He Doesn't Know if He Believes in Marriage

[oldshirt]

 

The central issue is that I'm not going to place myself in any position where I would ever owe another able bodied human adult money, regardless of the reason. Child support, alimony, comingled funds/assets, you name it.

 

 

So it's not even just in marriage or relationships. It's about all aspects of my life. What is mine, is mine.

 

 

 

And that is clearly your right and there is nothing wrong with that outlook or practice.

 

 

There are undoubtedly many women that share that outlook as well. And there are many women who have sworn never to be dependent on anyone.

 

 

How this relates back to the OP is this - if someone wants marry and have joint ownership of a home and have biological children with someone.

 

 

.....Avoid people with this outlook like the plague and walk away the moment you find out they feel this way.

 

 

They are not bad people and should not be scorned or condemned for their beliefs and neither should any attempt be made to make them change their beliefs or practices. But their life philosophies are not compatible with someone who wants to blend resources and be committed to a home and family together. Walk away.

[oldshirt]

In summary: Oldshirt enters marriage due to of lack of trust in his partner. Sambolini doesn't enter marriage due to lack of trust in the courts. /discussion

.

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

 

I'm can't speak for Sambolini, but my interpretation of what he has been saying is more along the lines of his divorce sucked bad and there for he feels the benefits of marriage have been negated and it is thus better (for him at least) to not marry.

 

 

My position isn't that people should marry because they don't trust their partner. If you don't trust them you should absolutely NOT marry them! Marriage is a legal contract - never enter into any contract with someone you don't trust.

 

 

My position is that yes, divorce sucks. Yes divorce can be costly. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the purposes and benefits of marriage should be dismissed.

 

 

And I don't believe that in a apples to apples comparison regarding nonmarried couples jointly owning property and having biological children together, I do not believe that not being married will offer them any protection against child support and property division. Non married couples that jointly own property together and have children together, will still end up in court having the property divided and having child care/child support being decided. Not being married does not ensure walking away without legal obligation when joint property and children are concerned.

 

 

And for some people, marriage still makes sense and is still a valid option. And for those people, it is in their best interest to find other people that are in the same position and hold the same beliefs and values and walk away from the rest that do not.

[sambolini]

I agree with you to a point. In the scenario you described, I don't think anyone would really have a valid argument against some kind of reasonable support until a time she was able to get on her feet and be self-supporting.

 

 

Here is my point, there is where I think things should be a little situational.

 

 

If some gal walks away from her H and home and family to take up with some other dude or just decides she doesn't want to be tied down with marriage any more (ie situations of her own adultery or walk-away-wife syndrome) why should her xH subsidize that???????

 

 

Now if the executive husband kicks out his wife of 20 and sends her and their kids packing because he wants to take up with his 22 year old secretary, then yeah sure, he should provide her support until a time she is able to support herself.

 

 

And as I said above, child support (or some form of equitable child custody and care arrangement) should be a given.

 

 

But as far as women choosing to leave the marriage of their own volition, I'm pretty much with Sambolini and I see no reason the xH should have to subsidize it.

 

 

This is the one area I think the 'no-fault' divorce movement went a little too far. I'm generally supportive of 'no-fault', but I do think that if someone is voluntarily leaving a marriage because they want to, I see absolutely no reason the other spouse should have to pay for it.

 

 

If someone is getting dumped, kicked out, cheated on or physically abused, that is different. But if someone is voluntarily leaving the marriage because they found someone else or simply because they want to, that should be on their own dime.

 

 

If you want my support, you can stay married to me and stay out of other people's beds. If you want to leave, fine. But I see no reason I should have to provide any support of that.

 

I 100% agree with this. This is exactly how I feel. I think you just did a better job of verbalizing it than I did.

 

But I take it one step further. As long as the possibility exists that a wife can just up and leave of her own volition and legally get the courts to require her xH to subsidize that decision, then marriage is a threat. It is a bona fide scam. And I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

And I will share my experience with all men who are thinking about marrying. That way, they can make an informed decision as to whether or not it's an acceptable risk for them.

 

I'm not saying men should always walk away scott free. I'm saying that all humans regardless of gender should face the consequences of any negative decision they make.

 

But feminists have done a great job of legislating away their negative consequences and pushing them onto their husbands.

 

It's a sad state of affairs, but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist because "feelings".

[Mr. Lucky]

I don't care what happened 100 years ago. I wasn't there and had nothing to do with women's oppression. That'd be like a poor black person coming up to me as a white man and saying, "You owe me money because slavery." No. I didn't participate in it. I had nothing to do with it. As such, I reject any notion of a social debt that I owe any individual.

 

If you think women - and black people - have equal rights and opportunities today, that explains an awful lot about your position.

 

Sambolini, maybe you didn't wed the wrong gender, you just chose the wrong person...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Woggle]

It is a little better where I love now but I remember at one of my old jobs when I was single just listening to the contempt with how the women spoke about their husbands was enough to put any man off of marriage. I honestly think that if some of these men were to die the women would just shrug their shoulders and move on or in some cases be happy. There is no love, no affection, no attraction, no respect, no nothing. These women feel more for a stranger on a street than they do for the man they promised to love and cherish. It also see,s that some women talk living with a man like it is the worst hell on earth for a woman then in the next breath complain that men won't grow up and commit to one woman. I think a lot of guys have just gotten tired of the whole thing. Some women here say they shouldn't have to be punished for the actions of other women which I fully agree with but men also shouldn't have to be punished for the actions of other men.

 

What self respecting man wants to subject himself to this? What man fantasizes about being with a woman who hates him or at best might like him as a person but had no attraction towards him? This is the situation you see so many men in and when she gets tired of you and dumps you and in some cases cheats on you you have to pay for the priviledge. I don't think most men object to a marriage where there is mutual love, respect and attraction but how often do you see that these days?

[sambolini]

If you think women - and black people - have equal rights and opportunities today, that explains an awful lot about your position.

 

Sambolini, maybe you didn't wed the wrong gender, you just chose the wrong person...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

I think black people suffer far more than women do. A typical black female will have a much worse life than a white woman. I also think a black man will have a much worse life than a white woman.

 

White women are not victims. Quite the opposite, they are politically in control.

 

However, that doesn't mean that I personally am responsible, or owe anything, to any of those groups. I have not been responsible for oppressing anyone...so why should I pay for the wrongdoings of others?

 

What if I had been married to a black woman...should I have been charged double? For both her gender and her race?

 

I mean, if oppression is your argument, then minority spouses should get preferential treatment in divorce over their white spouses in divorce.

 

What happens if a black man and white woman get divorced? Do they cancel each other out and the divorce is equitable? Or does the man still pay?

 

I absolutely chose the wrong person. There's no denying that. But I don't have any faith that, if given the opportunity, I wouldn't get cleaned out again.

 

I rebuilt once. Ain't doing it again.

[Mr. Lucky]

White women are not victims. Quite the opposite, they are politically in control.

 

I hate to let the truth get in the way but here's a few political facts:

 

America now ranks ninety-eighth in the world for percentage of women in its national legislature, down from 59th in 1998, just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and barely ahead of the United Arab Emirates. Only five governors are women, including just one Democrat, and twenty-four states have never had a female governor. The percentage of women holding statewide and state legislative offices is less than 25 percent, barely higher than in 1993. Locally, only twelve of our 100 largest cities have female mayors.

 

Some control...

 

Mr. Lucky

[sambolini]

I hate to let the truth get in the way but here's a few political facts:

 

America now ranks ninety-eighth in the world for percentage of women in its national legislature, down from 59th in 1998, just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and barely ahead of the United Arab Emirates. Only five governors are women, including just one Democrat, and twenty-four states have never had a female governor. The percentage of women holding statewide and state legislative offices is less than 25 percent, barely higher than in 1993. Locally, only twelve of our 100 largest cities have female mayors.

 

Some control...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

I'm talking about the laws that are enacted. The laws currently in place favor white women over any other demographic of people in modern Western society.

 

I don't see your post indicating any discrimination against women. I see it indicating that less women choose to be politicians than men.

 

If Sarah Palin can make it in politics, then ANY woman can make it in politics.

 

However, that doesn't mean that they aren't still active in politics, and that they don't drive social discourse, even if they're not choosing to be politicians. Because they are, and they do.

 

They are highly, highly involved in the process.

 

Case in point. White politicians far outnumber black politicians, yet affirmative action was still enacted. This demonstrates that a group of people can effect change, even if they aren't running for public office.

 

At this point, we have gone off the rails. If you want to continue this line of discussion, I'd suggest creating a new thread.

[Dolfin80]

And I'm going to expand on this further.

 

When I was married, every cent I made went into supporting the family. I had no money for myself to do anything.

 

Now, my income has increased considerably. And since I'm not throwing money down the never ending pit of marriage, I suddenly have all this disposable income.

 

I'm going to take my daughter on a road trip next month for my birthday. Next spring/summer, I'm going to do something I've never done before: visit Europe. I'll be staying in London for about a week.

 

These were things I could only dream about while married, because her income was her income but my income was "our" income (which meant it was hers too).

 

I do what I want, when I want, where I want.

 

There is no possible way that marriage today could possibly compete with that.

 

And since I'm just a burden anyway, I'll go traveling myself. Cheaper that way. Plus I get to go to the places I want to go.

 

Wow you have had the world's worst marriage. I can't believe you weren't allowed to go to Europe...lol.. I also can't believe you shared your income but then she kept hers...lol...

 

Why did you allow yourself to be treated so poorly? Did you have very low self esteem or something?

 

Most people would run from a crazy marriage like this. Most wouldn't marry such a person in the 1st place, they would run for the hills after going on a few dates!!!

 

Enjoy London

[oldshirt]

 

When I was married, every cent I made went into supporting the family. I had no money for myself to do anything.

 

 

These were things I could only dream about while married, because her income was her income but my income was "our" income (which meant it was hers too).

 

.

.

 

I don't know how to say it other than to say that was a situation you got yourself into. That is not the institution of marriage's fault.

 

 

I've been married 20 years and have always had my own separate bank accounts, investments, credit cards etc etc.

 

 

My wife has always maintained her own accounts and credit cards etc too.

 

 

We bought a new house last year and set up a joint account for common household expenses. that was the first time in 19 that we ever held a joint account. We each put the same amount in each month to cover the common household expenses otherwise she makes her own car payment, buys her own stuff etc etc.

 

 

If someone puts all their money into the family pot while their spouse keeps their own money strictly for themselves, that is on them, not the institution of marriage.

[sandylee1]

This discussion has really gone to a whole other level. I really don't see how race has anything to do with the decision to marry or not.

 

The issue was how the OPs boyfriend isn't sure about marriage. Then we have people offering their views on this and a strong view is how betrayal via infidelity and subsequent financial loss may be a reason for men not to marry.

 

The sad thing is how bitter infidelity leaves people.... and it's not just men. The woman who gets tossed aside and receives alimony isn't jumping for joy. She gives her best years to a man only to be dumped and we all know it's much easier for a man to get a younger attractive woman. This is what sent Betty Broderick crazy!

The alimony meant nothing after she was tossed like trash.

 

Marriage can be a raw deal for either gender. Should a woman think I'm not getting married and it's so awful because like so many other men... her husband could trade her in and she's left post menapousal on her own.

[sambolini]

I don't know how to say it other than to say that was a situation you got yourself into. That is not the institution of marriage's fault.

 

 

I've been married 20 years and have always had my own separate bank accounts, investments, credit cards etc etc.

 

 

My wife has always maintained her own accounts and credit cards etc too.

 

 

We bought a new house last year and set up a joint account for common household expenses. that was the first time in 19 that we ever held a joint account. We each put the same amount in each month to cover the common household expenses otherwise she makes her own car payment, buys her own stuff etc etc.

 

 

If someone puts all their money into the family pot while their spouse keeps their own money strictly for themselves, that is on them, not the institution of marriage.

 

Would you say the same to a woman who is married to a man who beats her?

[sambolini]

This discussion has really gone to a whole other level. I really don't see how race has anything to do with the decision to marry or not.

 

The issue was how the OPs boyfriend isn't sure about marriage. Then we have people offering their views on this and a strong view is how betrayal via infidelity and subsequent financial loss may be a reason for men not to marry.

 

The sad thing is how bitter infidelity leaves people.... and it's not just men. The woman who gets tossed aside and receives alimony isn't jumping for joy. She gives her best years to a man only to be dumped and we all know it's much easier for a man to get a younger attractive woman. This is what sent Betty Broderick crazy!

The alimony meant nothing after she was tossed like trash.

 

Marriage can be a raw deal for either gender. Should a woman think I'm not getting married and it's so awful because like so many other men... her husband could trade her in and she's left post menapousal on her own.

 

Good post. It is true that as people age, men have an easier time with finding partners than women do (on average).

 

I tend to think that it's an equalization over time. Young women have their pick of who they want, when they want. They are the most coveted type of partner. Young men, by contrast, face the most difficult dating scenario. But as time goes on, the pendulum switches.

 

I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be replaced with a younger model (my ex wife cheated with an older man).

 

I heartily agree that infidelity is painful, no matter your gender.

 

What is different is the outcome. If a man cheats, he pays (as he should). If a woman cheats, he still pays.

[oldshirt]

Would you say the same to a woman who is married to a man who beats her?

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China, but if some woman was living in an abusive relationship and not doing anything about it, then yes, I would say she is accountable for her own safety and well being.

[sandylee1]

 

What is different is the outcome. If a man cheats, he pays (as he should). If a woman cheats, he still pays.

 

This only applies if he is the higher earner and that is not always the case. It's about the higher earner and not the gender. Women have also been financially screwed in divorces with cheating husbands. I know BWs who have to pay SS to their cheating ExHs, when they are shacked up with the new woman.

 

 

One BW tried everything to not divorce, but her WH just kept sneaking off to the OW.... she had to pull the plug, knowing it meant she'd be paying him SS, as she was not just the higher earner, but the only earner.

 

 

I think it should be a standard marital law that if you cheat, you get a less than 50% split of the marital assets. It will make people think twice.... if you want to have sex with someone else.... get divorced first or you'll loose some $$$$.

 

 

It's also important to realize that many of those men who are the higher earners, have climbed up the ladder at work, been able to go out of town on business trips and everything else, because they have a supportive wife (who has often sacrificed her career) at home looking after the children, the home and other domestic matters.

 

 

As I said .... cheaters come in all shapes, colours, sizes and genders.

[sambolini]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China, but if some woman was living in an abusive relationship and not doing anything about it, then yes, I would say she is accountable for her own safety and well being.

 

Good. The reason why I asked was because I wanted to make sure you were applying that logic consistently. You are.

 

I actually agree with you. I am responsible for making the conscious decision to marry her, no doubt about that. That's a decision that I own every day. Which is another reason why I don't want to marry again. I don't want to repeat past mistakes.

 

But like the woman being beaten by her husband, I shouldn't have to pay for getting out of an abusive relationship. It's bitter pill to swallow when the courts favor your abuser.

[sambolini]

This only applies if he is the higher earner and that is not always the case. It's about the higher earner and not the gender. Women have also been financially screwed in divorces with cheating husbands. I know BWs who have to pay SS to their cheating ExHs, when they are shacked up with the new woman.

 

 

One BW tried everything to not divorce, but her WH just kept sneaking off to the OW.... she had to pull the plug, knowing it meant she'd be paying him SS, as she was not just the higher earner, but the only earner.

 

 

I think it should be a standard marital law that if you cheat, you get a less than 50% split of the marital assets. It will make people think twice.... if you want to have sex with someone else.... get divorced first or you'll loose some $$$$.

 

 

It's also important to realize that many of those men who are the higher earners, have climbed up the ladder at work, been able to go out of town on business trips and everything else, because they have a supportive wife (who has often sacrificed her career) at home looking after the children, the home and other domestic matters.

 

 

As I said .... cheaters come in all shapes, colours, sizes and genders.

 

I agree with most of your post, except for one part: my ex wife did not support me at all. I didn't become a high earner until I was divorced; it was only then that I had the time, energy, and wherewithal to better myself and my life.

 

With the exception of my daughter, every good thing that has happened to me has been outside of marriage, especially after my divorce.

 

I don't doubt your intentions, but I have never had a woman show me that much support, no matter how much I supported her.

 

And statistics don't bear out your assertion that women are the ones sacrificing their careers, since there are more women than men in the work force today. It's common argument, but one that has no basis in reality.

[Mr. Lucky]

I don't doubt your intentions, but I have never had a woman show me that much support, no matter how much I supported her.

 

That's the loss sambolini, it's not dollars and cents but your determination to stop trying. You can't have a significant relationship without some vulnerability, finances included.

 

What you're so worried about protecting is just stuff, a pile of things. There are more important matters in life...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Dolfin80]

 

And statistics don't bear out your assertion that women are the ones sacrificing their careers, since there are more women than men in the work force today. It's common argument, but one that has no basis in reality.

 

Its 70% men at my workplace, 30% women. Work even built a daycare to try to get women back into the workforce.

 

Sometimes i am the only women in the meetings - its a sauseage fest.

[nucking_futs]

marriage today is not a good contract for the male... there is way too much to lose and too little to gain.

[sambolini]

That's the loss sambolini, it's not dollars and cents but your determination to stop trying. You can't have a significant relationship without some vulnerability, finances included.

 

What you're so worried about protecting is just stuff, a pile of things. There are more important matters in life...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

I disagree. It's not about "stuff". It's about protecting my livelihood so I can continue keeping a roof over my head, food in my belly, and clothes on my back. My house nearly went into foreclosure due to my divorce.

 

Not to mention the perks that make life worth living, such as being able to go out to eat and take trips.

 

I want more out of life than just survival. Ensuring my income is not open to another person protects my quality of life.

[sambolini]

Its 70% men at my workplace, 30% women. Work even built a daycare to try to get women back into the workforce.

 

Sometimes i am the only women in the meetings - its a sauseage fest.

 

Most of the upper management in my agency are women. In fact, the head of my agency is a woman.

 

And about half of the people in my IT shop are women.

 

What is your occupational field? When I broke my leg in July, 4 out of 5 nurses at the hospital were women. I hardly saw any male nurses.

[oldshirt]

Most of the upper management in my agency are women. In fact, the head of my agency is a woman.

 

And about half of the people in my IT shop are women.

 

What is your occupational field? When I broke my leg in July, 4 out of 5 nurses at the hospital were women. I hardly saw any male nurses.

 

 

 

 

 

I work in a teaching hospital and each summer we get a fresh new batch of resident physicians. Each year there are more women than the year before. I haven't counted them up lately but from what I see around the hospital I assume the majority of resident physicians are female.

 

 

The top-dawg CEO of the health group is male, but the majority of the rest of the hospital administration are women and most of the hospital department heads are female. My boss and his management line are males but most of the rest of the department heads and management lines are female.

[oldshirt]

T

This only applies if he is the higher earner and that is not always the case. It's about the higher earner and not the gender.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

The issue of who "takes it in the shorts" financially in a divorce is not a gender specific issue. It is about who has the majority of the assets and the higher income. That is not gender dependent.

 

 

If one party makes substantially higher income than the other, in the case of a divorce that party will likely have to contribute a higher portion of child support and perhaps spousal support depending on a variety of factors.

 

 

And if one party has consistently provided a significantly greater amount of hands on child care, there is a good chance that person may be given a higher degree of custody and thusly may be awarded primary custody along with child support.

 

 

Those judgments do not follow along gender lines but along income and hands on care lines.

 

 

The amounts of child support and spousal support etc also follow along established formulas and calculations based on incomes and income potential and amount of hands on child care etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

 

It can be very complex and may even seem contradictory and unfair at times but what it usually is not is some judge throwing the book at some guy and sticking it to him just because he is a male.

 

 

Regardless of if you are male or female, if you make significantly more than your spouse and your spouse has been a stay at home parent and provided the vast majority of the hands on child care for the majority of your marriage, in the event of a divorce, there is a good chance you are going to be paying child support and spousal support.

 

 

That applies regardless of the genders of the parties.

 

 

In days of yore, it was almost always the male breadwinner and the female care giver. That is certainly not always the case anymore.

 

 

I think the take away here to all this discussion about who pays the highest price for divorce is it's not always the man. It's who has the most to lose.

 

 

If you don't want to pay any child support or spousal support you have two options. One is never have kids and never marry (The route Sambolini is taking)

 

 

The other is marry up and be the primary child care provider yourself.

[oldshirt]

marriage today is not a good contract for the male... there is way too much to lose and too little to gain.

 

You are looking at in terms of outdated gender roles.

 

 

What if the wife is a physician and the husband is the night clerk at Quick Trip?