Divorce - WMFD (Weapon of Mass Financial Destruction)

[RetiredAt63]

Small big rant here: TL:DR - this discussion has gotten short-sighted and petty.

There was a comment on men being "blind-sided" by wives wanting out - I took a  small sample (n=2) which indicated that women often are very upfront about issues in their relationships, the men pooh-pooh the concerns, and then are surprised when the women leave.  "Everything was fine, what happened?" Well, everything was not fine, they didn't listen, they didn't change behaviours, and the obvious happened.

As I said, my n=2, this won't always apply.

Also, historically women had no recourse in unhappy marriages, once they had more financial resources and legal rights they were able to contemplate going it on their own.  What is the saying? Better a cottage where happiness lives than a palace without? Lots of women are choosing the cottages.  Society discourages divorce in an agricultural society, because a farm needs a minimum of a couple and their children to be economically viable.  The nobility/wealthy could always get divorces/annulments.

Re age - those of us who are "older" have lived through societal changes which may give us a bit more perspective.  We have lived thorough "Divorce is a four letter word and whispered about" to the advent of modern birth control to high divorce rates.  Of course every generation has some hard truths it has to learn on its own.  Have fun, Millennials, you are not facing anything harder than we went through in the late 60's and early 70's with the sexual revolution.  It's not any easier though, society has not totally adjusted to that one yet.  Go read divorce law from the 50's and see if you like it any more, those of you who are complaining about present-day legislation.  Wives who HAD to leave the work force when they got married (yes, that was standard, happened to my mother) got alimony (for them,not the children) all their lives, because they could not support themselves.

Also, remember during this discussion that it may well be very country specific - the US is not Canada is not western Europe is not Scandinavia is not etc. etc.  Living together and having children is going to be a very different situation in two culturally different regions.

I am reading "Climate Wars" at the moment.  I seriously think (and have always thought, for other reasons) our planet would be better off if we cut down (that is a planet-wide we) on the number of children, had them later to lengthen generation time, and had more of us refrain from having them at all.  In Europe in the Middle Ages, many men and women did not have children (they were monks and nuns), most married late (I read once that average age of marriage for women then was 26), men married later (not until they could support a wife either through an established farm or a trade) and had other cultural practices to keep the birth rate down.  It is pioneer societies (with lots of new land to be settled) that encourage young marriages and lots of children (i.e. the Americas once Europeans arrived).  And from a population biology perspective, having men who are not interested in their children father children is anti-survival from a species viewpoint.  So guys ( and girls), if you don't want kids, don't have them, and your genes can get left out of the gene pool.  Its better for the species/kids to have parents who want them.  And for the first time in human history, we can do this without too much difficulty (i.e. having to join a monastic order, or live with massive child mortality rates).

One more point - having children when a woman is in her 30's increases the risk of chromosomal abnormalities, and health issues for the mother.  Sure you can know ahead of time, but having to decide whether or not to abort because of a serious problem is heart-breaking.  This is why women have the "Ticking biological clock".  What is less well known is that as men age they are also more likely to father children with chromosomal abnormalities.  So, men also have a ticking clock, they just don't know it and don't have it affecting their decisions.  These days, I believe, fertility issues are about 1/3 her, 1/3 him, and 1/3 them.  Of course the men never believe it could have anything to do with them until the doctor tells them, society is so used to assuming fertility issues are "her" issues.  So they put off marriage and parenthood, not considering the long-term implications.


Rant over.

[Emilyngh]

I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men.

Mentioning that you are a "millennial" a gazillion times throughout the thread does not designate you as the generation's spokesperson.   

And you might want to check your assumptions.   I too am a "millennial", and a woman who is not only more educated than my husband, but who also is the sole financial provider for our household (although I haven't seen the stats showing that women earning more is "average," even in our generation).    So, I would disagree that my perspective results from "older female" non-millennial "idealism".

[deborah]

This article http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/for-better-or-worse-expect-better-to-avoid-worse-20140925-10m0rg.html says it all - if you expect divorce, it will happen.

[Cressida]

I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.

...

a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

If men are so anxious to avoid the "legal trappings" of marriage, why are they more reluctant to divorce? How do you reconcile those two statements?

the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game

Assuming this "dropping out" is a thing (I'm unconvinced, but I'm not addressing that now), can you explain the cause and effect here? I don't see how the one follows from the other.

[Freedom2016]

Small
There was a comment on men being "blind-sided" by wives wanting out - I took a  small sample (n=2) which indicated that women often are very upfront about issues in their relationships, the men pooh-pooh the concerns, and then are surprised when the women leave.  "Everything was fine, what happened?" Well, everything was not fine, they didn't listen, they didn't change behaviours, and the obvious happened.

As I said, my n=2, this won't always apply.

For n=3, I can say this is exactly the dynamic between my MIL and FIL. FIL is positively oblivious to how infuriatingly difficult he is to live with, and there is no reason he should be surprised should MIL ever finally pull the trigger on divorcing him. Yet I guarantee he will claim he was blindsided: anytime MIL brings her issues to his attention, he claims that she is having a nervous breakdown. In his mind, her upset/complaints/issues never have anything to do with him.

***

I've read this thread with interest. Very sorry to those who have been through the wringer with a divorce. So far, 4 years in, DH and I are happily married. With the cautionary tale of his parents' relationship staring us in the face, we communicate a lot to be sure we are not drifting in directions that could lead to where they are.

I agree with the poster who said that, whatever the broader trends are about whether men want to get married these days, it does ultimately boil down to the two specific people in a relationship, what they each want, and whether those are compatible things. Meaning, sure each person has been influenced to whatever degree by their peers/"culture" but stereotypes often fall apart at the individual level.

[Beric01]

This article http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/for-better-or-worse-expect-better-to-avoid-worse-20140925-10m0rg.html says it all - if you expect divorce, it will happen.

Seems like a anecdotal opinion piece.

Why not expect the best, but prepare for the worst?

[shuffler]

I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...

... and you lost me.

Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s).  But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.

[franklin w. dixon]

CC, to address your points in order...

1) Women have custody 70-80% of the time and BIOC relies heavily on "primary caretaker" prior to divorce. Women are disproportionately labeled as the primary caretaker, regardless of the circumstances. Also, you did not address women initiating divorce at the rate they do...

2) Please STOP with this wage gap myth, it's been debunked repeatedly. You are citing sources that have a major biased agenda. Hell, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that never married, childless women earn 96% of what men make, and the discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that women like other perks (more time off, health care plans, etc.) and do not negotiate salaries as often as men. Here you go, something from the huffington post, a bastion of feminist ideology...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

I'll also mention, that in aggregate, who do you think bears the higher financial cost of the dating market, men or women? We both know that answer. While women love to preach equality, and God knows I'm all for it, it is still very much expected that men pay for dates or else be looked upon less favorably.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/

3) A divorced man is unhappy because he made a mistake? C'mon, not because he lost finances, his children and was probably blindsided by the divorce (many anecdotes to this in this thread alone)? Let's use Occam's Razor here...I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.

4) No, no fault divorce is extremely easy as filling out paperwork and then handling the finances and other issues later.

5) Having children without a partner is true, and while I applaud your first friend, as adopting is noble, I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do, as she is essentially playing the star role in a movie that is her life, and dammit if she isn't going going to have a baby in this movie. This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country and gender relations. Obviously I'll never really know, but as a betting man I'd place tons of money on this second friend now (or at some point) being on some type of anti-depressant/bi-polar/anxiety medication.

And yes, I basically debunked the article about men being happier in marriage. Of course the benefits of a happy marriage make men happier and healthier. That's essentially what the article said, and I'm not debating that "duh" logic. What I'm saying, and what the article basically said, is that divorced men, or men in unhappy marriages, are significantly less healthy and happy than their single or cohabiting counterparts. Why is this so difficult to understand? As well, in the best case scenario, for a man just getting married, the odds of him having a happy marriage would be 40%, and probably closer to what I guessed before at 30%. 40% ain't too good in my book.

Simply put, most people, not just men, are risk averse. If I told a guy "here you go, you have to decide to get married right now if you wanna do it. You have a 40% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness better and a 60% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness worse. You wanna do it?" While I realize this is glib in it's simplicity, a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

CC, throughout your posts I've clearly noticed a bias towards you asserting your "strong, independent woman" vibe, for which I have no problem with, but please don't push a false agenda. I have no issue with women or men doing whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I believe in gender equality when it comes to education, prospects, work, etc. All I am saying is that based on actions, there are consequences, and the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game and that this will have major social/economic tolls in the coming years. Is it all the fault of women? No. Is it all the fault of men? No. But most people simply want to hear what they want to hear and place the blame on a different group without being critical of their own group.

To play it safe, and avoid getting ensnared by evil and manipulative harridans and succubi, you should never get married, have sex, or speak to a woman ever again. Better yet, don't speak to anyone ever again (who knows how wily the black female heart may be??). We all thank you in advance.

[Must_Stash]

JK... stands for Just Kidding, right?

So, you seem to deeply, deeply want young women to want marriage.  You have one theme: how concerned women should be with some men's disinterest in marriage.  Here's what I take away from that.  Marriage is very important to you.  You are distressed that you don't see it available to you on the terms acceptable to you. You think your situation can best be improved by collective action, preferably by people who are not you, specifically by women.  To this end, you hope young women can be convinced that too many men have, like you, lost interest in marriage. 

Yet there are other men in this thread saying that they enjoy their marriage, or that they intend to be married to a woman they love.

Well, I'm going to turn this back on you.  I challenge you to fix this problem that concerns you. What are you doing to make marriage appeal to the subset of women who currently have no interest in it?   

But the better question-- do men need to collectively court women?  If not, why do women need to collectively court men? 

Look, if you want to strengthen marriage in our country, attract a good and appropriate partner, and get married.  Can't do it?  Don't complain about how it just can't be done under these circumstances.   I have heard that argument before, and rejected it, when it was about the impossibility of retirement.

Should we dedicate ourselves to extinguishing consumerism?  Or are we allowed to take ownership of our own finances and be proud of that?

There are some societal problems that we are only responsible for in our own lives.  Personally, I think love and its expression is in that class.

Now, you're also talking about issues directly related to divorce, which is not marriage.  For example, child custody.  I think it's going to be more effective to give that separate consideration.  I don't want gender to influence child custody. But you have not shown that it does.  You say that "primary caregiver status" is being defined in the wrong way, but you don't establish that gender is the defining factor in that determination.  Is it?  Can you point to a statute that privileges gender, in place of specific care-giving functions? That's something you should expand on.  I would be sad if it were the case.  I want men to have the opportunity, from day one of their marriages, to establish themselves as primary (or co-equal)caregivers by ongoing action, not by gender.  I don't think they must choose that role, but I want them to have the right to do so.  I want you to have the right to do so.  If you want your wife to pump, so you can stay home and bottle-feed the baby, I think you should seek that arrangement, and if there's a divorce, I think you should get primary custody and support.  If you want to home-school, same thing.  Point to the statute that says that if you do these things, you will still fail to meet the gender-based criteria of primary caregiver. That statute, if it exists, is a violation of your human rights.  I have seen bizarre injustices in our society.  I am open to the possibility that this one exists.

[jka468]

I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men.

Mentioning that you are a "millennial" a gazillion times throughout the thread does not designate you as the generation's spokesperson.   

And you might want to check your assumptions.   I too am a "millennial", and a woman who is not only more educated than my husband, but who also is the sole financial provider for our household (although I haven't seen the stats showing that women earning more is "average," even in our generation).    So, I would disagree that my perspective results from "older female" non-millennial "idealism".

The self identification here in your post is hilarious. You tell me to check my assumptions and then you give me a data point of N=1 to counterpoint my argument, although I've back up my points with a multitude of data and stats. Ironic, no?

Also, my point still stands, as most of the females responding here are not in a younger generation.

I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.

...

a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

If men are so anxious to avoid the "legal trappings" of marriage, why are they more reluctant to divorce? How do you reconcile those two statements?

the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game

Assuming this "dropping out" is a thing (I'm unconvinced, but I'm not addressing that now), can you explain the cause and effect here? I don't see how the one follows from the other.

Your first statement is a complete non sequitur, as the men who have divorced and are divorcing now are from a different generation than the men now avoiding marriage. Also, the first group did their risk analysis and decided it was worth it in the beginning. Once the leap is made they want to stick it out; the two decisions are separate.

I will address your second question in another post.

I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...

... and you lost me.

Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s).  But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.

You made no point here, just a throwaway statement that is glib.

Now, it is well documented that children of single parents are more likely to do poorly in school, do drugs more often, have higher arrest rates and have a lower lifetime income, but okay, let's just say this all can be negated by the socioeconomic factors of most single parents and single parenthood isn't a direct cause and effect for poor child outcome.

Well, it's ALSO been recently studied and documented that children of in-vitro single mothers have higher rates of depression and anxiety and approximately 1/3 of these kids have a "bad or "very bad" feeling in relation to their upbringing and mothers' decision.

I can provide all these stats to you, as I've done with other topics in this thread, but I somehow don't think you'll come back in to acknowledge them, considering you could have looked these things up yourself.

CC, to address your points in order...

1) Women have custody 70-80% of the time and BIOC relies heavily on "primary caretaker" prior to divorce. Women are disproportionately labeled as the primary caretaker, regardless of the circumstances. Also, you did not address women initiating divorce at the rate they do...

2) Please STOP with this wage gap myth, it's been debunked repeatedly. You are citing sources that have a major biased agenda. Hell, the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that never married, childless women earn 96% of what men make, and the discrepancy may be accounted for by the fact that women like other perks (more time off, health care plans, etc.) and do not negotiate salaries as often as men. Here you go, something from the huffington post, a bastion of feminist ideology...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

I'll also mention, that in aggregate, who do you think bears the higher financial cost of the dating market, men or women? We both know that answer. While women love to preach equality, and God knows I'm all for it, it is still very much expected that men pay for dates or else be looked upon less favorably.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/why-do-men-keep-paying-for-the-first-date/380387/

3) A divorced man is unhappy because he made a mistake? C'mon, not because he lost finances, his children and was probably blindsided by the divorce (many anecdotes to this in this thread alone)? Let's use Occam's Razor here...I already provided evidence that women initiate most divorces.

4) No, no fault divorce is extremely easy as filling out paperwork and then handling the finances and other issues later.

5) Having children without a partner is true, and while I applaud your first friend, as adopting is noble, I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do, as she is essentially playing the star role in a movie that is her life, and dammit if she isn't going going to have a baby in this movie. This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country and gender relations. Obviously I'll never really know, but as a betting man I'd place tons of money on this second friend now (or at some point) being on some type of anti-depressant/bi-polar/anxiety medication.

And yes, I basically debunked the article about men being happier in marriage. Of course the benefits of a happy marriage make men happier and healthier. That's essentially what the article said, and I'm not debating that "duh" logic. What I'm saying, and what the article basically said, is that divorced men, or men in unhappy marriages, are significantly less healthy and happy than their single or cohabiting counterparts. Why is this so difficult to understand? As well, in the best case scenario, for a man just getting married, the odds of him having a happy marriage would be 40%, and probably closer to what I guessed before at 30%. 40% ain't too good in my book.

Simply put, most people, not just men, are risk averse. If I told a guy "here you go, you have to decide to get married right now if you wanna do it. You have a 40% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness better and a 60% chance that this marriage will make your life/happiness worse. You wanna do it?" While I realize this is glib in it's simplicity, a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get sex, companionship, family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

CC, throughout your posts I've clearly noticed a bias towards you asserting your "strong, independent woman" vibe, for which I have no problem with, but please don't push a false agenda. I have no issue with women or men doing whatever the hell they want with their lives, and I believe in gender equality when it comes to education, prospects, work, etc. All I am saying is that based on actions, there are consequences, and the consequences of 20-30 years of 3rd wave feminism are that young men are dropping out of the marriage game and that this will have major social/economic tolls in the coming years. Is it all the fault of women? No. Is it all the fault of men? No. But most people simply want to hear what they want to hear and place the blame on a different group without being critical of their own group.

To play it safe, and avoid getting ensnared by evil and manipulative harridans and succubi, you should never get married, have sex, or speak to a woman ever again. Better yet, don't speak to anyone ever again (who knows how wily the black female heart may be??). We all thank you in advance.

This completely missed the point and it's too funny. You must have quite the hard time getting women to go out with you.

Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women. But I'm just an idiot on the Internet, so believe what you want.

[jka468]

JK... stands for Just Kidding, right?

So, you seem to deeply, deeply want young women to want marriage.  You have one theme: how concerned women should be with some men's disinterest in marriage.  Here's what I take away from that.  Marriage is very important to you.  You are distressed that you don't see it available to you on the terms acceptable to you. You think your situation can best be improved by collective action, preferably by people who are not you, specifically by women.  To this end, you hope young women can be convinced that too many men have, like you, lost interest in marriage. 

Yet there are other men in this thread saying that they enjoy their marriage, or that they intend to be married to a woman they love.

Well, I'm going to turn this back on you.  I challenge you to fix this problem that concerns you. What are you doing to make marriage appeal to the subset of women who currently have no interest in it?   

But the better question-- do men need to collectively court women?  If not, why do women need to collectively court men? 

Look, if you want to strengthen marriage in our country, attract a good and appropriate partner, and get married.  Can't do it?  Don't complain about how it just can't be done under these circumstances.   I have heard that argument before, and rejected it, when it was about the impossibility of retirement.

Should we dedicate ourselves to extinguishing consumerism?  Or are we allowed to take ownership of our own finances and be proud of that?

There are some societal problems that we are only responsible for in our own lives.  Personally, I think love and its expression is in that class.

Now, you're also talking about issues directly related to divorce, which is not marriage.  For example, child custody.  I think it's going to be more effective to give that separate consideration.  I don't want gender to influence child custody. But you have not shown that it does.  You say that "primary caregiver status" is being defined in the wrong way, but you don't establish that gender is the defining factor in that determination.  Is it?  Can you point to a statute that privileges gender, in place of specific care-giving functions? That's something you should expand on.  I would be sad if it were the case.  I want men to have the opportunity, from day one of their marriages, to establish themselves as primary (or co-equal)caregivers by ongoing action, not by gender.  I don't think they must choose that role, but I want them to have the right to do so.  I want you to have the right to do so.  If you want your wife to pump, so you can stay home and bottle-feed the baby, I think you should seek that arrangement, and if there's a divorce, I think you should get primary custody and support.  If you want to home-school, same thing.  Point to the statute that says that if you do these things, you will still fail to meet the gender-based criteria of primary caregiver. That statute, if it exists, is a violation of your human rights.  I have seen bizarre injustices in our society.  I am open to the possibility that this one exists.

First off, I don't really want anything, I'm just stating things the way they are. As well, it's documented that younger women already want marriage more than young men; the issue is that most people don't know why this is, or they simply don't care bc they think it won't affect them, so your first question doesn't quite make sense.

As for your next question, many men have no interest in traditionally courting women anymore, nor should they because they don't need to, and most women have no interest, nor any idea how, to court men.

As far as finding a partner, my answer is two fold and binary. Many men actually can't do it for various reasons, and there are many men who can, including myself, but they have no incentive to. The latter point seems to drive a lot of women crazy, hence all the "man up" and anti-Peter pan campaigns recently seen in mainstream media. Many of the current most marriageable men do not want to marry, or will marry later in life to someone younger on their own terms.

[Must_Stash]

First off, I don't really want anything, I'm just stating things the way they are. As well, it's documented that younger women already want marriage more than young men; the issue is that most people don't know why this is, or they simply don't care bc they think it won't affect them, so your first question doesn't quite make sense.

As for your next question, many men have no interest in traditionally courting women anymore, nor should they because they don't need to, and most women have no interest, nor any idea how, to court men.

As far as finding a partner, my answer is two fold and binary. Many men actually can't do it for various reasons, and there are many men who can, including myself, but they have no incentive to. The latter point seems to drive a lot of women crazy, hence all the "man up" and anti-Peter pan campaigns recently seen in mainstream media. Many of the current most marriageable men do not want to marry, or will marry later in life to someone younger on their own terms.

Yes, and that's OK.  By definition, those men aren't "most marriageable;" they're not even seeking.  Later in life they will find many, many other men competing for fewer women, from what older men have told me.* So they will not be "most marriageable" at that point either.   And it's OK.  If they really wanted marriage, they would have made it a priority.  Likewise, older men with inadequate retirement accounts and flashy cars did not really, really want retirement more than consumer goods-- or they would have made it a priority.   That's fine, they're all rounding out society, which they say takes all sorts.

I am curious, what about the equality you see for millenials?  How would divorce be a substantial cost to men under those circumstances?  I doubt men would suffer economically from finding a successful young wife who out-earns them (if these women exist in roaming hordes whose great masses darken the plains of the marriage market, as you posit).  I also wonder why these young women would seek older partners who had earned so much less for so many years?  Won't a lot of men suffer economically by delaying marriage, if these economic trends are true?  Doesn't all of this make marriage a matter of vital, desperate importance to a young man's financial wellbeing?  Simply because you, as a mustachian high earner, will be in good financial shape in later life does not mean that most men will be.

I really doubt your premise here-- that woman are becoming economically advantaged over men, but men can only lose economically by marrying. 

*Where are the women going?  I don't know, but men claim they're just not there.  And women claim the reverse.

[shuffler]

I think your second friend has mental stability issues. In-vitro without a partner, while possible, may be the most narcissistic things a female can do ... <snip some unfounded extrapolation> ... This kind of crap is precisely what's wrong with this country ...

... and you lost me.

Much of your argument has been (sometimes) citing statistics, and then divining the motivation of the general population(s).  But the above quote makes me think you're not as deep of a study in human motivation as you seem to think you are.

You made no point here, just a throwaway statement that is glib.

I suppose I didn't communicate it as well as I could have, so I'll try again.

My points are:
* You're being a jerk about CC's friend.  To say that this single person considering IVF is "mentally unstable" and about to do the "most narcissistic thing a woman could do" is rather rude.  It also shows a lack of imagination about the scale of potential narcissistic acts.  If you simply had an opinion about single people doing IVF, then fine, but your statement was personal and hyperbolic beyond necessity.

* Because of that, and in particular the hyperbole, I can't grant your other arguments as much credence as I had done before.  That's why "you lost me".

So I'm not trying to make a point about women, divorce, IVF, or single-parenting.  I'm giving you feedback that your communication style has caused me to no longer be interested in your arguments on this topic.  You probably don't care about me personally, and that's fine, there's no reason you should.  But since you're continuing the debate on the thread, I assume you do care for the opinions of the forum in general, and I suspect I'm not the only person who has a negative reaction to your style.

[Cressida]

jka468, here is a list of statements by you:


-outside of religious reasons, what incentive is there for a man to get married these days?

-I actually believe in marriage and the fundamentals behind the union, but a certain faction of this country has completely disincentivized it.

-given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?

-You would think that [women earning high salaries] would give men incentive to marry by your logic, but nope, not happening.

-Everyone, no matter what they do, is doing something based on incentives. It's clear to me that marriage has lost much of it's incentive for men.

-the MOST marriageable men, based on female standards (which are some particular mix of good looking, financially secure, educated, tall, well built, intelligent, motivated, etc.) have the LEAST incentive to marry these days.

-I just think the incentives for marriage, especially for men, are simply out of whack in these times for a variety of reasons.

-there are many men who can [find a partner], including myself, but they have no incentive to.


You sure love saying that young men don't have an incentive to marry. But you have literally never said why. What are these "incentives" that used to exist and no longer do? Spell it out.

[partgypsy]

This thread is reminding me of those forum threads where people argue whether living in the city is better than living in the country (or the burbs) or being childless is better than having kids, or renting is better than owning a house. You know what? Maybe there is no "one right answer" that applies or fits everyone. I just think it is a sign of "youth" someone trying to argue, for everyone else, why A is better than B when maybe never even or experiencing B, who feels, at a certain age they know all the answers (while people older than they chuckle to themselves).  In this forum there have been numerous anecdotes of people being happily married, or having divorces that did not end in financial destruction, but yet one poster is selectively ignoring all the positives and only seeing the negatives.
Speaking as an "old fogey" in her 40's, I work on a study that deals with life stages, and interviewing people at the end of their life. What do these men talk about (veterans)? The number one thing is their relationships and their happiness and satisfaction regarding their marriage (and also kids) with career being far second. And the people who did have divorces or cheated, the regrets were not that they married, but that they didn't try harder or they messed up . Being close to death kind of puts some things in focus and other things less so.  I guess you could argue we interviewed the "wrong people" because they were not ultra wealthy (though many had successful careers).

It all has to come down to values. If you see no value in marriage, then probably there is resulting no value. It is what you put in. You can't act completely individualistically in a marriage because there has to be compromises. Ironically there is rewards and satisfaction in this, as well as raising a family, being non self-based. If you tell me to list them I can't because it all gets into mystical stuff like the meaning of life that's pretty hard to quantify. If all you are trying to do is add or subtract the $ signs to decide which way to go, then you are missing the forest for the trees. Yep there are particular people I would say, yeah marriage is not for them, or that person should not have kids. But to make sweeping generalizations for entire genders or generations, well that goes against free choice.
 
If you ask me if I was for or against marriage, I'd say it depends. It depends on who I am getting married to! You don't get married in a global sense, but to one person and also to a lesser extent to their family. It only has to work between those two individuals, however they work out what marriage means to them. 

[urbanista]

a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get ...  family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

Can you please explain exactly how men (or women) can get family without the legal trappings of marriage?

In Australia, once you lived with a partner under the same roof for approximately 2 years, you are considered de facto married, for all legal purposes. Makes almost no difference that you didn't bother to sign the marriage contract.

[Metta]

However, when he heard what we wanted, he almost fell out of his chair laughing. He finally sputtered out, "What? You are going to say that you get the nothing you entered the marriage with and he gets the nothing he entered with? You don't need a pre-nup! You need a budget."

My prenup specifically says that I keep the cat. ;)

She's dead now... I guess I'll have to go check the wording to see if it applies to post-nuptual cats.

LOL! Perhaps you will need a cat therapist and a judge to determine the best environment for your post-nuptial cats. I am reasonably sure that there are some municipalities that would be able to provide the necessary professionals. :)

[Spartana]

a lot of young men are doing a slightly more complicated risk analysis than this and realizing it's not worth it, especially when they can get ...  family, etc. without the legal trappings of marriage.

Can you please explain exactly how men (or women) can get family without the legal trappings of marriage?

In Australia, once you lived with a partner under the same roof for approximately 2 years, you are considered de facto married, for all legal purposes. Makes almost no difference that you didn't bother to sign the marriage contract.

I think that in most (all?) states in the USA there is no common law marriage. So there are no "legal trappings" for 2 people living together unless they own property or have kids. Then the property or child support/custody  laws take effect, not the marriage laws.  However in some long term non-marriage unions, people have sued for support and won citing that they, in effect, lived as a spouse and were entitled to property and support. That is rare though so living together as a romantic couple is legally akin to being roommates rather than spouses usually.

[Siobhan]

So reading this thread kind of makes me surprised my husband actually wanted to get married.  His ex wife took him to the CLEANERS, took the car, racked up 10's of thousands on credit cards, he had to pay her lawyer, she took everything, even the curtain rods and toilet paper holders, from their apartment and left him with one box of stuff.  He was husband 2, she was already engaged to husband three when she told him she wanted a divorce, they were only married 2.5 years, and had only known each other 3.5 years.  She remarried husband three a week after the divorce was final.  She STILL calls to ask for money and we've had to go to court numerous times because she chose to fight the divorce decree over things like his pension (after the decree was finalized), her and 4th (she's only 34 mind you) husband are, I kid you not, over 200k in CONSUMER debt (no mortgage in there...throw in an extra 130k for the mortgage).    She REFUSES to work, she's got a couple of kids, by a couple of different guys, both of them are school aged. EVERY time we go to court we are forced to pay her lawyers fees, as well as ours, because she "doesn't have the ability to pay".  She hasn't gotten anything she's fought for yet, but it's still money down the drain.

Sorry, but as a woman, I am with you guys.  If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY.  You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home.  Your spouse paid to feed you, clothe you, shelter you, entertain you, take you on vacation etc.  You essentially received a salary for doing your housework and kid raising.  Alimony needs to be abolished FULLY.  We put off having kids until we were wealthy enough, why? because in the event of one of us deciding to stay at home (me), I wanted both our butts to be covered in the event of a divorce where splitting the assets (we both make decent money) would allow both of us to pay our bills while job hunting.  Maybe we need to do a better job of educating people on family planning.

[Cpa Cat]

If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY.  You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home. 

I don't agree with your no alimony standpoint, but I do agree that there should be limits on alimony. The working spouse isn't tricked into having a SAHP at home. That's usually a mutual decision. Often, it's planned well in advance of the birth of children. With that in mind, it's unreasonable to expect the SAHP to immediately jump into the workforce.

I personally think that 5 years of alimony should be the hard limit for working-aged adults. Enough to get a 4-year degree and find their footing. Adults who have a work history and education should get less - 1 year. More lenient rules for the over 65-crowd with lengthy marriages - because if one spouse decides to support another one for 30+ years, it's too late to pull that rug out.

But I'm with you in spirit. The idea of alimony is insulting to those of us who choose to earn an income. I don't understand how people don't have enough pride to stop leeching off their former spouse. Leave them alone, you're not married anymore. Own your choices and move on.

[sobezen]

So reading this thread kind of makes me surprised my husband actually wanted to get married.  His ex wife took him to the CLEANERS, took the car, racked up 10's of thousands on credit cards, he had to pay her lawyer, she took everything, even the curtain rods and toilet paper holders, from their apartment and left him with one box of stuff.  He was husband 2, she was already engaged to husband three when she told him she wanted a divorce, they were only married 2.5 years, and had only known each other 3.5 years.  She remarried husband three a week after the divorce was final.  She STILL calls to ask for money and we've had to go to court numerous times because she chose to fight the divorce decree over things like his pension (after the decree was finalized), her and 4th (she's only 34 mind you) husband are, I kid you not, over 200k in CONSUMER debt (no mortgage in there...throw in an extra 130k for the mortgage).    She REFUSES to work, she's got a couple of kids, by a couple of different guys, both of them are school aged. EVERY time we go to court we are forced to pay her lawyers fees, as well as ours, because she "doesn't have the ability to pay".  She hasn't gotten anything she's fought for yet, but it's still money down the drain.

Sorry, but as a woman, I am with you guys.  If you CHOSE to be a SAHP, especially once the kids are school aged, there should be NO ALIMONY.  You received in kind payments for the decades you were at home.  Your spouse paid to feed you, clothe you, shelter you, entertain you, take you on vacation etc.  You essentially received a salary for doing your housework and kid raising.  Alimony needs to be abolished FULLY.  We put off having kids until we were wealthy enough, why? because in the event of one of us deciding to stay at home (me), I wanted both our butts to be covered in the event of a divorce where splitting the assets (we both make decent money) would allow both of us to pay our bills while job hunting.  Maybe we need to do a better job of educating people on family planning.

Your husband's ex sounds horrible.

Completely agree with you about alimony. Unfortunately this is not the reality we live in.  Doubtful it will ever change towards a more balanced practice.  I wish we had mandatory family testing, finances and planning requirements before people had a child.

[Siobhan]

Oh trust me, she is a wretched woman, my husband readily admits he was thinking with the wrong head on that one but thankfully she found husband number 3 (while he was deployed, she's pretty much a base ho) before she could do too much damage thankfully.  We just scratch our heads into how she keeps finding guys to marry her when she is such a wreck, I mean seriously...wouldn't you say no to an idea of marriage knowing you are going to be the fourth husband prior to age 32?

The only plus is that he didn't have to pay her alimony lol.  Frankly I think that whole alimony system is archaic, even temporary alimony.  If you were a SAHP, you get child support and half the assets, that should be enough to cover you "getting back on your feet".  Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.  You see this a lot sadly in the military.  When married you received a salary of in kind benefits, you do not deserve continued life time payment for that.  It's like military pensions, I think splitting them for life, regardless of remarriage status, is abhorrent.  Why should said soldier pay half his pension to someone for 40 years, to whom they were only married 5-10?  My husband and I have two agreements, 1.  I will NEVER go after his pension and 2. I will never go for alimony because I will never stop working until FIRE.

[CommonCents]

Frankly I think that whole alimony system is archaic, even temporary alimony.  If you were a SAHP, you get child support and half the assets, that should be enough to cover you "getting back on your feet".  Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them. 

Luckily there is often a large middle area between nothing for the SAHP (who needs to get a job with a limited/minimal resume after not having had one for X years, and who lost out on that same X years of career progression and raises) and bankruptcy for the working parent.  It's just getting laws to find the appropriate balance that's flexible for a variety of situations.  The vast majority of the time the parents agreed together for one to stay home - it wasn't inflicted on them.  (Note: I do see there is a real issue when one parent unilaterally forces the issue of staying home.  I'm not sure how that one can be resolved, shy of suggesting someone get divorced if one parent is imposing their wishes in such a manner on the other, before alimony need can be established.)

And child support is not for the parent.  Children cost money to feed, clothe and shelter (even if a mustachian can do all for cheaper than average).  It irks me to see the attitude that it's for the parent on both sides of the aisle (the giving and receiving parent).

[Emilyngh]

.  Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.

You are assuming that the SAHP is a woman...not necessarily the case.

And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential.   By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off.   Finding a comparable job as the one left (a well paying skilled position), with the gap in work history, will probably take time, and possibly additional schooling.   Since my spouse chose to SAH for the benefit of our entire family (including me), it is only fair that I assume partial responsibility for the burden that this will create if we divorced.

This is especially true for military families, where so much is required of the spouse married to the person in the military.   Often these spouses are uprooted every 3 three years from areas where they have good jobs to move for their spouse's job to an area where it might be hard for them to find work comparable to that they left.   This type of sacrifice, plus the care that a family requires while a military spouse works long hours, is in the field, etc, does mean that having a SAHP makes even more sense for those in the military, and as such, alimony for the people who often sacrifice so much to support the military spouse's career is even more "deserved."

[Dr.Vibrissae]

Others in this thread have argued that marriage is not necessary for stable long term relationships, stable financial relationships, and stable parental relationships, and as such it is an unnecessary step and possibly more burdensome than beneficial. 

… I don't really have a hang-up against the institution of marriage per se, I'm just insisting that it's a dying mechanism in the US’

Originally I assumed that was the argument you were trying to make.

Then I read:

Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women.

if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.

Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?

It is beyond easy for guys like me to date multiple women, obtain casual sex/a short-term gf/a long-term gf or any combination of the three, and while it might not be as easy for other guys, it's not exactly hard anymore.

Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate, so I decided to read the article you said summed up your feelings. 

I waded through the War on Men article you linked to (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc). I think it’s odd that in a thread complaining about alimony, and how terrible men have it financially in a divorce, you link to an article that concludes that women should just let men be manly and ‘provide for and protect their families’ and then plenty of men would want to get married. You say you don't agree with everything, so I'll assume that's one of the points.  However, the whole article basically reads: millennial men don't want to get married because feminists.

Unfortunately, the statistic used at the start of the article, isn’t even a measurement of the number of millennial men who say they would like to get married.  The Pew report found that ‘Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults (<30 years)’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/ and 70% of 18-29 year olds who are unmarried and do not currently have children want to get married.’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/ 

The statistic has to do with a survey asking about the importance of certain goals. This survey does not offer information on the marital status of those polled (so individuals ranking it as important may be married or single). Women are more likely to rank it as ‘one of the most important things in their lives’ but the report does not clarify if the ‘important, but not the most important’ thing category closes the gap, and does not specifically address the 'do you want to get married one day' question.

Another interesting fact I found, divorced men are almost twice as likely as divorced women to say they want to marry again; and while mens' responses are divided pretty evenly between yes no and not sure; over half of divorced women say they would never marry again.  Makes you really question the assertion that marriage is a worse deal for men. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/

[Cressida]

Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate

Yeah, this guy hasn't been back since I pressed him on exactly this point. Clearly he has the courage of his MRA convictions.

[Cpa Cat]

And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential.   By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off.   ... This is especially true for military families...

I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.

As a comparison, if I go to work for a Not-for-profit that I believe in for $0/a year and my husband supports me because he wants me to be happy (and he believes in the cause too), and then years later we get divorced. Do I really have the right to demand alimony to compensate me for my lost earning potential?

There's this idea that Working Spouse needs to compensate SAHS because WS received something (free childcare, career support, etc) from the SAHS, whereas the SAHS received nothing in exchange. That's fundamentally untrue. SAHS, in essence, received a wage that allowed her/him to have a home, food, clothing, discretionary spending and possibly to build assets in exchange for doing a job that she/he wanted and found fulfilling. It's too bad that this job doesn't qualify SAHS for anything else and no one other than one specific employer would want to hire SAHS, but that's true of many career tracks.

As mentioned previously, my viewpoint is not so extreme as to advocate that the SAHS pension plan should be that they get turned out into the street, destitute. I think that 50% of assets and some additional, limited sum for "retraining" is perfectly appropriate.

Sidenote: I have no special knowledge of military families, so I'm willing to accept that there may be additional factors that make them an exception.

[jka468]

Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate

Yeah, this guy hasn't been back since I pressed him on exactly this point. Clearly he has the courage of his MRA convictions.

Why buy the cow is certainly one point in my reasoning, but not the sole one at all, and this ideology, however true, will most likely get me attacked on these boards so whatever. Anyways, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't much matter what points I make and what reasoning I give; people have their own world view and I'm not going to change that. Honestly, if one is 40+yo or an exception to the rule I completely understand why my ideas are unsettling, and why these ideas won't matter personally since it has no direct affect on one's life. I talk of ideas in a macro sense, and it seems difficult for many people to seperate their micro-view from the macro persepctive.

All I can say is that there is a strong minority of men who think like me, and a small minority of women who understand these things, and time will tell what happens. In another generation or two (20-40 years) marriage will either be on the brink of irrelevance outside of a few traditionalist pockets or it won't, but if I'm correct and it is, it will have major major social and economic consequences for the US. People will then have 1000 and 1 theories as to why this is the case, but they won't recogize that a number of people saw it coming.

Also, Cressida, I am not an MRA and never claimed to be, and I'll leave the snarky comments for you to pollute the thread with. I'm an activist for myself solely and I happen to view things in a certain light.

[jka468]

Others in this thread have argued that marriage is not necessary for stable long term relationships, stable financial relationships, and stable parental relationships, and as such it is an unnecessary step and possibly more burdensome than beneficial. 

… I don't really have a hang-up against the institution of marriage per se, I'm just insisting that it's a dying mechanism in the US’

Originally I assumed that was the argument you were trying to make.

Then I read:

Personally, I love women and have had absolutely no problem getting dates, sex and companionship from many attractive women.

if you're a man who is good with women it is easy in today's climate to have more than one gf/partner or simply have a string of casual relationships. Marriage is a major risk because it's rewards have been marginalized for a while now.

Essentially, my question is this...given a young man has his act together and can readily obtain female companionship, what is the incentive to marriage for him these days?

It is beyond easy for guys like me to date multiple women, obtain casual sex/a short-term gf/a long-term gf or any combination of the three, and while it might not be as easy for other guys, it's not exactly hard anymore.

Are you really arguing: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? You have said there are many reasons for not wanting to get married, but you don’t really elaborate, so I decided to read the article you said summed up your feelings. 

I waded through the War on Men article you linked to (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJSc). I think it’s odd that in a thread complaining about alimony, and how terrible men have it financially in a divorce, you link to an article that concludes that women should just let men be manly and ‘provide for and protect their families’ and then plenty of men would want to get married. You say you don't agree with everything, so I'll assume that's one of the points.  However, the whole article basically reads: millennial men don't want to get married because feminists.

Unfortunately, the statistic used at the start of the article, isn’t even a measurement of the number of millennial men who say they would like to get married.  The Pew report found that ‘Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults (<30 years)’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/ and 70% of 18-29 year olds who are unmarried and do not currently have children want to get married.’ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/03/09/for-millennials-parenthood-trumps-marriage/ 

The statistic has to do with a survey asking about the importance of certain goals. This survey does not offer information on the marital status of those polled (so individuals ranking it as important may be married or single). Women are more likely to rank it as ‘one of the most important things in their lives’ but the report does not clarify if the ‘important, but not the most important’ thing category closes the gap, and does not specifically address the 'do you want to get married one day' question.

Another interesting fact I found, divorced men are almost twice as likely as divorced women to say they want to marry again; and while mens' responses are divided pretty evenly between yes no and not sure; over half of divorced women say they would never marry again.  Makes you really question the assertion that marriage is a worse deal for men. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/iii-marriage/

Good doctor, what I can say to your points is that many men ideally do want to get married, under the correct circumstances, but those circumstances are increasingly difficult to find. Hence I learned something a long time ago; disregard what people say and pay attention to what they do.

[Emilyngh]

I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.

It really does not assume that the SAHP does not receive a benefit from SAH.   It assumes that the other spouse *also* receives a benefit, and as such, the burden of decreased earning potential is not the SAHP's alone to bear.   The idea that the ability for one to SAH and take care of a shared young child all day, take care of more housework, etc is some kind of gift from the other spouse really does not sit right with me.   It's a decision that the couple makes together, and they then should both should share any risks that go along with their family's benefits.   IME, having a SAH spouse is a *huge* benefit to a working parent (eg., when I'm working FT we don't have to do housework or errands on weekends, I don't have to take off of work for a sick child, I come home to a home-cooked dinner each night, etc).  So, while DH has a pretty nice life b/c he SAH, so do I.

As mentioned previously, my viewpoint is not so extreme as to advocate that the SAHS pension plan should be that they get turned out into the street, destitute. I think that 50% of assets and some additional, limited sum for "retraining" is perfectly appropriate.

Then we are in agreement.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

In another generation or two (20-40 years) marriage will either be on the brink of irrelevance outside of a few traditionalist pockets or it won't, but if I'm correct and it is, it will have major major social and economic consequences for the US. People will then have 1000 and 1 theories as to why this is the case, but they won't recogize that a number of people saw it coming.

If marriage dies out because individuals are better off socially, and financially by not getting married, I’m not sure how that will then be bad for society and the economy.  Sure there will be major changes, but if it is because everyone made a choice to be better off, I’m not sure why we should be afraid of that.

With all your talk about the loss of incentive in marriage, I don’t think marriage has gotten riskier or less rewarding in the last 50 years.  There was never a guarantee that you would have a happy marriage, or that your financial footing would be secure.  What has changed is that the social and economic risks of remaining unmarried have lessened.  This is true for both men and women.

Good doctor, what I can say to your points is that many men ideally do want to get married, under the correct circumstances, but those circumstances are increasingly difficult to find.

Crssida and I are just trying to figure out what you think those circumstances are.

Hence I learned something a long time ago; disregard what people say and pay attention to what they do.

This is why I’m going to disregard your statements that you love women and respect the institute of marriage, and base my assumptions on your stated activity of taking advantage of a new social order (dates, companionship, sex on demand) while simultaneously bemoaning the downfall of traditional societal mores.

[lifejoy]

.  Bankrupting the father is NOT the way to build a loving relationship with with child, how is said parent supposed to see the child if he can't afford to fly, drive etc to see them.

You are assuming that the SAHP is a woman...not necessarily the case.

And, as the sole breadwinner with a SAHP spouse, I completely support alimony based on the reasonable amount of time that it should take the other parent to regain their decreased earning potential.   By staying at home, my spouse has gotten off of a career track that can not simply be immediately resumed where left off.   Finding a comparable job as the one left (a well paying skilled position), with the gap in work history, will probably take time, and possibly additional schooling.   Since my spouse chose to SAH for the benefit of our entire family (including me), it is only fair that I assume partial responsibility for the burden that this will create if we divorced.

This is especially true for military families, where so much is required of the spouse married to the person in the military.   Often these spouses are uprooted every 3 three years from areas where they have good jobs to move for their spouse's job to an area where it might be hard for them to find work comparable to that they left.   This type of sacrifice, plus the care that a family requires while a military spouse works long hours, is in the field, etc, does mean that having a SAHP makes even more sense for those in the military, and as such, alimony for the people who often sacrifice so much to support the military spouse's career is even more "deserved."

 Have to agree with you. The book "Lean In" by Sheryl Sandberg highlights the problem that stay-at-home parents have in terms of halting their earning potential by leaving the workforce. It's a big sacrifice and should be compensated.

[jka468]

This is why I’m going to disregard your statements that you love women and respect the institute of marriage, and base my assumptions on your stated activity of taking advantage of a new social order (dates, companionship, sex on demand) while simultaneously bemoaning the downfall of traditional societal mores.

I never once stated I was a saint or on moral high ground. Decrying an idea while taking advantage of the consequences, while morally suspect, do not make the facts less poignant. Remember, I did not choose or create this new order, I am simply an informed byproduct of it.

[Dr.Vibrissae]

Decrying an idea while taking advantage of the consequences, while morally suspect, do not make the facts less poignant. Remember, I did not choose or create this new order, I am simply an informed byproduct of it.

I don't find any of the facts you've mentioned particularly poignant.  You say marriage doesn't offer any benefits, yet seem to think everyone should be really disappointed that you (millennial men) don't want to get married as much as previous generations.  I'm not sure why it's supposed to be touching that you are forgoing an institution you think doesn't benefit you.  We're all a little iconoclastic on this forum, right?

You seem to have a sentimentalized vision of how you should feel about an institution you've never experienced, and you think women in society owe some sort of explanation for your lack of idealistic feelings about marriage.  I don't see you offering any evidence that the decline will be more injurious to women than to men as a whole, or that marriage is more beneficial for women than men.  There was some hand-waving about custody issues, but I don't see how not being married would be beneficial to men in the case of custody disputes or child support calculations.

Actions may speak louder than words, but since 70% of young people say they want to marry, and by the same survey it is estimated that 75% will some day marry, I don't really see a discrepancy.

And I am still truly curious about what conditions you would consider optimal for marriage in your case.  A pre-nup with custody and alimony spelled out before hand?  A woman who refused to have sex without marriage, (would all other women have to stop, too)?  Better tax incentives and health bonuses?  Living in a position where only the man could issue the divorce? Or only the higher earner?  The guarantee that it will never end and your spouse will be faithful?

[CommonCents]

There's this idea that Working Spouse needs to compensate SAHS because WS received something (free childcare, career support, etc) from the SAHS, whereas the SAHS received nothing in exchange. That's fundamentally untrue. SAHS, in essence, received a wage that allowed her/him to have a home, food, clothing, discretionary spending and possibly to build assets in exchange for doing a job that she/he wanted and found fulfilling. It's too bad that this job doesn't qualify SAHS for anything else and no one other than one specific employer would want to hire SAHS, but that's true of many career tracks.

Ah, I think this is where the disconnect is.  I agree with Emilyngh.  My understanding (based on studying family law) is that alimony is not meant to compensate for past efforts (that's the splitting the marital pot of assets/liabilities) but rather to compensate for how those prior choices disproportionately negatively impact the career/standard of living for one partner going forward.  Both agreed and received benefits of one staying home, so both should share some of the risks of it.

If one partner stays home for 2 kids just until they reach first grade (let’s assume the kids are the standard 2-3 years apart), that’s about 9 years out of the workforce.  That’s quite a few raises, promotions missed that can’t really be caught up on.  And don’t forget the challenge of getting a job when you’ve been out of the workforce for almost 10 years, so it could take another year to find a job.  (I lost my job a few years ago due the recession and it took me 2 years to find full-time employment in my field again, at a substantially reduced pay.)

That’s why I believe in alimony – but for a limited time (more than just a short retraining you propose).  (The exception being long-term marriages.)  Mass does this reasonably well I think, limiting max alimony to a percent of the years married with the percent increasing based on the years married.  0-5 is 50% of marriage length I think, 5-10 60%, etc. until you reach 20 years when it become judicial discretion.  (And that’s a max, it could be less.)  To me, that shares the “risk” between the two parties in a way that no alimony or permanent alimony does not.  It encourages the SAHS to get a job and career (although they will always be penalized in terms of career for the missing years when they were out of the workforce so that’s their not insubstantial burden in the deal), and supports/helps them to do so, without saying tough luck, guess you shouldn’t have trusted your partner when s/he said stay home, take care of kids/family crap so the working partner can concentrate on their career.  That all said, I am starting to realize that there are enough people that make these promises to their partner but don’t really mean them, that before I would ever agree to stay at home with kids I would want a post-nup to protect myself.

Sidenote: I have no special knowledge of military families, so I'm willing to accept that there may be additional factors that make them an exception.

Re military, my dad was a Coast Guard officer.  We moved every 2-3 years.  Pre-kids, my mom was a PE teacher (two masters in Physical Education).  There are numerous challenge for the military spouse:

• Finding a job in advance of the move as you can’t really fly across the country easily for an interview (someone needs to coordinate the move and take care of the kids when the other is out at sea…and dad was captain of a ship 4 times, serving on a ship more than that), nor can you be available immediately if you interview a few months before the move. 
• Jobs aren’t available when the military tells you to move.  Often its in late summer, when all of the teacher jobs have been filled. 
• Needing to get new (teaching or other) credentials in these various states. 
• Needing to unpack the house/settle in first anyways – as the military person is often working long hours in the new job initially.
• Finding an employer to hire you given you’ll move again in a few years (hard to hide military on the resume – on MY resume as a kid of a military parent, it was even obvious), as they want someone that will stay. 
• You miss out on promotions (why promote if you are leaving in a year) and career progression.
• At least for teachers, you miss out on one huge perk of a pension.  For other jobs, you often miss out on retirement vesting (which often have anywhere from 1 yr to 5 year vesting schedules). 
• And, don’t forget, teachers are everywhere, but not every career is.  I work in health care law which is great in Boston, and I could easily be in NY, DC, SF, or to a lesser degree Chicago.  Moving outside those locations makes it harder to get a rewarding career in that field, but the military doesn’t care about what states/cities are best for your spouse’s career.

So my mom effectively gave up her career.  She coached our gymnastics (she used to coach at the CG academy) in exchange for free lessons for us, and later subbed some when we were older.

[Spartana]

I think the problem with that line of thinking is that is assumes that the SAHP didn't receive a benefit from being a SAHP. No one tricked that person into staying home. It was their choice. They enjoyed a period of time where someone else supported them so that they could do what they wanted to do, regardless of the pay (0). They knew what they were doing and understood that they were sacrificing earning potential. No one should have to repay them for that. It's not something that happened to them, it's something they chose.

It really does not assume that the SAHP does not receive a benefit from SAH.   It assumes that the other spouse *also* receives a benefit, and as such, the burden of decreased earning potential is not the SAHP's alone to bear.   The idea that the ability for one to SAH and take care of a shared young child all day, take care of more housework, etc is some kind of gift from the other spouse really does not sit right with me.   It's a decision that the couple makes together, and they then should both should share any risks that go along with their family's benefits.   IME, having a SAH spouse is a *huge* benefit to a working parent (eg., when I'm working FT we don't have to do housework or errands on weekends, I don't have to take off of work for a sick child, I come home to a home-cooked dinner each night, etc).  So, while DH has a pretty nice life b/c he SAH, so do I.

 

^ This. While it was the SAH's free choice to not work, it was also a joint and mutual decision made by the couple for the benefit of their family and/or their marriage. Alimony (i.e. spousal support) isn't to "pay back" the SAH or lower earning spouse for the job they did to support the working spouse and family while married, it is to help support them until they can get back on their feet after years, maybe decades, of being out of the work force or in low income jobs. This may be the case for both a SAHP as well as a childless "trailing spouse" who gives up their career, and current as well as future earnings potential, to follow their spouse on constant transfers in order to support the spouse's career. This is a very common thing for spouses of military members. These spouses do it (be a SAHP or a trailing spouse) for the betterment of the couple, the marriage and the family.  I was in the Coast Guard and was transferred every couple of years - often every year - often to fairly remote places with no job opportunities for my spouse. He was also in the CG so no biggie. But If he had given up his career and chosen to follow me for the sake of our marriage for 20 or so years that is the average military career, I assume it's implied that, if SHTF and we divorce, I would continue supporting him financially until he was back to being employed at a living wage.  Alimony shouldn't last forever unless the spouse can not ever earn a living and be self-supporting (or re-marry someone who supports them), but if the couple jointly makes the decision for one spouse to give up their career so they can be together, or to give up their career so they can be a SAHP, then yes, spouse support is justified.

Now after saying that - I will admit that, since I divorced, financial reasons are probably one of the main reason I won't remarry. Mainly because every guy I have met is in deep debt and very unmustachian.

[Spartana]

Re military, my dad was a Coast Guard officer.  We moved every 2-3 years.  Pre-kids, my mom was a PE teacher (two masters in Physical Education).  There are numerous challenge for the military spouse:

• Finding a job in advance of the move as you can’t really fly across the country easily for an interview (someone needs to coordinate the move and take care of the kids when the other is out at sea…and dad was captain of a ship 4 times, serving on a ship more than that), nor can you be available immediately if you interview a few months before the move. 
• Jobs aren’t available when the military tells you to move.  Often its in late summer, when all of the teacher jobs have been filled. 
• Needing to get new (teaching or other) credentials in these various states. 
• Needing to unpack the house/settle in first anyways – as the military person is often working long hours in the new job initially.
• Finding an employer to hire you given you’ll move again in a few years (hard to hide military on the resume – on MY resume as a kid of a military parent, it was even obvious), as they want someone that will stay. 
• You miss out on promotions (why promote if you are leaving in a year) and career progression.
• At least for teachers, you miss out on one huge perk of a pension.  For other jobs, you often miss out on retirement vesting (which often have anywhere from 1 yr to 5 year vesting schedules). 
• And, don’t forget, teachers are everywhere, but not every career is.  I work in health care law which is great in Boston, and I could easily be in NY, DC, SF, or to a lesser degree Chicago.  Moving outside those locations makes it harder to get a rewarding career in that field, but the military doesn’t care about what states/cities are best for your spouse’s career.

So my mom effectively gave up her career.  She coached our gymnastics (she used to coach at the CG academy) in exchange for free lessons for us, and later subbed some when we were older.

Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)

And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.

[CommonCents]

Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)

And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.

:)  I think it may be Dutch Harbor that dad said the Fish Library there contained (amongest the serious books) one copy of "Red Fish Blue Fish One Fish Two Fish".

Yeah, we went to Juneau, Alaska once.  By AK standards, it was a big city with about 25,000 when I was there.  We almost went to Germany instead of Alaska that tour.

[Spartana]

Woo hoo - another Coastie :-)

And they also transfer you to places where there are no jobs for the spouse. This is especially true of the CG were there are small stations or ships in tiny one horse towns with no employment opportunities to be even a minimum wage P/T worker. Dutch Harbor, Alaska anyone :-)! And can't forget the overseas stations all the military service members and their spouses may get transferred too.

:)  I think it may be Dutch Harbor that dad said the Fish Library there contained (amongest the serious books) one copy of "Red Fish Blue Fish One Fish Two Fish".

Yeah, we went to Juneau, Alaska once.  By AK standards, it was a big city with about 25,000 when I was there.  We almost went to Germany instead of Alaska that tour.

Ha! I can see that. I was in Cordova, AK and I think the population is a few hundred - not counting the seasonal "slimers" - i.e. cannery workers. Not sure if your Dad was in during the days of the Loran Stations but THOSE were some remote duty places (middle of the Austrailian Outback, French Frigate Shoals, and a ton of similar places all over the world.

[Siobhan]

Emily, Spartana.  My husband is military, career at that...we move...a LOT.  I can with 100% certainty tell you that I have NOT had an issue with employment.  Is it difficult to find a new job every time we move...sometimes, do I always find one..YES, in fact I outearn my military husband.  Why is it not an issue?  Because I don't let it be. 

If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there.  There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP.   People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills.  If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?

[Spartana]

Emily, Spartana.  My husband is military, career at that...we move...a LOT.  I can with 100% certainty tell you that I have NOT had an issue with employment.  Is it difficult to find a new job every time we move...sometimes, do I always find one..YES, in fact I outearn my military husband.  Why is it not an issue?  Because I don't let it be. 

If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there.  There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP.   People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills.  If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?

Well I respectfully disagree. I consider it a joint decision made by the couple together - with each having to bear the  responsibility to make that choice and the short and long term ramifications. I'm not a parent, and have never been a trailing spouse or had to give up my job, but hubby and I also spend years and years separated because of that. Most married couple aren't interested in doing that.  That was our choice - made jointly and each accepting the ramifications of that choice. When we divorced we each walked away with retaining our separate pensions and splitting joint assets and no need for either of to pay alimony. However, if I had given up my job to follow him hither and yon and never had self-sustaining employment, and we divorced, I would expect temporary support until I was back into the work force. And if he had given up his career to follow me, I'd expect to support him until he was back in the work force.

As for military spouses finding higher level employment - well I'm not saying it isn't doable, just saying that it is often dependent on the type of work you do, how flexible it is to transfers and where you are transferred too and how long you stay in one area (or if you are willing to live apart to maintain your career). You probably had a job that was doable where ever you went - or you went to larger towns. When you are stationed somewhere hundreds of miles from the nearest town, on an island, with no roads, only a few hundred people and the only employment in town is seasonal cannery worker for minimum wage it doesn't matter how determined you are to work at a high paying job, cause that's what's available if you chose to live there.

[Siobhan]

Spartana, we've actually been in the situations you described, small towns, low pay etc.  We GeoBach'd, which as you said, people aren't willing to do..and that is a choice they made to not further their marketable skills...the WP should not be responsible for that individual choice years in the future.

[Emilyngh]

If you are a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of being that...someone else is footing all of your bills for a CHOICE you made..whether or not that is a joint decision is neither here nor there.  There is nothing written that one can't keep their skills, and employ-ability up, while being primarily a SAHP.   People are FORCED to become a SAHP, it is an individual choice that benefits both parties, WP doesn't have to do housework, SAHP doesn't have to worry about showing up in the morning to pay the bills.  If the contract of marriage was to end, then WP may have to pay to have the things SAHP used to do done, why should they continue to pay for services no longer rendered?

And on the flip side if you are the spouse of a SAHP...you have the PRIVILEGE of having a SAH spouse....someone else is caring for your child all day and probably taking care of the majority of your housework.   People are not FORCED to have a SAHP spouse, it is a choice that benefits both parties....

And as has been said many, many times here so far, a WOHP paying spousal support is *not* paying for "services rendered," but is sharing the economic burden that an ex-SAHP may have even after re-entering the work force that directly results from his time spent caring for his family with the WOH parent.

I do not pay my husband for "services" (really, barf).   We have agreed for him to SAH while I work b/c it benefits our entire family.   This decision *will* make it harder for him to get a job comparable to what he left if he goes back into the work force.   As such, I would fully expect to pay spousal support for a reasonable length of time for him to get back rolling along.   I accept this as part of our joint decision, it is only fair, and it would be better for our daughter to have her father able to have a job with a higher earning potential if he had to work.

Frankly, I detect some bitterness regarding the financial impacts of your husband's previous divorce.   While I can empathize in that in addition to providing my husband with his lavish SAH life, I actually also pay his CS for my stepchild, pay for health insurance for the stepchild, will pay a decent sum for college for my stepchild, and even pay half for riding lessons for my stepchild (something I would not pay for for our shared child).   But you know what?   Meh, such is life.   We still have a super great Mustachian life (will reach FI while I'm in my 40s), so why be bitter about it?  Life is great.

[Elderwood17]

Divorce is definitely a brutal thing on finances.  My brothers wife left him after six years and despite the fact she was in school making nothing she got half his assets, most of which he had coming into the marriage.  We have some long standing friends whose marriage has been a mess for awhile due to the husbands idiocy.  When he decided to seek a divorce he honestly thought since he was the breadwinner and she was a SAHM he would get to keep 90% or more of the assets.  Reality crashed in on him hard.

[Unkempt Stash]

I am recently divorced from a 10 year marriage with a single child. My ex was a SAHM.I was always the saver (comparatively TBH) in the relationship. I chose to leave. It took 6 months to get the divorce processed.

The 6 months allowed her to drain the joint accounts, overdraw the joint checking 5-6 times in a single month, max the joint credit card (with an extra 3k added to the limit), and get an apartment that I had to pay the rent on. While I got served with papers that prevented me from using any money in the joint accounts or using the joint credit card.

In the end, I had to sell off my IRA to pay off the "joint" credit card debts and kept all remaining marital debt because I had a job and she did not. I pay alimony and child support. I have years left on both. I don't begrudge this, although I wish it were lower or that I got credit for supporting her while the divorce processed.

Here is the rub: I wanted a divorce 4 years before I finally was able to go through with it. If I had been able to do it earlier, I would have been halfway to FIRE instead of nearly restarting. If you know that divorce is what you want, earlier is better than later. I got my ex to go to college to up her earning potential for when she reentered the workforce, and it did not affect my support a single bit. Nor did the fact that I paid her for her college instead of paying off my student loans. If I could go back and do it again (financially) I would have pulled the trigger earlier.

Q: Why do divorces cost so much?
A: Because they are worth it

In the 2 years since the split, my net work has increased to the prior level. The alimony is hurting income, but I have a  savings account and can pay off credit cards monthly which was a mythical situation before.

[RetiredAt63]

I am sorry you got hit like that, but I am amazed that the courts let a financial settlement like that go through.  I am also wondering why you didn't tell your bank that the accounts needed approval from both account-holders for use, and get your name off the credit cards.  Actually, a lot of finance people recommend each spouse have their own credit card - this was originally so that the non-working spouse would have a credit history, but it would also help in situations like this.

I have finally got my financial agreement settled with my almost-ex husband.  We never had joint credit cards.  We still have joint bank accounts, including a HELOC.  He used the HELOC a bit for personal use, and that has all been sorted out in the settlement.  Our assets and pensions have been split equitably.  If we hadn't done this in mediation, it would have happened in court.

I know of another couple where they divorced at a younger age, and the husband and wife did something similar to you in terms of the wife going back to school.  The husband had child support (of course, they are his kids too) but I think the alimony type support was small and short-term.

[Unkempt Stash]

I am sorry you got hit like that, but I am amazed that the courts let a financial settlement like that go through.  I am also wondering why you didn't tell your bank that the accounts needed approval from both account-holders for use, and get your name off the credit cards.  Actually, a lot of finance people recommend each spouse have their own credit card - this was originally so that the non-working spouse would have a credit history, but it would also help in situations like this.

I could have served her papers back to stop the bleeding, but by the time things went from amiable to nuclear the damage was done. Since the accounts were joint, I had to have her permission to close most of them. Since they were an asset when we were together, if she had a solo card, I would have had less visibility and still would have had to deal with it in the divorce.

I couldn't close the joint credit card. Closing a credit card with a balance on it basically sets the credit limit on the card at zero...thus you are significantly far over the balance and in a world of hurt.

I ended up getting a card with a no fee, interest free balance transfer option. This held the balance of the consumer debt while I got the ex's permission to sell the IRA to cover it (did I mention that if she had been a jerk about this, she could have gotten half the IRA and then I still would have had the full consumer debt?).

As soon as the word divorce was mentioned, I knew to get an account and credit card in my own name and start changing direct deposits into that area. If it were not for that I could have had one hell of a nasty few months.

In the end, I had ~35k in debt (consumer, student loan, car) and I have to pay ~$850 monthly for alimony for ~4 years. I got the newer car since I kept the loan.
She got a paid off car (older, and was her car in the marriage) and the house with loan. The house is ~20k in value over the loan, so I feel like that was worth it to me merely to not have to sell it/live there since I work an hour away from it. She feels like she got screwed over, because I still have a good job and she does not.

Life is fun, but I'm rarely bitter about it. All non student loan debt is paid off and I no longer stress about what she is buying while I'm at work. The alimony and child support roughly equal to what she was spending every month anyway so its not too deep a cut. I have less stuff but I am happier.

[DoubleDown]

A big part of the imbalance with alimony and stay-at-home-parents is that the SAHP gains a huge advantage in custody determinations and in keeping the arrangements that were in place during the marriage going for many years after the divorce. In my case, since my SAHM ex-wife knew I wanted to actively parent my children and not just be "Disneyland Dad", she was able to use that as a weapon for more money. "You want to see the kids? It will cost you." It's a horrible thing to do, but it's reality in a lot of cases.

For example, if you have a SAHM caring for toddlers for a few years with Dad working, and then they divorce (regardless of who initiates it), the courts will keep that arrangement going for many years after the divorce, with Dad paying to keep it going against his wishes (it could be the same if the genders were reversed, but Pew Research says alimony is 98% paid by men IIRC). And why should that arrangement continue even though the marriage and family unit is completely upended? Even if Dad wants to share in custody and go back to both parents working -- tough luck. In addition to alimony, Dad will also be paying sizable child support since SAHM will have complete or primary physical custody.

I'm in the camp that alimony makes sense in many/most cases, but the formulaic approach of many jurisdictions/courts just dehumanizes people as it gets them out quickly. "You were married 10 years? Pay alimony for 5. Next!"

[Spartana]

I'm surprised Unkempt Stash and some other's here didn't file for a "Legal Separation"  right away and prior to filing for divorce. Hubby and I, who had a very amiable divorce and did it all ourselves, filed for one immediately because that protected us from each other's potential financial issues - spending, taxes, no liability if sued or for anything that happened after filing for separation, etc...   until we were legally divorced.  So if one went wild with a the CC or was sued by someone after we separated, the other spouse wasn't liable for that debt at all and was protected.   This also protected any assets they would accrue from that point on even if the actual divorce took months or years.

[Cressida]

Honestly, if one is 40+yo or an exception to the rule I completely understand why my ideas are unsettling

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Dude, your ideas are not "unsettling," they are trite and misguided. The sooner you realize this, the happier you will be. Have you ever met a happy MRA type?

Also, if you think you're successfully negging me by pointing out my age, let me assure you that I see through that little "trick" and it has failed to impress me.

Also, Cressida, I am not an MRA and never claimed to be, and I'll leave the snarky comments for you to pollute the thread with. I'm an activist for myself solely and I happen to view things in a certain light.

Given that you speak, without apparent irony, of "buying the cow," you clearly have MRA beliefs. So claiming that you're "not an MRA" just because you don't sit around plotting with other MRAs is just semantic obfuscation.

Anyway, you still haven't copped to your rationale for not wanting to marry, so I will continue to conclude that said rationale is indefensible. You know perfectly well that your most radical views are socially unacceptable, so you're too chicken to spell them out for us. Way to Go Your Own Way! You're so brave!

[edited for clarity and a misplaced comma]