Talk About Marriage banner
41 - 60 of 86 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Yes!

Interesting that some men are reacting negatively to the idea that perhaps a man should consider different factors when choosing a partner, and also when making financial decisions in a marriage....yet it's also the MEN who complain and cry they they are shafted financially in a divorce in which the wife didn't work for 30 years.

You can't have it both ways.
No that is not it at all. I honestly don't think that you are being fair.

Lets look at some examples.

Wife is SAHM, kids get older, she starts banging every Tom, **** (No pun intended) and Harry around. He finds out, and divorces her.

He gets screwed over in the divorce. Is that fair.

It would not be fair if we reversed the genders.

I could use my example which is almost as bad, but you get the idea.

The divorce laws are tilted towards women in almost every case.

And that is why LOTS of people don't want to get married, or married again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,784 Posts
Nope, what that guy in the article did is 100% selfish. He devastated his wife -- WHY -- because HE WANTED to be with another woman and wanted his wife to just sit there and be ok with it. HE WAS out for himself -- he didn't care what it would do to his wife.

I'm not sure if "others" see what he did differently than that, but I sure don't.
I agree on the bottom line, but can see his rationale a bit differently. The possibility that crossed my mind immediately (being one of those famous aging boomers) is that, after so many years with the same person, he thought she would be devastated to have him leave her for his new squeeze. He therefore offered her crumbs, out of the goodness of his heart, of course. In his mind, he was a decent man who wouldn't desert the wife who had stayed committed to him for so long. What a gent!

Good on her that she called an attorney. I would have changed the locks the same day and done a happy dance to be rid of such a lying cheat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,148 Posts
Why do people feel the need to put down the preferences of others? No preferences are shallow.

On Amazon, I watched a series called, 'Till Debt Do Us Part', and it's amazing how many adults are completely clueless about their finances. It's astonishing really.

The thought of debt is so, super stressful to me. I don't know how people do it. And none of the folks on these episodes were in debt because of medical bills or something beyond their control. They were simply immature and sloppy.

I would never, ever marry a man who thought that owing someone else tons of money was just how life is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,716 Posts
I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up, but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.
How is wanting someone who is financially compatible any more shallow than say wanting someone who is sexually compatible or physically fit or mentally healthy or shares the same political views or religious beliefs?
What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,716 Posts
Why do people feel the need to put down the preferences of others? No preferences are shallow.

On Amazon, I watched a series called, 'Till Debt Do Us Part', and it's amazing how many adults are completely clueless about their finances. It's astonishing really.

The thought of debt is so, super stressful to me. I don't know how people do it. And none of the folks on these episodes were in debt because of medical bills or something beyond their control. They were simply immature and sloppy.

I would never, ever marry a man who thought that owing someone else tons of money was just how life is.
I agree but its basically the same thing. Being a prisoner of debt is still putting money before your partner. Accumulating wealth or debt is not a good reason to marry. That can all change very quickly. What then? Walk away because things didn't go as expected?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
I'm going to reply by asking what happens when a spouse loses their sexual desirability? What happens if they lose sexual interest? What happens if they develop mental health issues? What happens if they get fat? What happens if they stop practicing the religion that both shared? What happens....( Insert attribute)? Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?

All we can do is hedge our bets with those people with whom we are compatible in the areas that are important to us. **** happens but why enter into a relationship with someone who is obviously not on the same page financially?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Some of this stuff is just lack of responsibility.

So, if someone is financially irresponsible, I don't want to be with them, I sure don't want to marry them.

If someone drinks too much, or smokes pot all day, I don't want to be with them. And I like to drink.

If someone does not take care of their health, I don't want to be with them.

There are all kinds of examples of responsibility and lack of. I want to be with someone that has their **** together.

The guy in the story is a jerk buy the way... Just saying...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,148 Posts
What's basically the same thing?

People put x,y and z before their partner all the time. If everyone was dying to themselves daily and considering their spouse, marriage would be a completely different landscape.

I didn't write that accumating wealth or debt was a good reason to marry?

And, yes - you're right. It can change very quickly.

But we all have our premarital starting point, where ideally these topics are discussed and flushed out.

And, even then, context matters.

I could handle monetary debt caused by my spouse getting cancer. But there's a huge difference between that and immature and sloppy.

I agree but its basically the same thing. Being a prisoner of debt is still putting money before your partner. Accumulating wealth or debt is not a good reason to marry. That can all change very quickly. What then? Walk away because things didn't go as expected?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,716 Posts
What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
I'm going to reply by asking what happens when a spouse loses their sexual desirability? What happens if they lose sexual interest? What happens if they develop mental health issues? What happens if they get fat? What happens if they stop practicing the religion that both shared? What happens....( Insert attribute)? Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?

All we can do is hedge our bets with those people with whom we are compatible in the areas that are important to us. **** happens but why enter into a relationship with someone who is obviously not on the same page financially?
We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.

I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,064 Posts
What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
I'm going to reply by asking what happens when a spouse loses their sexual desirability? What happens if they lose sexual interest? What happens if they develop mental health issues? What happens if they get fat? What happens if they stop practicing the religion that both shared? What happens....( Insert attribute)? Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?

All we can do is hedge our bets with those people with whom we are compatible in the areas that are important to us. **** happens but why enter into a relationship with someone who is obviously not on the same page financially?
We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.

I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.
I can see why your username is what it is. It's totally appropriate!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,081 Posts
We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.

I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.
I feel like you are moving the goal posts.
Would I help my partner through a tough job loss situation? Yes. Would i choose to be with someone who thinks job loss is "no big deal"? No way.

Think about it like this. Would you hitch yourself up with a woman who was out of shape and had no desire to stay healthy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,331 Posts
We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.

I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.
So what is acceptable criteria? Remember that you are answering an atheist, if it matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,791 Posts
The problem is that only legal marriage is tracked, not religious marriage.
There is a reason for that. Legally a religious only ceremony is meaningless. Socially, outside of the religious sect that recognized the "marriage", the couple are no different than any other couple who chose to cohabit. Basically, there's not much need to track people who are playing house.

If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.
Love is not, and never has been, enough. Just because you love someone doesn't mean they are marriage material. Money is the 2nd place cause for divorce. It would be incredibly foolish NOT to take finances into account when thinking about marrying and building a life with someone. Especially if there is a desire for children.

Also, nothing kills love as certainly and swiftly as watching your child shiver through a cold winter night, hungry, because your electric has been disconnected, there is no food in the house, and it's because the person you married can't or won't get their financial shyte straight.

How materialistic.

So sad for you.
Nothing materialistic in wanting to make sure your life-mate and future parent of your children can, ya know, actually afford to feed, clothe, and shelter the family.

No that is not it at all. I honestly don't think that you are being fair.

Lets look at some examples.

Wife is SAHM, kids get older, she starts banging every Tom, **** (No pun intended) and Harry around. He finds out, and divorces her.

He gets screwed over in the divorce. Is that fair.

It would not be fair if we reversed the genders.

I could use my example which is almost as bad, but you get the idea.

The divorce laws are tilted towards women in almost every case.

And that is why LOTS of people don't want to get married, or married again.
It's really not a gender thing. The perception of this being a gender thing stems from men traditionally making more money than women and women being more likely to SAH altogether, especially if the cost of childcare is close to their working income. It's really an income disparity thing. The SAH is basically getting financially compensated for their sacrifice of earning, retirement, etc. and the breadwinner is basically paying for services rendered in the past.

The only solution is to either A) accept if the marriage ends in divorce, for any reason, financial compensation will be required or B) only marry someone who has a roughly equal income.

What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
My honest answer is "Depends."

If my DH lost his job because he was laid-off through no fault of his own or had to medically retire, I'll be there doing whatever I can.

If my DH lost his job because he's an alcoholic who'd been told to get help before this kind of thing happened, I'd be a LOT less inclined to stick around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.
You might want to reconsider your word choice.

paramour noun

par·​amour | \ ˈper-ə-ˌmu̇r , ˈpa-rə- \
Definition of paramour
: LOVER
specifically : an illicit or secret lover

That said, love is not and never has been enough for the basis of a marriage, save in the movies.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
It's the old "I want my cake and eat it, too" crying tale.
Wait! How is wanting love and financial compatibility in the person you marry wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Sounds like a rather cynical way of looking at marriage and life.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
Financial compatibility isn't about the income you/they have or the situations you encounter together. It's the ability to work together on these situations, and to have common goals and views on such. My first wife thought that buying what she wanted and eating out were more important goals than paying the rent. I sadly didn't learn this until almost 10 of marriage when I left the Navy to go over the road trucking. Before, I handled the bills.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Wait! How is wanting love and financial compatibility in the person you marry wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Sounds like a rather cynical way of looking at marriage and life.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
It's the wanting a SAHW and the benefits derived from such arrangement and not wanting to pay for those benefits that is cake-eating behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
There is a reason for that. Legally a religious only ceremony is meaningless. Socially, outside of the religious sect that recognized the "marriage", the couple are no different than any other couple who chose to cohabit. Basically, there's not much need to track people who are playing house.
The meaningfulness or meaninglessness is a subjective value that has no objective measurements. It is true that anything other than a legal marriage holds no weight for legal purposes now, but such was not always the case. While there were laws dealing with those who were married, there were no laws defining marriage. In fact, the couple getting married often did so by the expediant of the woman moving in with the man.

Marriage basically comes in three forms; legal, religious and social. All three forms are independent of each other, but can exist simultaneously. Furthermore, the recognition of one type in one area does not guarantee recognition of that same type in other areas, nor of recognition between types.

The lack of legal recognition does not make a marriage any less of such, especially since marriage was established long before there were ever laws about such. Somehow I doubt that if the US were to suddenly stop recognizing marriage on a legal basis, you would think all those couples were suddenly "playing house".

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,493 Posts
It's the wanting a SAHW and the benefits derived from such arrangement and not wanting to pay for those benefits that is cake-eating behavior.
Quite honestly I want to be the SAHH. However, I don't think that having a stay at home anything is usually a consideration in and of itself, unless the person is trying to be one. Then that, to me, seems more the cake and eat situation.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
41 - 60 of 86 Posts
Top