce

Her: “Providing” Before.

The equity in that? Dunno.[/quote]

I also take issue with the idea that alimony recipients “sacrificed” their career so they could stay home with the kids (or to watch Opera and eat bonbons)and needs to be compensated, while the breadwinner sacrifices time at home with his kids, took on whatever occupational health problems come with his field, etc… to go and win the bread and receives nothing in compensation, because clearly he was the lucky one to be toiling away while she was at home pushing the kids on the swing.

Being a stay at home mom / house wife is it’s own reward. They don’t need to be comped for their careers after divorce. They get compensation every single day they’re not at work, and should be nothing but grateful after the fact.[/quote]

I’m sure it depends on how we’re all wired and everything, but I would never be able to be a stay at home parent. I love my son, but if I have him for an entire day while my wife is out doing something or with her friends, by the end of the day I’m completely ready to put him to bed. I’m much happier and feel much more rewarded by going to work, that much I’m sure about.

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

He already gives off a scent that sends good women running, so the letter in not needed.
[/quote]

Thats a lie.

I send bad women running too.

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Sorry, you believe it is “the norm” for men to use prostitutes?[/quote]

No, he believes it is the norm for men to shell out some sort of service or good in exchange to get women to like them enough to want to go to bed with them. At least, that’s what I’ve gleaned from reading orion’s posts. [/quote]

Na, first you bed them, then they try to extract either time, money, emotional investment or, God forbid, committment.

Either way, you pay.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Sorry, you believe it is “the norm” for men to use prostitutes?[/quote]

No, he believes it is the norm for men to shell out some sort of service or good in exchange to get women to like them enough to want to go to bed with them. At least, that’s what I’ve gleaned from reading orion’s posts. [/quote]

Na, first you bed them, then they try to extract either time, money, emotional investment or, God forbid, committment.

Either way, you pay. [/quote]

God forbid you spend your time laughing and playing with someone you love! YUCK.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I also take issue with the idea that alimony recipients “sacrificed” their career so they could stay home with the kids (or to watch Opera and eat bonbons)and needs to be compensated, while the breadwinner sacrifices time at home with his kids, took on whatever occupational health problems come with his field, etc… to go and win the bread and receives nothing in compensation, because clearly he was the lucky one to be toiling away while she was at home pushing the kids on the swing.

Being a stay at home mom / house wife is it’s own reward. They don’t need to be comped for their careers after divorce. They get compensation every single day they’re not at work, and should be nothing but grateful after the fact.[/quote]

Being a stay at home parent and keeping house is not its own reward, especially when it provides leisure time to the other spouse he or she wouldn’t have had if they were both working and had to split those duties. If the person is actually working, it can be hard and demanding. It is a luxury for the couple if one of them can work within the home, assuming the stay at home spouse is actually working.

What about the situation where the man hits his fifties and decides that his twenty-two year old secretary is a better fit for his lifestyle than his homemaker wife of twenty-five years? She’s been out of the job market for that long and probably has no current marketable skills. Should she get nothing while she tries to get back on her feet and find a job? I’m not talking about perpetual alimony, here.[/quote]

I’m all for an equitable division of assets, and a clean break. Liquidate, divide, move on. After that, burger flipping is a marketable skill, so she’d best get flipping.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I think Broncoandy and I have a different view of outside work, as well. I find that intrinsically rewarding, too, though I recognize that there are jobs I’d be miserable doing. Still, a job well done brings much more reward than television and candy, imo.

I don’t see it as “sacrificing” a career when a parent stays home, I see it as a mutual decision. The downside of that decision only comes in the event of a divorce or marital dissatisfaction (e.g. she’s a shitty SAHM and won’t get a job). But then, many women find themselves with men who leave something to be desired, work-ethic-wise.
[/quote]

People who don’t fancy television and candy will find more productive ways to spend their time. Education, home business, internet sales, pickles, jams, roadside stands… Point is the freedom that comes with having that much free time is not something the working spouse will generally have. You can’t put a price on that. For a stay at home person, every day is Saterday - only better because banks and such aren’t closed.

Stay at home spouse is a mutual decision you’re right. And it’s usually based on each spouses strengths, and preferences. Which is to say that generally the one who stays home is not there against their will. They choose to give up their career and stay home, while the working spouse gives up home life for their career. Alimony for the sake of “she sacrificed her career” is therefor an attempt to balance an equation which was already balanced (hence unbalancing it, and rightly leading to additional resentment and bitterness).

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I think Broncoandy and I have a different view of outside work, as well. I find that intrinsically rewarding, too, though I recognize that there are jobs I’d be miserable doing. Still, a job well done brings much more reward than television and candy, imo.

I don’t see it as “sacrificing” a career when a parent stays home, I see it as a mutual decision. The downside of that decision only comes in the event of a divorce or marital dissatisfaction (e.g. she’s a shitty SAHM and won’t get a job). But then, many women find themselves with men who leave something to be desired, work-ethic-wise.
[/quote]

People who don’t fancy television and candy will find more productive ways to spend their time. Education, home business, internet sales, pickles, jams, roadside stands… Point is the freedom that comes with having that much free time is not something the working spouse will generally have. You can’t put a price on that. For a stay at home person, every day is Saterday - only better because banks and such aren’t closed.

Stay at home spouse is a mutual decision you’re right. And it’s usually based on each spouses strengths, and preferences. Which is to say that generally the one who stays home is not there against their will. They choose to give up their career and stay home, while the working spouse gives up home life for their career. Alimony for the sake of “she sacrificed her career” is therefor an attempt to balance an equation which was already balanced (hence unbalancing it, and rightly leading to additional resentment and bitterness).[/quote]

How about in instances in which the demise of the marriage is clearly the man’s fault? You seem to be taking a very black and white view of this thing, I’m wondering if you see any grey area at all.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

How about in instances in which the demise of the marriage is clearly the man’s fault? You seem to be taking a very black and white view of this thing, I’m wondering if you see any grey area at all. [/quote]

Man’s fault, woman’s fault, no fault doesn’t matter. When it’s over it’s over. Equitable division of assets, clean break, get the fuck out, go start your new life. You weren’t working, now you need a job. You weren’t cooking your own food, time to master the grill. Not this bull shit where it’s “OK miss, you’re free to go start your new life free from your marital obligations, but you sir will be staying right here fulfilling your marital obligations and than some for the next 5-10-15-20 years.”.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Just ask around for a good home inspector. Never buy a house without an inspection.

You are a smart guy, you can learn to fix things.
[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or extending the metaphor.

In terms of your literal point, finding a good home inspector is non-trivial. They can’t see under walls, and most people don’t know if they had a bad home inspector until something goes wrong in the house and whoever repairs it points out that the defect should have been caught in an inspection. That said, in my part of the world, houses are not crumbling all around. I imagine that if there were we’d see lots of new policies from lending institutions and insurance companies, if not legislation.

In terms of the metaphorical point, who would be the relationship equivalent to a home inspector? I’m aware that some people do premarital counseling, but my feeling is that it is even more hit-and-miss than home inspection. And they don’t give you a nice, printed report at the end.[/quote]

Neither, I was only giving advice on the home buying aspect. If you ask around you can find home inspectors worth their weight in gold. My mom was in real estate and would only use one guy. You would be surprised what they can find behind closed walls (think attics and crawlspaces).

He got me out of buying a beautifully done house that was literally splitting in two just by crawling under it. I am handy with carpentry and such and they had covered the defects up so well I did not spot them.

I have purchased five houses and he inspected every one.

I don’t give relationship advice. I have been with the same woman for twentyfive years so there is obviously something not quite right in her thinking.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Women should have an odometer and their N should be printed on their forehead.

In scarlet letters. [/quote]

What about yours?[/quote]

I dont care.

Do pros count?[/quote]

If they would count for the women, yes.[/quote]

I have no opinion when it comes to this, pay for play seems to be rare when it comes to women?

Its the norm when it comes to men. [/quote]

Really? I have never directly paid for it.