Is Marriage really that bad?

[Ninjavitis]

I don't think a year is required

Oh for sure, it's just my personal viewpoint on things. Everybody is different.

[phillys]

A lot depends on where you live.
Where I live, adultery plays no part whatsoever in determining any outcome, as it's not a crime and has nothing to do with the needs of those in the divorce, be it financial, assets or otherwise.
If a woman earns more than a man, if the divorce will result in poverty for him, she can be liable for supporting him, and vice-versa, although that law is under review, as it's generally accepted that anyone in society has equal means to earn an income.
Where children are concerned, for young children and babies, overnight visitations are generally frowned upon, but the father is encouraged to spend time during the days with children. As the children get older, they are encouraged to spend more time with children and take more responsibility.
It used to be that any debts were shared, however it was discovered that in all too many cases one had been racking up debts behind the other's back and divorce was leaving the innocent and unknowing person with massive debts, so they scrapped that.
If in Court, a Judge deems a woman's clothing, hairstyle or make-up inappropriate, be it skirt/dress too short, neckline too low, clothing too loud in colour, make-up the wrong colours, too casual then that is known to affect outcomes. Personally, I think that is disgusting, as it's not a Judge's job to be a fashion policeman.

If you never had children, then you won't be subject to losing anything in terms of house, alimony (rarely an issue other than where marriages had been very long-term as it's not really considered a thing anymore), child support, car, pets or otherwise. If you did have children, then you'd be called on to uphold responsibilities to the children, just as it's been since the days of Ancient Egypt. If she remarries, that has no impact whatsoever on child support payments. If children were involved and the marriage was long-term and you had a house, then it's likely that she and the children would get the house, but the outcome of that depends more on her ability to find sufficient housing she can afford than anything else. So essentially, it's making sure the kids won't be out on the streets. If children are older, it's more typical that the house is divided, and one can buy the other out, or it's sold and the $$ split.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should they be entitled to a lifestyle they enjoyed only due to being in a relationship with someone that is no longer a part of their life? If we're talking specifically about spouses that sacrificed their careers they already get more than they contributed by dividing the assets. Why is fucked up quasi slavery required on top of that?

The word there is "sacrificed". If a man made a demand that the woman give up her career, that is considered domestic violence.

[Zoldam]

The state has ruined marriage. Marriage "back when" was rather basic, you married for a number of reasons, but the end goal was always the same, to form a life-long relationship that was positive for all those involved (Usually it was the man works and woman takes care of the home/kids, though there were many exceptions). Fast forward to today when marriage has countless laws/benefits/penalties applied to it and is more a means to an end then anything else. Marriage itself is abused so frequently now that getting married is basically gambling your life, and as you all know, when gambling the odds are never in your favor.

[Mehrunes]

Because they're going to require a period of time to get a decent job / house again? Which is why I suggested it be CAPPED at 3 years, not that it couldn't be terminated early / when the person was back on their feet. And even three years might be too much; it's there only for those professions that would require a re-licensing / schooling period to return them to the profession they were prior to the marriage.

You could CAP it at three seconds and it would still be three seconds too many. No one is entitled to a certain lifestyle, let alone one that they only "earned" by marrying someone better off. And if they need time to get a decent job, they can, I dunno, use the half of the assets they got from the divorce that was actually earned by their spouse? If it's not enough too last long, then I question the other partner's ability to support that lifestyle. You can always move back with your parents for a while too (well, maybe not so much if they are dead).

How is it a problem of their ex spouse anyway? They divorced for a reason. Cherry-picking which parts of marriage you actually part with during the divorce and leaving a continuous financial support because you made shitty life decisions (and while the other partner contributed, they likely did not force it and did so with marriage in mind anyway) is a sick system. It's human equivalent of parasitism.

[Vanyali]

You could CAP it at three seconds and it would still be three seconds too many. No one is entitled to a certain lifestyle, let alone one that they only "earned" by marrying someone better off. And if they need time to get a decent job, they can, I dunno, use the half of the assets they got from the divorce that was actually earned by their spouse? If it's not enough too last long, then I question the other partner's ability to support that lifestyle. You can always move back with your parents for a while too (well, maybe not so much if they are dead).

How is it a problem of their ex spouse anyway? They divorced for a reason. Cherry-picking which parts of marriage you actually part with during the divorce and leaving a continuous financial support because you made shitty life decisions (and while the other partner contributed, they likely did not force it and did so with marriage in mind anyway) is a sick system.

Because their ex-spouse was in a contractual agreement with them, and part of that agreement had one of them being supported by the other. You simply cannot cut them off and say "lol deal with it" in any legal contract; there's always an exit period. Currently, alimony's "exit period" is far too long.

As well, assets are not always material, and yelling "well sell it then" doesn't work if said assets are a car and a house that's in the process of being sold, but not yet sold (for a variety of reasons; depressed housing market being a major one).

[Mehrunes]

Because their ex-spouse was in a contractual agreement with them, and part of that agreement had one of them being supported by the other. You simply cannot cut them off and say "lol deal with it" in any legal contract; there's always an exit period. Currently, alimony's "exit period" is far too long.

I'm not sure on what planet does "any" legal contract have an exit period (let alone one that involved one party being a parasite), but it isn't this one. It would need clauses specifying so, which marriage, weirdly enough, does not have. Unless you squint your eyes really, really hard and try to interpret "till death do us part" that way. So yes, you can cut them off and say "lol deal with it". The consequences of their choices are their problem. They knew what they got into when they get married. That they'd receive the benefits of marriage for the duration of said marriage. Nothing says that they get to receive them after it ends. Likewise, they knew what they got into when they divorced. That there is no more marriage and as such no benefits of marriage. But pray tell, what does the paying party receive during the exit period? Headache caused by the other person that would remind them of marital bliss?

As well, assets are not always material, and yelling "well sell it then" doesn't work if said assets are a car and a house that's in the process of being sold, but not yet sold (for a variety of reasons; depressed housing market being a major one).

There's this process called divorce (it's even the topic of this very thread) in which you decide how to split said assets. If your local market does not allow selling the car quickly enough, then, I dunno, don't take the car? And rent a room out of the house? Wait, that makes too much sense and we're in the middle of defending and justifying idiotic decisions of evident morons. My bad.

[Kourvith]

We're already discussing this very subject here, just FYI.

[chewie49]

yea its pretty much true. and if she wants to really get you, she'll say you sexually abused the children

[Deleted]

Just agree on a good prenuptial agreement before getting married.

I don''t get why people don't do this. With divorce numbers being as high as they are, everyone should be doing this.

[Deleted]

Just agree on a good prenuptial agreement before getting married.

I don''t get why people don't do this. With divorce numbers being as high as they are, everyone should be doing this.

if one partner is significantly less well off then the other, it makes financial sense for them to "dont you love me?" guilt trip them into foregoing a prenuptial. it can be awkward to bring up i imagine.

tho personally i'd prenuptial just for the sake of keeping personal sentimental items/family heirlooms etc if things so south.

[ls-]

Just agree on a good prenuptial agreement before getting married.

I don''t get why people don't do this. With divorce numbers being as high as they are, everyone should be doing this.

In some countries prenups may be nullified, so they are basicaly pieces of paper you can wipe your ass with in court T_T

[Macaquerie]

Just agree on a good prenuptial agreement before getting married.

I don''t get why people don't do this. With divorce numbers being as high as they are, everyone should be doing this.

A pre-nup sounds nice in theory but if you think about it, it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole game. If you're the type of person who just wants to score a hot trophy wife, but then pre-emptively cuts her off from your money, then it stands to reason that your marriage prospects would be no different than if you weren't rich in the first place.

[Azadina]

A pre-nup sounds nice in theory but if you think about it, it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole game. If you're the type of person who just wants to score a hot trophy wife, but then pre-emptively cuts her off from your money, then it stands to reason that your marriage prospects would be no different than if you weren't rich in the first place.

So what? Is being rich required for marriage?

[Deleted]

A pre-nup sounds nice in theory but if you think about it, it sort of defeats the purpose of the whole game. If you're the type of person who just wants to score a hot trophy wife, but then pre-emptively cuts her off from your money, then it stands to reason that your marriage prospects would be no different than if you weren't rich in the first place.

i imagine the average prenuptial is only for divorce and maybe death, not for during the actual marriage.

[Deleted]

if one partner is significantly less well off then the other, it makes financial sense for them to "dont you love me?" guilt trip them into foregoing a prenuptial. it can be awkward to bring up i imagine.

tho personally i'd prenuptial just for the sake of keeping personal sentimental items/family heirlooms etc if things so south.

If a women starts like that, dump her in any case.

Too many men are suckerd, or blackmailed even, into a marriage without a prenupt this way.

[minteK917]

Mines doing alright, i kinda like the security of a body i know for a while. Btw you can do contract about what would happen in case of a divorce. We agreed to logical terms.

[G3 Ghost]

So what? Is being rich required for marriage?

No, but it helps if you are trying to marry out of your league.

OT EDIT: There is a lot of bitterness in this thread. While normally I would use it to flavor the popcorn while I laugh, I will say that a good chunk of it is unwarranted unless you almost purposefully marry with the intent to divorce.

When it comes to divorce, and even marriage, shit happens. You deal with it, you move on. If the person you are with is so petty that they have to take half your stuff, then you married the wrong person.

Not getting married just because you might end up divorced? Man, sack up and deal with your life, coward.

[GrinningMan]

Wise up, get a prenup.

[Azadina]

No, but it helps if you are trying to marry out of your league.

If you want shallow partner who is more after wealth, sure.

[G3 Ghost]

If you want shallow partner who is more after wealth, sure.

T'was a joke.