-
MP,
I used to wanna get married. That was quite a while ago, though. I bought into the bullshit about falling in love, experiencing a lot of shared moments, and creating a life together. One day I woke up, put a foot in my own ass and said to myself: "Are you on CRACK"? all around me, with few exceptions, my friends and family members have failed or failing marriages and the spouses have built up animosity toward each other.
In the past, I posted a gleaming example and I'll do it again here. This is just TOO GOOD, dudes, NOT to post it again. Back in December 1995, a good friend of mine met his bride to be. In February 1996 (Valentine's Day, to be exact! Excuse me while I vomit violently!), he proposed. In MAY of 1996 he got married. DURING the wedding, I chatted with one of my bud's sisters and I made a wager with her: "I'll bet that the marriage doesn't last six months". I WON that bet. "THAT'S ALL?", I bet you're saying. No, no, Noooooooooooo! It gets BETTER! SHE files for divorce (the reason why, I forget) and she tried to get HIM to pay for debts that SHE incurred BEFORE they got married! ON TOP OF THAT, she tried to sue him to get him to pay for the removal of her breast implants. Now I know you're all gathered around the campfire, wide-eyed at my horror story, but it GETS BETTER! My bud, after going through all this bullshit, finds out that he's hubby NUMBER THREE instead of hubby NUMBER TWO!!! Many months later, after the radioactive fallout has cleared, she sends her daughter over to his house to say hello, on a thinly disguised reconnaissance mission. Her daughter had JUST begun going through puberty and she was admittedly looking ripe. She rang the doorbell and said hello. He immediately slammed the door in her face and saw the situation for what it was: the ex wanted my bud to take the bait so she could claim that he molested/acted inappropriately toward her daughter. The bad thing is, her daughter is JUST like her. Is that fucking incredible or WHAT??
My current view on marriage: Why would I want to enter into a situation where my spouse could cut off my supply of sex at the drop of a dime and I would be able to do NOTHING now that I have the noose around my neck? Why would I want to enter into a situation where my spouse would eventually have legal claim to HALF MY ASSETS while not lifting a fucking finger to earn it? (Giving sex doesn't count because at least when you're single and paying for it, you don't have to listen to any of her bullshit the next morning if you don't want to and kick her out). Marriage is a license/excuse for a woman to get lazy. After she lassoes her target, she's got him where she wants him. She slowly gains a bigger percentage claim of his assets year after weddded year, she feels she no longer has to be as nice/kind/courteous/respectful to him as often, and if she gets fat by watching Oprah and eating boxes of Whitman Samplers, SO WHAT? If the guy balks at the hippopotamus that now occupies the couch where there used to be a lean, mean sexual machine, he's accused of being shallow or selfish. How DARE he want a woman who is attractive? Add THAT to the fact that if she finds a new sausage to play with while she's still married to the poor guy she's FUCKING OVER, SHE gets alimony from ONE GUY while fucking ANOTHER and hubby can do NOTHING about it! All of this bullshit could have been prevented IF she were forced to keep up her best behavior: by NOT getting married.
The original question was: Do I want to get married? FUCK NO!
-
I was married once and it was okay and it was not a bad divorce. However I would rather rip my tonsils out with a fish hook than get married again.
-
DH,
you and RN are cut from the same cloth! I remember her saying that she'd rather gouge out her own eyes with rusty forks than to get married again.
-
Personally, I think a lot of problems with marriage in Western society can be boiled down to at least one factor: while women's roles in this society (as they relate to men) have progressed with modern times, men's roles have remained stagnant in certain areas.
For example, women (rightfully) now have the same rights as men concerning equal pay for equal work; HOWEVER, the alimony and child custody laws are strongly based upon 19th-century concepts (i.e. the man as the sole breadwinner). It's as if these modern, empowered females suddenly turn helpless after a divorce. And don't get me started about how it's always the man that has to pay for the check on dates- don't these "modern" working women have money as well (I don't mind paying for the date, I just don't want to feel OBLIGATED to do so)?
And it's not just money matters that are a bit skewed; we often hear about what the MAN'S duties should be in a marriage, but we don't hear much anymore about what duties the WOMAN should honor (and anyone bringing up the subject is immediately labeled as a chauvinist).
It's as if these women want to have all the advantages of men, but with absolutely none of the responsibilities (and they wonder why forums like this exist).
P.S. Mystic Pimp, marriage seems to me like it was pretty cool back when my parents tied the knot. But considering everything I just mentioned, I think a man would have to be a true masochist to even consider marriage these days.
-
Hey guys,
I think the laws are actually quite biased in favor of the women when it comes to family court.
They get paid about the same for their work. They get to have pretty much the same career opportunities. In fact, in so many areas, women are preferentially hired over men (eg, many sales jobs).
They get a pretty good deal once they're married as well. If they bring home 30 cents to every dollar the guy makes, it's considered a big contribution. Turn it the other way around and we get looked at like we're a freeloader!
They also get a pretty good deal if things go wrong in the marriage. I'd burn in hell before I'd give a woman 50% of my stuff just because we were married for a certain amount of time. But, when the judge is giving the order, what can you do?
As if that wasn't bad enough, it's a similar situation with custody battles. My friend got divorced and tried getting custody of his daughter. His ex-wife was not even able to hold down a job. Depended on her parents for emotional and financial support and had a history of mental problems (manic-depressive).
She had all her legal bills taken care of by legal aid, while he had to pay his own way. So basically she and her mother kept coming at him again and again because they knew he wouldn't be able to keep paying for lawyers bills forever. Eventually he had to team up with his own parents so that he could fight off the legal challenges.
I'm not sure what his alimony situation is, but I think you get the idea. Personally, if a woman makes a simialr amount of pay, she should get SFA (sweet fuck-all) if she initiates the divorce. She should also have to pay her own lawyers bills. They shouldn't be able to hit the guy with all the bills because that just encourages women to take more legal action.
I believe that a man should pay to support his kids. But, when it comes to supporting an ex-wife, there should be some kind of time limit. Otherwise, the ex will treat her alimony payments like they were some kind of rich folks welfare. I've seen so many times where these women go out with a new guy merrily fucking away with no intention of ever getting married again bc they don't want to give up their free ride.
Pre-nup. agreement anyone?
Rock
-
Smut Villain: I pretty much agree with you on the laws. A lot of laws are stuck somewhere in the Dark Ages, with women considered to be somehow 'lost' without a man and therefore needing compensation when he leaves. Alimony is a prime example (although the 'common people' don't really have that here - only the outrageously wealthy). There are also cases where female emancipation has caused courts to 'overcorrect' the legislation to allow for the fact that women are more employable and that society now accepts multiple marriages. In a case in WA a while back, a woman was given a reduced compensation payout (after her husband's workplace related death) because the judge considered her still attractive enough to go out and find herself another husband. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/496/496p8b.htm
As far as I'm concerned, a woman deserves half the marital assets if for 20 years he has worked and she has been cooking, cleaning, raising their kids, etc - they built up those assets in partnership. But a woman who marries a rich man and then divorces him six months later? Why the hell should she be entitled to half the money he accumulated before they even met?? Or for that matter, why should a man be entitled to do the same to a rich woman?? Aside from child support - which I believe should be applied across the board - divorce entitlements should be decided on a case by case basis, not by some one-size-fits-all legislation that doesn't take individual circumstances into account.
-
The best way to explain the reason for my current views on dating, marriage, kids is to read my post in this section of the forum on 8/4/04.
MP
-
Personally, I would only consider marriage if there were children involved. But you need to be careful about cohabitation because in most countries, at some point, even without children, "common law marriage" kicks in and even though you never stood before a preacher or a judge to get married, you are considered to be married due to length the of time you were cohabitating.
The reason I say I would consider marriage only if it involved children is based on a buddy I had at my former job. At the time, he had 2 daughters by 2 different women (I think it's 3x3 now). Anyway, he had custody of daughter #1 and was living with the mother of daughter #2. He had to jump through all sorts of hoops to prove he had custody, etc. when it came to doing the parent thing for his first daughter (like enrolling her in a private school) because he was honest and said that he wasn't married to the childs mother. Ironically, if his girlfriend brought his daughter in to enroll her in school, there were no questions asked - and she wasn't even the girls mother! He had similar problems at the hospital & doctors office with daughter #2, who had some condition like sickel cell anemia - but the girls mother (my buddies girlfriend) never had any problems there. The situation really disgusted me because of all the bad press about African American men not taking responsibility for their kids and here was an African American man who was trying to take responsibility for his kids but society didn't seem to want him to do it. I'm not sure if his problems were based on him being African American or if it was the fact that he was a man.
As to what RN said about splitting up the assets after a divorce, I've been telling people for years that both parties should have a very thourough audit on their financial situation before they tie the knot, get the report sealed and notarized or certified or whatever it needs to have done so that it can be legally used in the divorce proceedings if it turns out that way. I agree that the assets that accumulate during the marriage should be split 50/50, but whatever either party had before the marriage should remain their own. Unfortunately, to date, I don't know of anyone who has done what I advised and I know a few guys who wound up with very short marriages (less than 2 years) and wound up with less than half of what they had before they were married. I know others who were married for decades, their wives dump them and they wind up on the street with sand in their pockets. Inequality in divorce settlements is not just an American thing.
CW
-
CW,
I knew of the "statute of limitations" (for lack of a better phrase) regarding cohabitation, BUT what I meant (and failed to mention) is cohabiting UP TO that time and then trade up. I mean, after all, who among us (those of us who have opened our eyes to the cons regarding marriage) is gonna live with a chick THAT LONG anyway? By that time, boredom or the need to change the scenery will have reared its head and we will carry out the very thing I just stated.
The premarital audit is a DAMNED GOOD IDEA.
-
Greetings to all,
Here's my thought for the day. This whole business about alimony has me really worked up and here's why. Imagine a person who works for a business for several years. They've been making some pretty good money. On top of that, they've been getting full health benefits and all kinds of perks.
Now they decide to quit because they just can't keep up with the stress of work anymore (or whatever reason). The employer offers a reasonable severance packege. They take their former employer to court and claim that, because they've gotten used to a certain lifestyle while they were employed, the employer should continue to support them with money, benefits etc.
Sounds crazy right? But this is pretty much what happens when couples get divorced these days. There should be some kind of time limit on how long the guy has to pay support for the wife after they divorce. Of course, any kids involved are a separate matter.
Here's my reasoning on this matter. This whole alimony thing was put into place to help women. But all it has done is to INCREASE the divorce rate. There's so many women out there who bail out of their marriage the second things get tough. Why? Because they know they're gonna get free money for a long time to come after that. Once they're divorced, they're reluctant to remarry because they don't want to take a chance of stopping the alimony payments. So they get money spent on them by their new boyfriend (who they will never marry) and they also get the $$$ from the ex.
If there was a time limit on how long support payments had to be made, most women would think a lot harder before they gave up on their husband. Even if they did, a time limit would also be a pretty effective incentive for them to remarry instead of sitting around on their fat lazy asses forever.
I think marriage should be a lot more like a business contract. The man and the woman work out all the details beforehand. Sort of like a pre-nup, but more extensive and not open to legal challenges afterwards. That would have the side benefit of eliminating lawyers from the process. Those greedy bastards do nothing but make divorces worse. All they ever do is get the two ex's mad at each other so that they'll dig in for a long (and profitable for the lawyer) court fight.
Kind of harsh, but that's how I feel about it.
Rock
-
Sinanju,
I don't actually know what the "statute of limitations" is. I've heard different things which usually vary from 6 months to one year. Believe it or not, 6 months can go by really quick. All of a sudden, you find out that you've crossed that line - if it was me, I still wouldn't get married unless I knocked her up. But, then again, marriage does simplify a number of things in our society and I really don't like the idea of society "forcing" me to get married to "uncomplicate" these things.
Insurance policies: Medical insurance, while rediculously expensive in the USA is cheaper for a family policy than for two individual policies - I've never actually checked, but I'd be willing to bet that the insurance company wouldn't consider co-habitants to qualify for a family policy unless they were married.
Inheritance: if you want her to get anything after you die, you better have a will stating that. Most states have the assets of a dead person going to the wife, if no wife, then the children, if no children, then immediate family (parents, siblings), if no immediate family, then the state. Unless you have a will, the girlfriend gets nothing - easily, she might be able to take it to court and get something if she's been living with you, but it's not automatic. If you get the will made up & you wind up splitting up, you'd better change your will asap!
As for equality in pay - I'd actually have to admit, that in my experience, it doesn't exist in most cases. I know a lot of folks working in similar jobs and the guy usually gets paid more than the woman - sometimes it's justified, most of the time it isn't.
The guy paying the bill on a date. Yeah, I've always thought that was funny. It's basically the reason I wrote the comment "prostitution is the only honest way a man can get laid" on the "morality of prostitution" board. I've been on a few dates where the women would help out with the check, but in most cases, I'm expected to pay for everything. I've even been involved with women it the past who earned more money than I did, but they always expected me to pay.
I remember one time, I was out with this lady who I'd been sleeping with for about 2 weeks. I didn't have my credit cards with me and I was short on cash after paying for dinner, so I asked her if she would leave the tip. She gave me an exhasperated look, left the tip, insisted I drive her directly home and didn't invite me inside. The next day she called me and said she didn't want to see me anymore. Had I been paying for sex all that time? Or was it merely coincidence? She was one of the women who earned more than I did - nearly double what I earned, actually. It's not like she was being bled dry by tipping the waiter.
CW
-
In the US, some states recognize common law marriage and some do not. The state I [b]was[/b] from is fairly typical. The cohabitation has to last at least one year, and here is the key point:
[b]The couple must [i]represent themselves as man and wife[/i][/b].
So, it is not based on the mere passage of time. That is true in most states that recognize common law marriage. It is a form of estoppel: If you go around saying you are married, in order to get certain advantages such as insurance, you are later prevented from turning around and saying you are not!
So if your long-time GF starts referring to herself, to others, as your wife, you need to correct her!
Note also that in most or maybe even every state, you cannot completely disinherit your wife no matter how badly she treated you. She is entitled to a certain share in the will. Again, that share varies from state to state but half or 2/3 is common. In my ex-state in my ex-country, the share depends on how long you were married and maxes out at 2/3.
So FUCK MARRIAGE. Monger on, lads.
-
Cash Works, insurance is actually one area where the gay rights movement has changed things -- a lot of insurance companies will now cover cohabitants.
-
DH,
I'm glad you pointed out that fact of the 1-year cohabitation. I was referring to the California model that says 7 years is considered a common law marriage. I thought most if not ALL STATES went by that model, but you gave me a MUCH NEEDED heads up. And that bullshit about even if she REFERS to the two of you being husband and wife? GEE-ZUS!
That 2/3 proportion of your assets being diverted to the soul-sucking beeyatch is total bullshit.
CW, the time limit is a brilliant idea to get them to get off their fat asses and make a life for themselves. I mean c'mon, what fucking judge in his right goddamned mind is gonna think that a woman CAN'T stand on her own two feet if she doesn't put her mind to it? Does he actually THINK that since she has become ACCUSTOMED to a certain lifestyle that she can't at least make a living that is at least comfortably above subsistence? I remember reading a short article put out by a government agency that stated that currently there are more WOMEN small busines owners than MEN. So what's the fucking justification of a man supporting a woman after the bond has been broken? NONE.
-
Sinanju,
One thing you have to remember about small businesses is that a lot of them do little better than break even. It would be interesting to see the percentage of these "women owned businesses" actually make enough money to support the owner. I'm not saying that women CAN'T support themselves, just that I know of a lot of married women who "have jobs" or "run businesses", but if they were left to fend for themselves, they'd go broke PDQ. There are a lot of married women out there who work as a hobby or to keep from being bored rather than to make a living. Their husbands are the ones who support the family.
One example is a buddy of mine. Both his parents are well educated and always had professional type office jobs. His father made the bulk of the income - his mother claims that none of the jobs she had ever paid more than $30K (they both retired in the late 1980's or early 1990's). Now, $30K back then wasn't the worst salary in the world, but there's no way in hell she could have raised 4 kids in the "manner in which they were accustomed" on $30K/year. Another thing - she was never at a job long enough to earn any retirement benefits - she'd be screwed now if it weren't for her husband. The point is, she was able to get jobs that interested her without needing to be worried about what she was being paid, because hubby was earning enough to support the family at his boring, thankless job. They're still together, by the way, living off hubbies retirement income.
CW