Is Marriage really that bad?

[Theodarzna]

Not sure if I agree with this - seems a bit authoritarian to me - but the reasoning behind it makes sense to me.

I would not call it authoritarian at all. If you enter into a deal but then wish to back out purely because your bored, unfulfilled, or a reason that isn't a reason like adultery, abuse, ect, then simply dropping everything should come with consequences. Bored of your wife? Sorry thats not an excuse, husband unexciting now after 20 years? Sorry that isn't a reason to bring the chaos of divorce and wreck another persons life because of YOUR personal issue.

If one has no just cause for leaving, then they should not get the fruits of the contract IMHO. Leave, but remember you get only what the other party decides to give you and you have no further rights to anything.

[May90]

When you are 20+ years into a marriage how would you determine who contributed what?

Can always make rough estimations. That's what the whole process in the court is for.

[Azadina]

And there's the problem. A "sharing" of income is a sharing of resources, not a sharing of ownership. If he's the sole earner, she has access to it but "owns" (or should "own") exactly 0% of it.

That's how the earner might feel about it, but the law doesn't agree, and therefore it's all split 50-50.

[Mehrunes]

Again, this is unfair for a spouse that made a decision based on both of their input - you're leaving one to dry for an agreement both "signed" into.

There is no more "both of their input" present after the divorce. Neither benefits nor drawbacks of that situation should apply anymore. And they may have both signed into it, but ultimately it was their own decision. So they should own up to it. And idiotic decisions have idiotic consequences, so this isn't exactly an outlier. Still doesn't warrant treating it in some special way.

[Vanyali]

There is no more "both of their input" present after the divorce. Neither benefits nor drawbacks of that situation should apply anymore. And they may have both signed into it, but ultimately it was their own decision. So they should own up to it. And idiotic decisions have idiotic consequences, so this isn't exactly an outlier. Still doesn't warrant treating it in some special way.

If you're planning your marriage based on your divorce, you're doing it COMPLETELY wrong.

The circumstances of the marriage MUST be taken into account. If both agree to something, they can't just say "welp, marriage over, no consequences now bai :3".

[Mehrunes]

When you are 20+ years into a marriage how would you determine who contributed what?

Book-keeping :3

[Xirrohon]

I would not call it authoritarian at all. If you enter into a deal but then wish to back out purely because your bored, unfulfilled, or a reason that isn't a reason like adultery, abuse, ect, then simply dropping everything should come with consequences. Bored of your wife? Sorry thats not an excuse, husband unexciting now after 20 years? Sorry that isn't a reason to bring the chaos of divorce and wreck another persons life because of YOUR personal issue.

If one has no just cause for leaving, then they should not get the fruits of the contract IMHO. Leave, but remember you get only what the other party decides to give you and you have no further rights to anything.

Sorry, I really do not agree with your reasons for divorce. IMO all it needs to take is, I dont want to be with this person anymore. It doesnt matter the reason. However, the reason may help play into how things are divided after the divorce but to just get out of marriage, I dont think a person should have to give anything other than they dont want to be in the marriage anymore.

[May90]

I would not call it authoritarian at all. If you enter into a deal but then wish to back out purely because your bored, unfulfilled, or a reason that isn't a reason like adultery, abuse, ect, then simply dropping everything should come with consequences. Bored of your wife? Sorry thats not an excuse, husband unexciting now after 20 years? Sorry that isn't a reason to bring the chaos of divorce and wreck another persons life because of YOUR personal issue.

If one has no just cause for leaving, then they should not get the fruits of the contract IMHO. Leave, but remember you get only what the other party decides to give you and you have no further rights to anything.

Well, I agree. What I disagree with is the function marriage should have. What you describe can already be achieved with prenups, which is an official contract between two persons, prescribing the consequences of one-sided violation of the contract. But marriage itself, I think, should be more informal, more like an expression of trust and good will between two persons. It is my personal vision though, based on the fact that marriage is more of a tradition nowadays than anything, and violation of traditions is hardly something to punish people for.

[Theodarzna]

If you're planning your marriage based on your divorce, you're doing it COMPLETELY wrong.

The circumstances of the marriage MUST be taken into account. If both agree to something, they can't just say "welp, marriage over, no consequences now bai :3".

I think the circumstances of the divorce matter more. If the party filing for divorce is doing so unilaterally and at No-Fault, then why should they get anything but their personal possessions?

[Mehrunes]

Then why aren't people here crying about woman losing half their wealth?

Ask them? Why should I know? Generally people care more about things that is more likely to affect them. And failure to include the part that women also lose half their wealth doesn't actually negate the part with men losing half of it.

[Mistame]

If you want to calculate and pay them for their share of housework and / or what they would have been expected to make in their projected career had they not been a stay at home spouse.. that'd be fine.

They received payment for their "share of the housework" in the form of a home and access to resources their spouse earned. The "projected career path" bit is nonsense, unless the earning spouse "forced" them to stay at home. No one is entitled to compensation for a decision that they had the final say in. That's silly.

That's how the earner might feel about it, but the law doesn't agree, and therefore it's all split 50-50.

Assuming there's actually a law that actually states that, then that's the problem. So what we have is, rather than losing "half your stuff" when you get divorced, you're losing "half your stuff" when you get married. Either case is fucking retarded. The government, law, etc, should not be involved in interpersonal relationships. At all. Ever.

[Vanyali]

I think the circumstances of the divorce matter more. If the party filing for divorce is doing so unilaterally and at No-Fault, then why should they get anything but their personal possessions?

Because you can consider all marital access their personal possessions. Both of them. Saying "nah nah it's mine we agreed you shouldn't work, but because you didn't work it's mine hahaha get fucked (by someone else!)".

- - - Updated - - -

They received payment for their "share of the housework" in the form of a home and access to resources their spouse earned. The "projected career path" bit is nonsense, unless the earning spouse "forced" them to stay at home. No one is entitled to compensation for a decision that they had the final say in. That's silly.

Except, again, this was a condition of the marriage. Glossing over it with "they should have expected to get divorced, lolol" is the dumbest shit, and why marriage fail in the first place.

[Theodarzna]

Sorry, I really do not agree with your reasons for divorce. IMO all it needs to take is, I dont want to be with this person anymore. It doesnt matter the reason. However, the reason may help play into how things are divided after the divorce but to just get out of marriage, I dont think a person should have to give anything other than they dont want to be in the marriage anymore.

That is no just cause to break up a family IMHO. In that case you want all the privileges of the marriage but just to drive out the other party, WHO LITERALLY did nothing wrong in it of themselves, if they had you would have fault.

Not wanting to be in it is fine, expecting half the property, the children, the house as restitution for your boredom is not however. You can't ruin someone elses life simply out of boredom.

[Azadina]

I think the circumstances of the divorce matter more. If the party filing for divorce is doing so unilaterally and at No-Fault, then why should they get anything but their personal possessions?

Why should they forfeit their share of the wealth accumulated?

[Theodarzna]

Well, I agree. What I disagree with is the function marriage should have. What you describe can already be achieved with prenups, which is an official contract between two persons, prescribing the consequences of one-sided violation of the contract. But marriage itself, I think, should be more informal, more like an expression of trust and good will between two persons. It is my personal vision though, based on the fact that marriage is more of a tradition nowadays than anything, and violation of traditions is hardly something to punish people for.

Prenups are paper thin, they can be thrown out by any judge simply for seeming unfair to that judge.

Violation of traditions that come with heavy costs SHOULD be punished.

[Xirrohon]

That's how the earner might feel about it, but the law doesn't agree, and therefore it's all split 50-50.

This is all based on archaic reasoning. Back when these laws went into effect, it was nearly impossible for women to get a job and earn enough income to support a family. That no longer is the case and how split was decided back then needs to be revised.

[Mehrunes]

If you're planning your marriage based on your divorce, you're doing it COMPLETELY wrong.

And if you completely ignore the possibility that a divorce may happen down the line, you are a short-sighted moron. Besides, that choice is inferior even during the marriage.

The circumstances of the marriage MUST be taken into account. If both agree to something, they can't just say "welp, marriage over, no consequences now bai :3".

Alimony is the no consequences. "I made a stupid decision but even with the marriage over I can still leech the other person" is the pinnacle of lack of consequences. Neither for the monumentally stupid decision nor for the divorce itself.

[Theodarzna]

Why should they forfeit their share of the wealth accumulated?

They have no reason for a divorce? If one party is filing no-fault, I.E. a unilateral "I want out," then sure, grant them an exist, but they should not be rewarded for simply being bored with plausibly keeping a lionshare of the assets for their lack of an ability to be happy.

Sure if the partner cheats, or is violating some law, absolutely, split the assets and get the kids, but if you are just bored, then you should get to wreck someone else over that.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you can consider all marital access their personal possessions. Both of them. Saying "nah nah it's mine we agreed you shouldn't work, but because you didn't work it's mine hahaha get fucked (by someone else!)".

My point ignores that arrangement, if one party wishes to leave no-fault, I feel they shouldn't be entitled to anything.

[Vanyali]

Alimony is the no consequences. "I made a stupid decision but even with the marriage over I can still leech the other person" is the pinnacle of lack of consequences. Neither for the monumentally stupid decision nor for the divorce itself.

Why is doing what both agreed to, and worked for the marriage, a stupid decision?

You've not clarified that beyond "you deserve nothing if you get divorced". And to that, I'd have to again ask why you're basing marriage decisions based on getting divorced.

[Azadina]

Ask them? Why should I know? Generally people care more about things that is more likely to affect them. And failure to include the part that women also lose half their wealth doesn't actually negate the part with men losing half of it.

Your claim negates their complaints on men having more to lose, or odds stacked against them, if BOTH lose half. All you really managed was to point out a different reason for their complaints being crap, rather than the one I was using. Works for me

This is all based on archaic reasoning. Back when these laws went into effect, it was nearly impossible for women to get a job and earn enough income to support a family. That no longer is the case and how split was decided back then needs to be revised.

Maybe so, but until that is revised, the fact remains that one party does not own 100%, regardless of whether they feel like it, or earned it during marriage. Half belongs to the spouse as far as the law currently cares.