Is getting married bad for FI/RE?

[bb11]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

[Re3iRtH]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

[bb11]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

[Re3iRtH]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

Then why did you omit the ";)" that I wrote? Tricky tricky. Think you're sly, eh? ;) Not fooling anyone. Its all fake news, I tell ya!

[bb11]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

Then why did you omit the ";)" that I wrote? Tricky tricky. Think you're sly, eh? ;) Not fooling anyone. Its all fake news, I tell ya!

I didn't omit anything. You put a regular smiley face, not a wink, a couple sentences after you said one should be "totally FI to properly raise a child". It was not clear at all to me that you were joking based on the comment. If you were then fine, let's move on and talk about the topic rather than getting hung up on meaningless semantics.

You've yet to respond to my point that there are certainly many women you could date that are richer than you, make more money than you, and/or are frugal. What's the big "business risk" in that?

Here's what we know: it is much more cost efficient for two people to share rent/healthcare/etc than one. You also presumably add the second person's income to yours. It's also relatively easy to target women/men that have more money than you or are comparably frugal if it's that important to you. Finally, so long as your partner has the same goals you can work towards them together and have someone else to support you. So I would say in response to your headline question my answer is no, getting married is not bad for FI/RE, as long as you approach it intelligently. Do you have a counterpoint?

[Re3iRtH]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

Then why did you omit the ";)" that I wrote? Tricky tricky. Think you're sly, eh? ;) Not fooling anyone. Its all fake news, I tell ya!

I didn't omit anything. You put a regular smiley face, not a wink, a couple sentences after you said one should be "totally FI to properly raise a child". It was not clear at all to me that you were joking based on the comment. If you were then fine, let's move on and talk about the topic rather than getting hung up on meaningless semantics.

You've yet to respond to my point that there are certainly many women you could date that are richer than you, make more money than you, and/or are frugal. What's the big "business risk" in that?

Here's what we know: it is much more cost efficient for two people to share rent/healthcare/etc than one. You also presumably add the second person's income to yours. It's also relatively easy to target women/men that have more money than you or are comparably frugal if it's that important to you. Finally, so long as your partner has the same goals you can work towards them together and have someone else to support you. So I would say in response to your headline question my answer is no, getting married is not bad for FI/RE, as long as you approach it intelligently. Do you have a counterpoint?

Why do you assume that I'm a man? Several folks on this thread have presumed that I am female (perhaps correctly). I think before we can have an honest discourse you need to meditate on your preconceived notions about the personality (via text on the internet) that a man or woman SHOULD have. Do you assume that a man is more likely to play devil's advocate or call people out on their poop? :P

[Ann]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

Then why did you omit the ";)" that I wrote? Tricky tricky. Think you're sly, eh? ;) Not fooling anyone. Its all fake news, I tell ya!

I didn't omit anything. You put a regular smiley face, not a wink, a couple sentences after you said one should be "totally FI to properly raise a child". It was not clear at all to me that you were joking based on the comment. If you were then fine, let's move on and talk about the topic rather than getting hung up on meaningless semantics.

You've yet to respond to my point that there are certainly many women you could date that are richer than you, make more money than you, and/or are frugal. What's the big "business risk" in that?

Here's what we know: it is much more cost efficient for two people to share rent/healthcare/etc than one. You also presumably add the second person's income to yours. It's also relatively easy to target women/men that have more money than you or are comparably frugal if it's that important to you. Finally, so long as your partner has the same goals you can work towards them together and have someone else to support you. So I would say in response to your headline question my answer is no, getting married is not bad for FI/RE, as long as you approach it intelligently. Do you have a counterpoint?

Why do you assume that I'm a man? Several folks on this thread have presumed that I am female (perhaps correctly). I think before we can have an honest discourse you need to meditate on your preconceived notions about the personality (via text on the internet) that a man or woman SHOULD have. Do you assume that a man is more likely to play devil's advocate or call people out on their poop? :P

Perhaps because:

For a brief introduction, I am a 32 year old single guy currently residing in interior Alaska.

It's true, you still may not be a man, but I think it is reasonable to make the assumption because you identified yourself as such.
:-)

[Re3iRtH]

99.99% of the world doesn't have $5M, or even FI. Most kids turn out fine. To say you need either to properly raise kids is just absurd.

You said properly, not me. I said ideal. I also put ";)" right after that statement. Some folks are really sensitive.

"What do you think of raising young children while one or both parents are at work all day? This seems to be highly non-ideal. One should be totally FI or work <10 hours per week to properly raise a child."

You said properly, not me. The vast, vast majority of parents are not FI. Your comment was ridiculous.

Then why did you omit the ";)" that I wrote? Tricky tricky. Think you're sly, eh? ;) Not fooling anyone. Its all fake news, I tell ya!

I didn't omit anything. You put a regular smiley face, not a wink, a couple sentences after you said one should be "totally FI to properly raise a child". It was not clear at all to me that you were joking based on the comment. If you were then fine, let's move on and talk about the topic rather than getting hung up on meaningless semantics.

You've yet to respond to my point that there are certainly many women you could date that are richer than you, make more money than you, and/or are frugal. What's the big "business risk" in that?

Here's what we know: it is much more cost efficient for two people to share rent/healthcare/etc than one. You also presumably add the second person's income to yours. It's also relatively easy to target women/men that have more money than you or are comparably frugal if it's that important to you. Finally, so long as your partner has the same goals you can work towards them together and have someone else to support you. So I would say in response to your headline question my answer is no, getting married is not bad for FI/RE, as long as you approach it intelligently. Do you have a counterpoint?

Why do you assume that I'm a man? Several folks on this thread have presumed that I am female (perhaps correctly). I think before we can have an honest discourse you need to meditate on your preconceived notions about the personality (via text on the internet) that a man or woman SHOULD have. Do you assume that a man is more likely to play devil's advocate or call people out on their poop? :P

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

[Ann]

I do find this an interesting psychological experiment!  You (Re3iRtH) seem to feel as though posters who have "pegged" you as a heterosexual male are reading into gender stereotypes.  That may be true for some, but your posts do portray yourself as identifying as a heterosexual male.

You identified yourself as a guy on the "Welcome and General Discussion: Brand new reader saying Hello!!" post.

I am a 32 year old single guy

[If you click on the posters name, a "Profile Summary"  page will appear.  You can then click "show posts" and quickly see all the posts from selected Mustachian.  I find this helpful sometimes when I am trying to get a handle on a poster's perspective.  I'm sure I'm not the only one]

And your framing of questions definitely skews toward primary interest in females:

Now the question is, who has dated a woman (or man) born in the 1980s or more recent?

It seems like if you were truly being gender neutral, you would have not put "or man" in parenthesis.

I'm actually not arguing one side of the other as to whether getting married is financially beneficial (could be either!).  I am posting to point out that you are making accusations of gender bias and gender assumptions when you have stated or clearly implied gender and sexual preference.  We can't actually know anything, though, because it's the internet.  (On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!)

[bb11]

I do find this an interesting psychological experiment!  You (Re3iRtH) seem to feel as though posters who have "pegged" you as a heterosexual male are reading into gender stereotypes.  That may be true for some, but your posts do portray yourself as identifying as a heterosexual male.

You identified yourself as a guy on the "Welcome and General Discussion: Brand new reader saying Hello!!" post.

I am a 32 year old single guy

[If you click on the posters name, a "Profile Summary"  page will appear.  You can then click "show posts" and quickly see all the posts from selected Mustachian.  I find this helpful sometimes when I am trying to get a handle on a poster's perspective.  I'm sure I'm not the only one]

And your framing of questions definitely skews toward primary interest in females:

Now the question is, who has dated a woman (or man) born in the 1980s or more recent?

It seems like if you were truly being gender neutral, you would have not put "or man" in parenthesis.

I'm actually not arguing one side of the other as to whether getting married is financially beneficial (could be either!).  I am posting to point out that you are making accusations of gender bias and gender assumptions when you have stated or clearly implied gender and sexual preference.  We can't actually know anything, though, because it's the internet.  (On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!)

"who has dated a woman (or man)"

Yes, as Ann stated the above quote seemed like quite an obvious tell to me. The "man" in parenthesis does not give it equal weight, and I find it unlikely a woman seeking a man would write it that way.

Beyond that, I've seen this topic brought up on MMM 4-5 times over the years, and several times on other forums too. Literally every single time it has been a man, and I would say every single time its been someone with pretty negative notions of women. To me the idea that your future spouse (no matter the gender) is certain to be a liability is baffling. I've dated a few women that I would be the liability for, so maybe that's why. But I've never heard a woman make such a statement. And I have to say it would be quite refreshing if you are indeed a woman Re3iRthH, and not another man that assumes all women are poorer than them and will take their money in a divorce.

You've now responded to my posts three times, and yet to do anything but try to nitpick and mince words. Sounds pretty well like you have no argument to stand on. So I guess you've answered your own question.

[Re3iRtH]

I do find this an interesting psychological experiment!  You (Re3iRtH) seem to feel as though posters who have "pegged" you as a heterosexual male are reading into gender stereotypes.  That may be true for some, but your posts do portray yourself as identifying as a heterosexual male.

You identified yourself as a guy on the "Welcome and General Discussion: Brand new reader saying Hello!!" post.

I am a 32 year old single guy

[If you click on the posters name, a "Profile Summary"  page will appear.  You can then click "show posts" and quickly see all the posts from selected Mustachian.  I find this helpful sometimes when I am trying to get a handle on a poster's perspective.  I'm sure I'm not the only one]

And your framing of questions definitely skews toward primary interest in females:

Now the question is, who has dated a woman (or man) born in the 1980s or more recent?

It seems like if you were truly being gender neutral, you would have not put "or man" in parenthesis.

I'm actually not arguing one side of the other as to whether getting married is financially beneficial (could be either!).  I am posting to point out that you are making accusations of gender bias and gender assumptions when you have stated or clearly implied gender and sexual preference.  We can't actually know anything, though, because it's the internet.  (On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!)

"who has dated a woman (or man)"

Yes, as Ann stated the above quote seemed like quite an obvious tell to me. The "man" in parenthesis does not give it equal weight, and I find it unlikely a woman seeking a man would write it that way.

Beyond that, I've seen this topic brought up on MMM 4-5 times over the years, and several times on other forums too. Literally every single time it has been a man, and I would say every single time its been someone with pretty negative notions of women. To me the idea that your future spouse (no matter the gender) is certain to be a liability is baffling. I've dated a few women that I would be the liability for, so maybe that's why. But I've never heard a woman make such a statement. And I have to say it would be quite refreshing if you are indeed a woman Re3iRthH, and not another man that assumes all women are poorer than them and will take their money in a divorce.

You've now responded to my posts three times, and yet to do anything but try to nitpick and mince words. Sounds pretty well like you have no argument to stand on. So I guess you've answered your own question.

Who cares if a man or woman brought it up? In my experience, people who zero in and focus on gender and race are the most racist and sexist individuals themselves. And, usually quite insecure.

And of course, you didn't even attempt to address the last 3/4 of my last post, or even the actual topic. Again, you assume that I am a man who is not fond of women, and that couldn't be further from the truth :P

[Re3iRtH]

"Beyond that, I've seen this topic brought up on MMM 4-5 times over the years, and several times on other forums too. Literally every single time it has been a man, and I would say every single time its been someone with pretty negative notions of women. To me the idea that your future spouse (no matter the gender) is certain to be a liability is baffling. I've dated a few women that I would be the liability for, so maybe that's why. But I've never heard a woman make such a statement. And I have to say it would be quite refreshing if you are indeed a woman Re3iRthH, and not another man that assumes all women are poorer than them and will take their money in a divorce."

Gee, I wonder why this topic on forums is typically brought up by men? (see attachment). The amount of cognitive dissonance and head-buried-in-sand is staggering.

[bb11]

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

Protecting yourself is fine. It's way different than calling a marriage a "business risk" or "business decision". It's worlds different than your headline asking unequivocally if marriage is bad for FIRE. Of course it's not quite often, and sometimes it is.

The fact that people have lost money in marriages doesn't make it bad for FIRE or a "business decision". I lose money when I go on vacation, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with "business". Not everything in life is about stacking as much cash as possible. Can there be financial risk by entering a marriage? Yes absolutely, and you should be smart about it. But there's financial risk in anything you do. If you throw a party and someone gets hurt at your house they can sue you and take your money. Should I never throw parties any more? Of course not. Getting anecdotes of people paying alimony does not prove your point at any more than me getting anecdotes of people losing money investing means I should never invest. There can be good and bad outcomes.

And the 50% divorce rate is a myth if you've never been married before. It's skewed by the fact that people who've already been divorced are much more likely to get divorced again. The divorce rate on second marriages is like 70%. Or you can be like my grandpa, he got married 5 different times. ;)  The divorce rate for first marriage is about 35%. For college grads and high income earners it's even less, often cited at 25%. This page (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/) includes these quotes:

"- Education: only 27 percent of college graduates will divorce by middle age.
- Income: having a collective annual household income of $50,000 or more is associated with a 30 percent lower divorce risk.
- Childbearing: having one’s first child after marriage reduces divorce risk somewhere between 24 and 66 percent."

All told depending on your lifestyle your predicted divorce rate could be quite low.

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

I'm a man btw. One can defend women and still be a man. Ironic though that you mistook my gender while trying to call me out for possibly mistaking your gender.

[applegrapepie]

it's hard to deny that when you get married, your hours would get limited. That's why many people nowadays reconsider about getting married.

[Re3iRtH]

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

Protecting yourself is fine. It's way different than calling a marriage a "business risk" or "business decision". It's worlds different than your headline asking unequivocally if marriage is bad for FIRE. Of course it's not quite often, and sometimes it is.

The fact that people have lost money in marriages doesn't make it bad for FIRE or a "business decision". I lose money when I go on vacation, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with "business". Not everything in life is about stacking as much cash as possible. Can there be financial risk by entering a marriage? Yes absolutely, and you should be smart about it. But there's financial risk in anything you do. If you throw a party and someone gets hurt at your house they can sue you and take your money. Should I never throw parties any more? Of course not. Getting anecdotes of people paying alimony does not prove your point at any more than me getting anecdotes of people losing money investing means I should never invest. There can be good and bad outcomes.

And the 50% divorce rate is a myth if you've never been married before. It's skewed by the fact that people who've already been divorced are much more likely to get divorced again. The divorce rate on second marriages is like 70%. Or you can be like my grandpa, he got married 5 different times. ;)  The divorce rate for first marriage is about 35%. For college grads and high income earners it's even less, often cited at 25%. This page (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/) includes these quotes:

"- Education: only 27 percent of college graduates will divorce by middle age.
- Income: having a collective annual household income of $50,000 or more is associated with a 30 percent lower divorce risk.
- Childbearing: having one’s first child after marriage reduces divorce risk somewhere between 24 and 66 percent."

All told depending on your lifestyle your predicted divorce rate could be quite low.

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

I'm a man btw. One can defend women and still be a man. Ironic though that you mistook my gender while trying to call me out for possibly mistaking your gender.

It's not just divorce rates. I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

Just a 3 second Google search: https://www.google.com/amp/s/dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/amp/

I was extremely ignorant of this up until 6 months ago. Of course, there is always the "head in the sand" option ~.~

[bb11]

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

Protecting yourself is fine. It's way different than calling a marriage a "business risk" or "business decision". It's worlds different than your headline asking unequivocally if marriage is bad for FIRE. Of course it's not quite often, and sometimes it is.

The fact that people have lost money in marriages doesn't make it bad for FIRE or a "business decision". I lose money when I go on vacation, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with "business". Not everything in life is about stacking as much cash as possible. Can there be financial risk by entering a marriage? Yes absolutely, and you should be smart about it. But there's financial risk in anything you do. If you throw a party and someone gets hurt at your house they can sue you and take your money. Should I never throw parties any more? Of course not. Getting anecdotes of people paying alimony does not prove your point at any more than me getting anecdotes of people losing money investing means I should never invest. There can be good and bad outcomes.

And the 50% divorce rate is a myth if you've never been married before. It's skewed by the fact that people who've already been divorced are much more likely to get divorced again. The divorce rate on second marriages is like 70%. Or you can be like my grandpa, he got married 5 different times. ;)  The divorce rate for first marriage is about 35%. For college grads and high income earners it's even less, often cited at 25%. This page (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/) includes these quotes:

"- Education: only 27 percent of college graduates will divorce by middle age.
- Income: having a collective annual household income of $50,000 or more is associated with a 30 percent lower divorce risk.
- Childbearing: having one’s first child after marriage reduces divorce risk somewhere between 24 and 66 percent."

All told depending on your lifestyle your predicted divorce rate could be quite low.

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

I'm a man btw. One can defend women and still be a man. Ironic though that you mistook my gender while trying to call me out for possibly mistaking your gender.

It's not just divorce rates. I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

Just a 3 second Google search: https://www.google.com/amp/s/dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/amp/

I was extremely ignorant of this up until 6 months ago. Of course, there is always the "head in the sand" option ~.~

Ok, so you didn't really respond to a thing I said. So don't chastise me for ignoring part of your post when you do nothing but bring up your own points. I'll respond to your points, and then if you please I'd like it if you respond to my original point that I brought up 5 posts ago and you've yet to respond to.

I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Try having kids without being married. You think your odds of getting custody or not having to support them are better? Nope. This has nothing to do with whether marriage is bad for FIRE. And I'd agree with you that family courts have biased towards women, especially historically. Doesn't make marriage bad though.

As for why they usually get child support, it's because they get custody and also they're somewhat more likely to make less than the man.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

Now I'm going bring up my original point one more time: why do you assume all of your potential partners are poorer, make less income, and less frugal than you? I don't care if you're a man, a women, or a fricken snow leopard, that's the faulty assumption that destroys your reasoning. There are plenty of <insert Re3iRtH's preferred partner here> that are none of those, and surely millions that are not at least one or two. So if that's the case, what's the risk? Wouldn't you be the risk to them?

[Re3iRtH]

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

Protecting yourself is fine. It's way different than calling a marriage a "business risk" or "business decision". It's worlds different than your headline asking unequivocally if marriage is bad for FIRE. Of course it's not quite often, and sometimes it is.

The fact that people have lost money in marriages doesn't make it bad for FIRE or a "business decision". I lose money when I go on vacation, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with "business". Not everything in life is about stacking as much cash as possible. Can there be financial risk by entering a marriage? Yes absolutely, and you should be smart about it. But there's financial risk in anything you do. If you throw a party and someone gets hurt at your house they can sue you and take your money. Should I never throw parties any more? Of course not. Getting anecdotes of people paying alimony does not prove your point at any more than me getting anecdotes of people losing money investing means I should never invest. There can be good and bad outcomes.

And the 50% divorce rate is a myth if you've never been married before. It's skewed by the fact that people who've already been divorced are much more likely to get divorced again. The divorce rate on second marriages is like 70%. Or you can be like my grandpa, he got married 5 different times. ;)  The divorce rate for first marriage is about 35%. For college grads and high income earners it's even less, often cited at 25%. This page (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/) includes these quotes:

"- Education: only 27 percent of college graduates will divorce by middle age.
- Income: having a collective annual household income of $50,000 or more is associated with a 30 percent lower divorce risk.
- Childbearing: having one’s first child after marriage reduces divorce risk somewhere between 24 and 66 percent."

All told depending on your lifestyle your predicted divorce rate could be quite low.

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

I'm a man btw. One can defend women and still be a man. Ironic though that you mistook my gender while trying to call me out for possibly mistaking your gender.

It's not just divorce rates. I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

Just a 3 second Google search: https://www.google.com/amp/s/dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/amp/

I was extremely ignorant of this up until 6 months ago. Of course, there is always the "head in the sand" option ~.~

Ok, so you didn't really respond to a thing I said. So don't chastise me for ignoring part of your post when you do nothing but bring up your own points. I'll respond to your points, and then if you please I'd like it if you respond to my original point that I brought up 5 posts ago and you've yet to respond to.

I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Try having kids without being married. You think your odds of getting custody or not having to support them are better? Nope. This has nothing to do with whether marriage is bad for FIRE. And I'd agree with you that family courts have biased towards women, especially historically. Doesn't make marriage bad though.

As for why they usually get child support, it's because they get custody and also they're somewhat more likely to make less than the man.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

Now I'm going bring up my original point one more time: why do you assume all of your potential partners are poorer, make less income, and less frugal than you? I don't care if you're a man, a women, or a fricken snow leopard, that's the faulty assumption that destroys your reasoning. There are plenty of <insert Re3iRtH's preferred partner here> that are none of those, and surely millions that are not at least one or two. So if that's the case, what's the risk? Wouldn't you be the risk to them?

I am not here to tell you marriage is good or bad for FI/RE. I have not been married yet, but I have received many a proposal. I am simply gathering data. So far, it's not looking good.

Most studies actually show domestic violence is fairly equal among both genders. You assume men are the perpetrators because society and gender studies professors told you so. This is not proved by science. So tell me, why do you think women file the large majority of divorces? Another observation I've made.. which gender TYPICALLY cutely (and sometimes not so cutely) pressures the other gender into getting married? So there we have these 2 conundrums, taken together, make you scratch your head doubly.

Also, you have not addressed the 3 strategies that others have commented on, and I have listed, to protect themselves but still get the "benefits" of love and children, without the risks. I think they are brilliant! (in an English accent). So the education I got from this thread was more than worth my time dealing with the side-trackers.

To answer your question, I have not married mostly because of being busy with medical residency, and moving around every few years due to the nature of my work. I have only learned about these facts we are discussing very recently. And I believe they are very serious.

[Caoineag]

Who you choose to marry and what sort of marriage partner you choose to be will determine whether or not marriage is bad for FI/RE. My husband and I were both born in the 1980s. I chose my marriage partner well and I choose to be a dedicated marriage partner so our marriage is accelerating both of our timelines to FIRE.

I repeat, who you choose and who you choose to be matter way more than the institution itself. Not everyone is suitable for marriage. Not everyone is ready for marriage at the same time. If to you all the previous partners you had were relatively the same, I would say you either are choosing badly or displaying behaviors that attract the wrong kind of partners. In which case, you are probably better off avoiding marriage.

[Goldielocks]

Ok,  enjoy your kids at age 70.   Seems like a wasted life to me.  If you really want kids, you want them before you are 70, and you make it happen sooner.

Why is the life wasted? Are you implying that those who chose not to have kids at all wasted their life? That sounds like a personal opinion and you shouldn't generalized to others (billions of people). How do you know what they are thinking? They may have had a fulfilling life, full of kindness and grace, and have helped millions of people, without actually having kids. Does not sound like a waste to me.

Not at all.

I am saying that someone who REALLY WANTS TO HAVE KIDS, as a major life goal, would have wasted their life if they waited until they are 70 to try.   Of course many, many people have fulfilling lives without kids, and some people want kids, but can't have them, and still have great lives... but to deliberately not even try to attain your life goal until you are 70?   

We only get so many years to live.   If a major goal is to have children, why put off one's goals so long?   <70 is a bit of an exaggeration, based on your other post -- I feel this way about age 50 too>

[Goldielocks]

"Why do women file for (initiate) divorce more often that men?"  (paraphrased)   I will provide my thoughts, because you posted this question more than once so far, and no one has bitten yet.

Based on my personal non-scientific experience:

1)  Although women might have affairs at the similar frequency to men, they tend not to like to lie to their mates or be comfortable with it and may "come clean" with initiating divorce (an affair may be a result of a relationship that has all but formally ended).  Men, meanwhile, may be able to "compartmentalize" affairs and extra-marital relationships and continue to have satisfying (to them) marriages.   Based on small sample personal observations, anyway.

IMO, that is not the main reason, however:

2)  Women tend to either earn less, or take on roles where they earn less, often because of child rearing or trailing spouse factors.   Whoever earns more has a great financial disincentive to divorce when the other spouse is not able to support themselves.   For many people, this is doubly true if they have taken religious vows to love and support their spouse -- how can you leave them to fend for themselves when you vowed to ensure that they are cared for, for life?  In this financial case, it can be logical to hold on longer to try to make it work out, as there is no or minor benefit to divorce.    Also, the primary income earner may be spending many hours outside of the home working, so having a difficult married life does not need to affect the majority of their day or mind, in the same way that it could for a stay at home spouse.


This is IMO -- I say #2 because during a rough patch in my relationship, requiring to provide spousal support for many years was a distinct disincentive to divorce.   At least while married, my spouse would provide child care some of the time...and I had no risk of losing child custody, and I had no interest in looking for other relationships because work hours were so long and tiring, so it was easier to just stay married for a while, or until the kids were older.  (Glad I did, because we got through all that).

#2) is actually a gender neutral motivation.  The only reason it is skewed to women is that married women who get divorced, often have trailing spouse scenarios, or children, that reduces their income, more often then men do in your sample.  I believe this trend is changing, but likely your sample covers years past.

[libertarian4321]

As other have noted marriage can beneficial for FIRE, but divorce is usually a pretty big set back, so choose your partner wisely, not as a means to an end.

As stated, marriage of like minded people can make it much easier.

But skip the $25,000 wedding (or get someone else to pay for it).

Divorce is bad, though.

And kids.  Having kids could set you back decades.  If you need something crawling around on the floor and making a mess, get a dog, they are cheaper.

[bb11]

As many folks on this thread pointed out, there are lots of smart and educated people (a lot of them being women), who did protect themselves in the form of:
1) Prenuptual agreements
2) Civil union (without marriage)
3) Surrogacy

So dear, why don't you ask those guys and gals who have commented on the above, why its a "business decision" for them? Since they clearly acted in such a way as to to protect themselves. I am only gathering preliminary information - they have already pulled the trigger to either shield their assets, or shield themselves from a unfavorable/biased/broken system.

And by the way, one cannot say it is more cost-efficient to share a space.. WITHOUT considering the possible risks. The formula has to include reality (which is where I live in), not fantasy land. The reality of >50% divorce rates, and >2/3s in states such as California. The formula is obviously more complex. Please read the thread. There are a lot of good examples arguing both for and against marriage being good for FI/RE. Cheers.

Protecting yourself is fine. It's way different than calling a marriage a "business risk" or "business decision". It's worlds different than your headline asking unequivocally if marriage is bad for FIRE. Of course it's not quite often, and sometimes it is.

The fact that people have lost money in marriages doesn't make it bad for FIRE or a "business decision". I lose money when I go on vacation, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with "business". Not everything in life is about stacking as much cash as possible. Can there be financial risk by entering a marriage? Yes absolutely, and you should be smart about it. But there's financial risk in anything you do. If you throw a party and someone gets hurt at your house they can sue you and take your money. Should I never throw parties any more? Of course not. Getting anecdotes of people paying alimony does not prove your point at any more than me getting anecdotes of people losing money investing means I should never invest. There can be good and bad outcomes.

And the 50% divorce rate is a myth if you've never been married before. It's skewed by the fact that people who've already been divorced are much more likely to get divorced again. The divorce rate on second marriages is like 70%. Or you can be like my grandpa, he got married 5 different times. ;)  The divorce rate for first marriage is about 35%. For college grads and high income earners it's even less, often cited at 25%. This page (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/12/15983/) includes these quotes:

"- Education: only 27 percent of college graduates will divorce by middle age.
- Income: having a collective annual household income of $50,000 or more is associated with a 30 percent lower divorce risk.
- Childbearing: having one’s first child after marriage reduces divorce risk somewhere between 24 and 66 percent."

All told depending on your lifestyle your predicted divorce rate could be quite low.

Read the bolded above. That poster made the assumption that I wanted to date or marry women. I read all my posts on this thread, no where did I say that. She assumed I was a man, discussing dating or marrying women. Now, this should be an interesting psychological experiment for you. Why do you think she assumed this?

I'm a man btw. One can defend women and still be a man. Ironic though that you mistook my gender while trying to call me out for possibly mistaking your gender.

It's not just divorce rates. I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

Just a 3 second Google search: https://www.google.com/amp/s/dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data/amp/

I was extremely ignorant of this up until 6 months ago. Of course, there is always the "head in the sand" option ~.~

Ok, so you didn't really respond to a thing I said. So don't chastise me for ignoring part of your post when you do nothing but bring up your own points. I'll respond to your points, and then if you please I'd like it if you respond to my original point that I brought up 5 posts ago and you've yet to respond to.

I want children some day. Have you looked into the family court system? It's an absolute disaster.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Try having kids without being married. You think your odds of getting custody or not having to support them are better? Nope. This has nothing to do with whether marriage is bad for FIRE. And I'd agree with you that family courts have biased towards women, especially historically. Doesn't make marriage bad though.

As for why they usually get child support, it's because they get custody and also they're somewhat more likely to make less than the man.

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

Now I'm going bring up my original point one more time: why do you assume all of your potential partners are poorer, make less income, and less frugal than you? I don't care if you're a man, a women, or a fricken snow leopard, that's the faulty assumption that destroys your reasoning. There are plenty of <insert Re3iRtH's preferred partner here> that are none of those, and surely millions that are not at least one or two. So if that's the case, what's the risk? Wouldn't you be the risk to them?

I am not here to tell you marriage is good or bad for FI/RE. I have not been married yet, but I have received many a proposal. I am simply gathering data. So far, it's not looking good.

Most studies actually show domestic violence is fairly equal among both genders. You assume men are the perpetrators because society and gender studies professors told you so. This is not proved by science. So tell me, why do you think women file the large majority of divorces? Another observation I've made.. which gender TYPICALLY cutely (and sometimes not so cutely) pressures the other gender into getting married? So there we have these 2 conundrums, taken together, make you scratch your head doubly.

Also, you have not addressed the 3 strategies that others have commented on, and I have listed, to protect themselves but still get the "benefits" of love and children, without the risks.

I think they are brilliant! (in an English accent). So the education I got from this thread was more than worth my time dealing with the side-trackers.

To answer your question, I have not married mostly because of being busy with medical residency, and moving around every few years due to the nature of my work. I have only learned about these facts we are discussing very recently. And I believe they are very serious.

You seriously still aren't going to answer my question?

Also, you have not addressed the 3 strategies that others have commented on, and I have listed, to protect themselves but still get the "benefits" of love and children, without the risks.

I did comment, I said protecting your finances is fine. I have no problem with prenups. There is no way to get off the hook of being responsible for kids though.

So tell me, why do you think women file the large majority of divorces?

You've got to be kidding me. I wrote a paragraph responding to that, and linked a Stanford study. Ultimately it doesn't matter. Even if marriage is more advantageous for women that doesn't make it bad for FIRE, because you know, women can FIRE too!

To answer your question, I have not married mostly because of being busy with medical residency

I didn't ask you that. Again: why do you assume all of your potential partners are poorer, make less income, and less frugal than you? I don't care if you're a man, a women, or a fricken snow leopard, that's the faulty assumption that destroys your reasoning. There are plenty of <insert Re3iRtH's preferred partner here> that are none of those, and surely millions that are not at least one or two. So if that's the case, what's the risk? Wouldn't you be the risk to them?

[wenchsenior]

Holy crap, this thread is turning into a trainwreck. 

If the OP is so concerned about measurable, objective trade-offs and risk assessments for big life decisions, then he should probably reconsider having kids altogether, either with or without a marriage partner.  Any given kid is much more of a crap-shoot in terms of financial risk and long term happiness than choosing a marriage partner is.  You can't divorce your kids, even if they turn out to be disabled, dysfunctional, massive financial burdens, or just assholes that you end up not wanting to be around.

[Imma]

One odd thing I noticed, is that these threads tend to be started by men who consider it a "business risk" to marry. But this isn't the early 1900's, women collectively make (almost) as much as men do. So unless you're some outlier super high earner, about half of all women are probably making more than you. Now you're the business risk! :)

I've found plenty of women that are frugal, doing well in their careers, and/or richer than I am. And I was born in 89.

I'm a female born in 1990, with a law degree, and I took on a huge business risk: a male, born in 86, with a beard and no college education. Oh, and he's an aspiring musician, to make matters worse ;-) . So far we're doing well. We have a prenup and have explicitly excluded spousal support for both of us. We met when I was still a student and he was making double of what I was making. Now we're earning about the same amount and I'll probably make more than him soon. Both of us have always lived frugal lives and will continue to do so no matter how much money we're making, and we're committed to always splitting the bills 50/50. That means we're not going to buy a mansion any time soon, no matter how my career goes, because he wouldn't be able to afford his share. But then, who needs a mansion if you've got a perfectly nice home already?

The thing is, when you think of relationships as business transactions, it shows, and reasonable people don't like to be thought of as a commodity. They're not going to be interested in you. The type of person that doesn't mind that view of relationships and marriage, is probably unreasonable, therefore unsuitable, and might well be looking for a meal ticket.

[Goldielocks]

Holy crap, this thread is turning into a trainwreck. 

If the OP is so concerned about measurable, objective trade-offs and risk assessments for big life decisions, then he should probably reconsider having kids altogether, either with or without a marriage partner.  Any given kid is much more of a crap-shoot in terms of financial risk and long term happiness than choosing a marriage partner is.  You can't divorce your kids, even if they turn out to be disabled, dysfunctional, massive financial burdens, or just assholes that you end up not wanting to be around.

+10000

(because, I have kids, so true.)

[wenchsenior]

Holy crap, this thread is turning into a trainwreck. 

If the OP is so concerned about measurable, objective trade-offs and risk assessments for big life decisions, then he should probably reconsider having kids altogether, either with or without a marriage partner.  Any given kid is much more of a crap-shoot in terms of financial risk and long term happiness than choosing a marriage partner is.  You can't divorce your kids, even if they turn out to be disabled, dysfunctional, massive financial burdens, or just assholes that you end up not wanting to be around.

+10000

(because, I have kids, so true.)

Not to mention, you can't 'pre-screen' your kids the way you can potential partners.

[Re3iRtH]

One odd thing I noticed, is that these threads tend to be started by men who consider it a "business risk" to marry. But this isn't the early 1900's, women collectively make (almost) as much as men do. So unless you're some outlier super high earner, about half of all women are probably making more than you. Now you're the business risk! :)

I've found plenty of women that are frugal, doing well in their careers, and/or richer than I am. And I was born in 89.

I'm a female born in 1990, with a law degree, and I took on a huge business risk: a male, born in 86, with a beard and no college education. Oh, and he's an aspiring musician, to make matters worse ;-) . So far we're doing well. We have a prenup and have explicitly excluded spousal support for both of us. We met when I was still a student and he was making double of what I was making. Now we're earning about the same amount and I'll probably make more than him soon. Both of us have always lived frugal lives and will continue to do so no matter how much money we're making, and we're committed to always splitting the bills 50/50. That means we're not going to buy a mansion any time soon, no matter how my career goes, because he wouldn't be able to afford his share. But then, who needs a mansion if you've got a perfectly nice home already?

The thing is, when you think of relationships as business transactions, it shows, and reasonable people don't like to be thought of as a commodity. They're not going to be interested in you. The type of person that doesn't mind that view of relationships and marriage, is probably unreasonable, therefore unsuitable, and might well be looking for a meal ticket.

Are you talking about yourself? Your entire description sounds like a business transaction. You split every purchase 50.00%/50.00%, and limit your to purchases only both of you can afford. More power to you, but personally I cannot see myself so mechanical and systematic in a relationship. It sounds like business accounting from everything from a burger to a house. If you're going to do that, I don't see the benefit of going through marriage and a prenup...
If you want to go on a cruise or snorkeling/surfing in Hawaii, and one of you can't afford 50% of it, you don't go? Sounds like a limited, scarcity-based way to live.

[Imma]

One odd thing I noticed, is that these threads tend to be started by men who consider it a "business risk" to marry. But this isn't the early 1900's, women collectively make (almost) as much as men do. So unless you're some outlier super high earner, about half of all women are probably making more than you. Now you're the business risk! :)

I've found plenty of women that are frugal, doing well in their careers, and/or richer than I am. And I was born in 89.

I'm a female born in 1990, with a law degree, and I took on a huge business risk: a male, born in 86, with a beard and no college education. Oh, and he's an aspiring musician, to make matters worse ;-) . So far we're doing well. We have a prenup and have explicitly excluded spousal support for both of us. We met when I was still a student and he was making double of what I was making. Now we're earning about the same amount and I'll probably make more than him soon. Both of us have always lived frugal lives and will continue to do so no matter how much money we're making, and we're committed to always splitting the bills 50/50. That means we're not going to buy a mansion any time soon, no matter how my career goes, because he wouldn't be able to afford his share. But then, who needs a mansion if you've got a perfectly nice home already?

The thing is, when you think of relationships as business transactions, it shows, and reasonable people don't like to be thought of as a commodity. They're not going to be interested in you. The type of person that doesn't mind that view of relationships and marriage, is probably unreasonable, therefore unsuitable, and might well be looking for a meal ticket.

Are you talking about yourself? Your entire description sounds like a business transaction. You split every purchase 50.00%/50.00%, and limit your to purchases only both of you can afford. More power to you, but personally I cannot see myself so mechanical and systematic in a relationship. It sounds like business accounting from everything from a burger to a house. If you're going to do that, I don't see the benefit of going through marriage and a prenup...
If you want to go on a cruise or snorkeling/surfing in Hawaii, and one of you can't afford 50% of it, you don't go? Sounds like a limited, scarcity-based way to live.

Well, I can assure you it doesn't feel like a business transaction at all. Because we have excluded the possiblity of financial gain or loss through our relationship, I can be 100% sure that the only reason we are together is love. One person in this thread said they'd seriously not considered staying in a relationship just to avoid paying spousal support. I am extremely glad that we'll never have to think that way. It's actually a very comforting thought to know that he's coming home at night every night just for me and not because he gets 'his money's  worth' out of the relationship.

It's funny that people always think about pre-nups in such a black and white manner. What is means, is that our joint expenses (mortgage, insurance, gas, water, electric, groceries, local taxes etc) are about €800 so we each pay €400 in our joint bank account. Any personal expenses are paid through our own accounts. I have two debit cards in my wallets. It means we each pay half of the mortgage and half of all bils. It doesn't mean that we each eat exactly 6 eggs when we buy a dozen or that we count the slices of bread. When we go out for dinner (not that often, since we're frugal) we take turns to pay. It's a lot less complicated than it seems.

Now, in the entirely hypothetical situation that one of us would want to go on a cruise or snorkling on Hawaii (which we are not interested in at all, since we are frugal by nature) there's always the option of giving that to someone as a gift, no strings attached. It hasn't happened so far because we've never had those kind of wishes that we couldn't afford.

It does mean that I'll FIRE at some point and he won't. He's good with money but not interested in FIRE at all. Being a musician is more than a job, it's a calling, and he'll probably be active as a musician as long as he's physically capable of standing up.

[Re3iRtH]

"Why do women file for (initiate) divorce more often that men?"  (paraphrased)   I will provide my thoughts, because you posted this question more than once so far, and no one has bitten yet.

Based on my personal non-scientific experience:

1)  Although women might have affairs at the similar frequency to men, they tend not to like to lie to their mates or be comfortable with it and may "come clean" with initiating divorce (an affair may be a result of a relationship that has all but formally ended).  Men, meanwhile, may be able to "compartmentalize" affairs and extra-marital relationships and continue to have satisfying (to them) marriages.   Based on small sample personal observations, anyway.

IMO, that is not the main reason, however:

2)  Women tend to either earn less, or take on roles where they earn less, often because of child rearing or trailing spouse factors.   Whoever earns more has a great financial disincentive to divorce when the other spouse is not able to support themselves.   For many people, this is doubly true if they have taken religious vows to love and support their spouse -- how can you leave them to fend for themselves when you vowed to ensure that they are cared for, for life?  In this financial case, it can be logical to hold on longer to try to make it work out, as there is no or minor benefit to divorce.    Also, the primary income earner may be spending many hours outside of the home working, so having a difficult married life does not need to affect the majority of their day or mind, in the same way that it could for a stay at home spouse.


This is IMO -- I say #2 because during a rough patch in my relationship, requiring to provide spousal support for many years was a distinct disincentive to divorce.   At least while married, my spouse would provide child care some of the time...and I had no risk of losing child custody, and I had no interest in looking for other relationships because work hours were so long and tiring, so it was easier to just stay married for a while, or until the kids were older.  (Glad I did, because we got through all that).

#2) is actually a gender neutral motivation.  The only reason it is skewed to women is that married women who get divorced, often have trailing spouse scenarios, or children, that reduces their income, more often then men do in your sample.  I believe this trend is changing, but likely your sample covers years past.

Great insight. And I really appreciate your honesty. A lot more refreshing to see than the rationalization and dodging of the uncomfortable but critical questions.

[Re3iRtH]

One odd thing I noticed, is that these threads tend to be started by men who consider it a "business risk" to marry. But this isn't the early 1900's, women collectively make (almost) as much as men do. So unless you're some outlier super high earner, about half of all women are probably making more than you. Now you're the business risk! :)

I've found plenty of women that are frugal, doing well in their careers, and/or richer than I am. And I was born in 89.

I'm a female born in 1990, with a law degree, and I took on a huge business risk: a male, born in 86, with a beard and no college education. Oh, and he's an aspiring musician, to make matters worse ;-) . So far we're doing well. We have a prenup and have explicitly excluded spousal support for both of us. We met when I was still a student and he was making double of what I was making. Now we're earning about the same amount and I'll probably make more than him soon. Both of us have always lived frugal lives and will continue to do so no matter how much money we're making, and we're committed to always splitting the bills 50/50. That means we're not going to buy a mansion any time soon, no matter how my career goes, because he wouldn't be able to afford his share. But then, who needs a mansion if you've got a perfectly nice home already?

The thing is, when you think of relationships as business transactions, it shows, and reasonable people don't like to be thought of as a commodity. They're not going to be interested in you. The type of person that doesn't mind that view of relationships and marriage, is probably unreasonable, therefore unsuitable, and might well be looking for a meal ticket.

Are you talking about yourself? Your entire description sounds like a business transaction. You split every purchase 50.00%/50.00%, and limit your to purchases only both of you can afford. More power to you, but personally I cannot see myself so mechanical and systematic in a relationship. It sounds like business accounting from everything from a burger to a house. If you're going to do that, I don't see the benefit of going through marriage and a prenup...
If you want to go on a cruise or snorkeling/surfing in Hawaii, and one of you can't afford 50% of it, you don't go? Sounds like a limited, scarcity-based way to live.

Well, I can assure you it doesn't feel like a business transaction at all. Because we have excluded the possiblity of financial gain or loss through our relationship, I can be 100% sure that the only reason we are together is love. One person in this thread said they'd seriously not considered staying in a relationship just to avoid paying spousal support. I am extremely glad that we'll never have to think that way. It's actually a very comforting thought to know that he's coming home at night every night just for me and not because he gets 'his money's  worth' out of the relationship.

It's funny that people always think about pre-nups in such a black and white manner. What is means, is that our joint expenses (mortgage, insurance, gas, water, electric, groceries, local taxes etc) are about €800 so we each pay €400 in our joint bank account. Any personal expenses are paid through our own accounts. I have two debit cards in my wallets. It means we each pay half of the mortgage and half of all bils. It doesn't mean that we each eat exactly 6 eggs when we buy a dozen or that we count the slices of bread. When we go out for dinner (not that often, since we're frugal) we take turns to pay. It's a lot less complicated than it seems.

Now, in the entirely hypothetical situation that one of us would want to go on a cruise or snorkling on Hawaii (which we are not interested in at all, since we are frugal by nature) there's always the option of giving that to someone as a gift, no strings attached. It hasn't happened so far because we've never had those kind of wishes that we couldn't afford.

It does mean that I'll FIRE at some point and he won't. He's good with money but not interested in FIRE at all. Being a musician is more than a job, it's a calling, and he'll probably be active as a musician as long as he's physically capable of standing up.

Sounds like that setup it is working for you so far. I feel exactly the same about a pre-nup as you do. Funny how that works, when you don't earn a good living it's "Why, you don't love meeee???" But when do start accumulating assets, people's opinion tends to change pretty quickly ;)

Couldn't you have the exact same arrangement you have now, without the marriage and pre-nup?

You don't want to take a vacation or travel because you're frugal? Hmm.. fair enough. The whole thing sounds to rigid/mechanical/scarce .. but if it works for you :)

[Ann]

I have a question for OP:
You are specifically asking about marriage, but it seems to me your question also implies whether just dating in general is worth it  ("Finding a mate almost always requires one to be more social, and more social = more spending.").

Are you considering just not pursuing romantic companionship in general (I'm not talking about hook ups, which I'm sure you'd have fairly easy access to), or talking about the legal contract of marriage only?

Marriage, in my opinion, is high risk with potential high reward. And financially, having children is not a good idea.  From a financial aspect only.  Lots of work, time, money . . . the benefits are social and emotional.  Unlikely those little tykes will be significantly contributing to your household income.  So maybe think of it that way.  Having children may not be financially worth it, but if you want them you should have them because the goal isn't to die with the largest pile of money.  And if you meet someone who seems worth the risk, then you should marry that person, because you want to.

Marriage and partnership are not without risk and if they go bad can be expensive.   You could work to have children without a partner.  Is is fair that it would be much harder if you are a certain gender?  No.  But we can't make life fair  just by responding to a post on an MMM forum.  Adoption and surrogacy are not without risk and are expensive.  If you have have the money, only you can decide if it's really worth it. 

And, for the record, I totally get why you would assume any partner you meet would be making less money than you.  Sounds likes you will be in the top 5% or so of earners, so it is likely that the vast majority of people you date will be earning less.  Just remember 100% of the babies you may have will be earning less than you (while in infancy)!

[Re3iRtH]

I have a question for OP:
You are specifically asking about marriage, but it seems to me your question also implies whether just dating in general is worth it  ("Finding a mate almost always requires one to be more social, and more social = more spending.").

Are you considering just not pursuing romantic companionship in general (I'm not talking about hook ups, which I'm sure you'd have fairly easy access to), or talking about the legal contract of marriage only?

Marriage, in my opinion, is high risk with potential high reward. And financially, having children is not a good idea.  From a financial aspect only.  Lots of work, time, money . . . the benefits are social and emotional.  Unlikely those little tykes will be significantly contributing to your household income.  So maybe think of it that way.  Having children may not be financially worth it, but if you want them you should have them because the goal isn't to die with the largest pile of money.  And if you meet someone who seems worth the risk, then you should marry that person, because you want to.

Marriage and partnership are not without risk and if they go bad can be expensive.   You could work to have children without a partner.  Is is fair that it would be much harder if you are a certain gender?  No.  But we can't make life fair  just by responding to a post on an MMM forum.  Adoption and surrogacy are not without risk and are expensive.  If you have have the money, only you can decide if it's really worth it. 

And, for the record, I totally get why you would assume any partner you meet would be making less money than you.  Sounds likes you will be in the top 5% or so of earners, so it is likely that the vast majority of people you date will be earning less.  Just remember 100% of the babies you may have will be earning less than you (while in infancy)!

I think dating and romantic relationships are one of the joys of life, and I don't see myself giving that up any time soon :P

I don't assume my partner would make less money than me, I think a somewhat aggressive poster previously said that (I don't think that was you). There is so much value one can bring besides income.. I weigh being well-read, well-traveled, coming from a good family, challenging one's thinking, and sex drive etc. as better qualities than a high income.

[Ann]

I think dating and romantic relationships are one of the joys of life, and I don't see myself giving that up any time soon :P

I don't assume my partner would make less money than me, I think a somewhat aggressive poster previously said that (I don't think that was you). There is so much value one can bring besides income.. I weigh being well-read, well-traveled, coming from a good family, challenging one's thinking, and sex drive etc. as better qualities than a high income.

Thanks!  Cool.  As long as you keep dating, it should all work out.  Eventually you will find someone you want to marry . . . or you won't.  You seem to be okay with being yourself and by yourself.  Just don't listen to those people in your life that try to pressure you with "social norms"!  FI/RE is not a social norm!  [Not that you need my advice . . . seems you started this thread to gain other people's perspectives.]

[Imma]

One odd thing I noticed, is that these threads tend to be started by men who consider it a "business risk" to marry. But this isn't the early 1900's, women collectively make (almost) as much as men do. So unless you're some outlier super high earner, about half of all women are probably making more than you. Now you're the business risk! :)

I've found plenty of women that are frugal, doing well in their careers, and/or richer than I am. And I was born in 89.

I'm a female born in 1990, with a law degree, and I took on a huge business risk: a male, born in 86, with a beard and no college education. Oh, and he's an aspiring musician, to make matters worse ;-) . So far we're doing well. We have a prenup and have explicitly excluded spousal support for both of us. We met when I was still a student and he was making double of what I was making. Now we're earning about the same amount and I'll probably make more than him soon. Both of us have always lived frugal lives and will continue to do so no matter how much money we're making, and we're committed to always splitting the bills 50/50. That means we're not going to buy a mansion any time soon, no matter how my career goes, because he wouldn't be able to afford his share. But then, who needs a mansion if you've got a perfectly nice home already?

The thing is, when you think of relationships as business transactions, it shows, and reasonable people don't like to be thought of as a commodity. They're not going to be interested in you. The type of person that doesn't mind that view of relationships and marriage, is probably unreasonable, therefore unsuitable, and might well be looking for a meal ticket.

Are you talking about yourself? Your entire description sounds like a business transaction. You split every purchase 50.00%/50.00%, and limit your to purchases only both of you can afford. More power to you, but personally I cannot see myself so mechanical and systematic in a relationship. It sounds like business accounting from everything from a burger to a house. If you're going to do that, I don't see the benefit of going through marriage and a prenup...
If you want to go on a cruise or snorkeling/surfing in Hawaii, and one of you can't afford 50% of it, you don't go? Sounds like a limited, scarcity-based way to live.

Well, I can assure you it doesn't feel like a business transaction at all. Because we have excluded the possiblity of financial gain or loss through our relationship, I can be 100% sure that the only reason we are together is love. One person in this thread said they'd seriously not considered staying in a relationship just to avoid paying spousal support. I am extremely glad that we'll never have to think that way. It's actually a very comforting thought to know that he's coming home at night every night just for me and not because he gets 'his money's  worth' out of the relationship.

It's funny that people always think about pre-nups in such a black and white manner. What is means, is that our joint expenses (mortgage, insurance, gas, water, electric, groceries, local taxes etc) are about €800 so we each pay €400 in our joint bank account. Any personal expenses are paid through our own accounts. I have two debit cards in my wallets. It means we each pay half of the mortgage and half of all bils. It doesn't mean that we each eat exactly 6 eggs when we buy a dozen or that we count the slices of bread. When we go out for dinner (not that often, since we're frugal) we take turns to pay. It's a lot less complicated than it seems.

Now, in the entirely hypothetical situation that one of us would want to go on a cruise or snorkling on Hawaii (which we are not interested in at all, since we are frugal by nature) there's always the option of giving that to someone as a gift, no strings attached. It hasn't happened so far because we've never had those kind of wishes that we couldn't afford.

It does mean that I'll FIRE at some point and he won't. He's good with money but not interested in FIRE at all. Being a musician is more than a job, it's a calling, and he'll probably be active as a musician as long as he's physically capable of standing up.

Sounds like that setup it is working for you so far. I feel exactly the same about a pre-nup as you do. Funny how that works, when you don't earn a good living it's "Why, you don't love meeee???" But when do start accumulating assets, people's opinion tends to change pretty quickly ;)

Couldn't you have the exact same arrangement you have now, without the marriage and pre-nup?

You don't want to take a vacation or travel because you're frugal? Hmm.. fair enough. The whole thing sounds to rigid/mechanical/scarce .. but if it works for you :)

We could have basically have the same arrangement without marriage or partnership (we are civil partners, which is in my country legally equal to marriage, except for the sentimental value) but he wouldn't be my next of kin. I ended up in hospital a few years back with initially a bad prognosis and I was told to get my affairs in order. As I could see tensions rising between my (divorced) parents, godmother and my boyfriend, even while I was fully conscious, I knew all hell would break loose the second decisions would have to be made by them. That's when I knew I needed to make him my undisputable next of kin. Also, as my civil partner, he can inherit my assets, including my share of our joint home, in the event of my death without having to pay inheritance tax. So, purely a practical arrangement really.  In our country, without a pre-nup, divorce is extremely rigid: all assets and liabilities, aquired before or after the marriage, including inheritances and pensions, are joint upon marriage and have to be divided exactly 50/50 when you divorce. If you make a different arrangement and the tax man finds out it could even be considered a taxable gift. We'd rather split up on our own terms, if we are splitting up at all. So not having a pre-nup was not an option.

And I didn't say no holidays :) We go on vacations all the time, but we're not into super expensive luxury holidays. We're more the backpacking type. In recent years, we have travelled extensively through Ireland several times, we have visited Germany, the Czech Republic and Belgium together and we're off to Belgium again in September and England in December. I am advised by my doctors to stay away from conditions that are very unsanitary and countries where multi-drug resistant TB is common, so he travels alone to these places.

[Schaefer Light]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

[Lepetitange3]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead. 

[Schaefer Light]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony (definitely bad for FIRE ;) and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

[Lepetitange3]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

I can definitely see why that would be.  We seem to have gotten to a place as a society where marriage isn't as permanent as it once was, and that's as much a shame as it was when we had a time when people who were trapped in terrible, abusive marriages couldn't get out of them.   

[Inaya]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

As a counter data point, my dad left my mom (his 2nd wife) simply because he got bored (and wanted to sleep with somebody else evidently).

Then again, he did get married 5 times, and the other 4 women left him (and #3 was clearly using him to support her kids' private school educations). So maybe not a great example after all.

I think we can conclude that there are shitty spouses in both genders.

[Schaefer Light]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

As a counter data point, my dad left my mom (his 2nd wife) simply because he got bored (and wanted to sleep with somebody else evidently).

Then again, he did get married 5 times, and the other 4 women left him (and #3 was clearly using him to support her kids' private school educations). So maybe not a great example after all.

I think we can conclude that there are shitty spouses in both genders.

That is true.  There is data that suggests women are typically less happy in marriage than men, though.  What's funny about this is that women are also more likely than men to encourage their lovers to marry them in the first place.  Thinking back on my relationship, it was definitely my wife who decided when we were getting married.  I was committed to spending the rest of my life with her, but I wasn't in any big rush to set a date.  She sure was.

[Re3iRtH]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

As a counter data point, my dad left my mom (his 2nd wife) simply because he got bored (and wanted to sleep with somebody else evidently).

Then again, he did get married 5 times, and the other 4 women left him (and #3 was clearly using him to support her kids' private school educations). So maybe not a great example after all.

I think we can conclude that there are shitty spouses in both genders.

I agree with you that there are shitty spouses of both genders. That said, let's not dismiss the FACTS. Over 3/4 of divorces are initiated by women, but it's usually women that urge to get married in the first place. There are men who dream to be married, but that number is a yuuuuge minority of men relative to women. That is the elephant in the room - let's not gloss over that. People have been living with their head in the sand for too long.

[Cookie78]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

As a counter data point, my dad left my mom (his 2nd wife) simply because he got bored (and wanted to sleep with somebody else evidently).

Then again, he did get married 5 times, and the other 4 women left him (and #3 was clearly using him to support her kids' private school educations). So maybe not a great example after all.

I think we can conclude that there are shitty spouses in both genders.

That is true.  There is data that suggests women are typically less happy in marriage than men, though.  What's funny about this is that women are also more likely than men to encourage their lovers to marry them in the first place.  Thinking back on my relationship, it was definitely my wife who decided when we were getting married.  I was committed to spending the rest of my life with her, but I wasn't in any big rush to set a date.  She sure was.

I wonder if this has to do with the fairy tale dream little girls are told to desire. Women are told they must marry, and often that they must marry early before they hit their expiry date and no one will want their dried up old selves anymore. So some rush to get married before it's too late for them. Then after a few years of marriage they realize this story is BS, that marriages are not always fairy tales, and that even in their 40s there are plenty of available and interesting other people to meet.

Just a theory.

I am quite sure I would have fallen into this trap myself had my previous significant other(s) agreed to or wanted marriage. As a young woman I thought that was what was 'supposed to' happen, now I'm eternally thankful that it never did.

[wenchsenior]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

As a counter data point, my dad left my mom (his 2nd wife) simply because he got bored (and wanted to sleep with somebody else evidently).

Then again, he did get married 5 times, and the other 4 women left him (and #3 was clearly using him to support her kids' private school educations). So maybe not a great example after all.

I think we can conclude that there are shitty spouses in both genders.

That is true.  There is data that suggests women are typically less happy in marriage than men, though.  What's funny about this is that women are also more likely than men to encourage their lovers to marry them in the first place.  Thinking back on my relationship, it was definitely my wife who decided when we were getting married.  I was committed to spending the rest of my life with her, but I wasn't in any big rush to set a date.  She sure was.

Huh. I'd be very interested in some hard data on this.  My experience is that this might be very generational, if it is true at all.  There's a lot of sociological research out about how Millennial women are less interested in marriage, and marrying at lower rates and much older ages, than were women of past generations.  Supposedly this trend is due to lack of 'marriageable' men (in the sense that the men are less educated and less successful at work than the women they are potential partners for, than was the case in past generations).  But they are still having relationships with said men, co-habitating with them, and often having kids with them.

Anecdotally, my sisters and I were never that interested in marriage.  DH pushed for marriage eventually where I would have hand-waved it for many more years probably. But I had no intention of getting out of the relationship, so I was never hedging bets.  Same with one of my youngest sisters and her SO...he is interested in doing it legally while she is neutral/hand wavy.  Other sister just ended a long relationship that was unsatisfying (due to above cliched problems, low motivation in the SO, his lack of interest in setting common life goals, etc).  But she didn't end it because she specifically wants to get married or have kids (both of which she's quite ambivalent about).  She'd just rather be alone than have a partner who doesn't want to set goals and move forward in life.

In my broader social circle, it seems to split 50:50... it is somewhat cultural, too. Here in conservative Baptist land, the young women are much more gung-ho for marriage than the men; whereas in other parts of the country I've lived, it was not nearly as notable a trend.  Most women of my age and younger than I have know who really wanted to 'move' on marriage and pressed the issue if they found a suitable partner, it was I suspect in service of their strong desire to have kids.  Those who weren't interested in childbearing were much more blase about legal marriage.

If women do press for marriage at higher rates than men, I suspect child-rearing is the ultimate, rather than proximate, motivator in a lot of those cases.

[Ann]

I agree with you that there are shitty spouses of both genders. That said, let's not dismiss the FACTS. Over 3/4 of divorces are initiated by women, but it's usually women that urge to get married in the first place. There are men who dream to be married, but that number is a yuuuuge minority of men relative to women. That is the elephant in the room - let's not gloss over that. People have been living with their head in the sand for too long.

I think you have answered your own question now.  Is getting married bad for (Re3iRtH's) FI/RE?  Yes.  Yours facts say the odds are against you.  Your head is out of the sand. We are not here to convince you that YOU should get married.  People will still argue whether the practice of marriage itself is worthwhile, or whether women as a gender are worse/same as/better than men.  But it doesn't matter.  Marriage is a risk.  Doesn't sound like the odds are worth it to you.  Maybe someday someone will be different in your eyes and that will change.

But that's okay!  It's okay not to marry!

[mm1970]

This is something that I have been pondering for the last few years. I am in my early 30s, and every year has been better than the last. I feel like I have set up a really nice balance of work, hobbies, travel, practicing gratitude, self-improvement and side gigs. Contentment is improving year over year.

I have been getting some pressure from parents/others about "settling down and having kids". Why settling equate to living with someone and having children? I haven't been able to figure that out. I feel very settled. I do want children some day, though.

I would love to hear how marriage has helped you/hurt you on your way to FI/RE (guys and gals please feel free to comment!).

Marriage: 2 incomes, division of labor, one home (not maintaining 2 homes).

Kids: yeah, those suckers are expensive.  Can't help you there.  Those delay FIRE.

[Inaya]

There is a TON of societal pressure on women to get married. Less than there was a generation ago, but still a lot. Add that in the whole "biological clock" factor and effective expiration date to have kids, and you have lots of women wanting to get married. Think, "If you love it, put a ring on it." Therefore, he doesn't love you if he hasn't married you.

Men, conversely, are not only not pressured to get married, but often berated for doing so. Terms such as "whipped" or "old ball and chain" come to mind. Husbands/fathers in many media are often portrayed as dopes with no brains or practical skills.

Neither is right, but they may provide some insight into statements that women desire/pressure for marriage more than men. Although I would like to see some actual research if you have it.

All that said, my husband and I were engaged for 14 years, and we were both told many times over the years to basically "shit or get off the pot." We both knew we wanted to get married, but ultimately decide to wait until the time was right (e.g., done with school and a in stable job and living situation). So the impression we both got is that we should either get married or break up rather than wait. Given societal pressures, when presented these apparently mutually exclusive options, (in general) women push for the former while men push for the latter.

[Schaefer Light]

That is true.  There is data that suggests women are typically less happy in marriage than men, though.  What's funny about this is that women are also more likely than men to encourage their lovers to marry them in the first place.  Thinking back on my relationship, it was definitely my wife who decided when we were getting married.  I was committed to spending the rest of my life with her, but I wasn't in any big rush to set a date.  She sure was.

Huh. I'd be very interested in some hard data on this. 

From page 23 of the study linked below:

"One paradox of gender, marriage, and the life course, is that young single women appear to desire marriage and commitment more than men do, yet married women appear to be less satisfied by their marital experiences than married men are."

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

[Re3iRtH]

Why are divorces initiated/filed by women more than 75% of the time? Ponder this and I'd love to hear your answer. In my line of work, I get payed very well to simply observe and diagnose. I collect FACTS like this, and scratch my head.

What on Earth do you think that proves? There are all sorts of reasons that could be true (the figure I've seen is usually 60% btw). Men are much more likely to abuse their spouse than women are, they're (by some studies) more likely to cheat, and all sorts of other perfectly rational reasons for women to be the more likely initiators of divorce. Even if the reason was as simple as "women are more likely to feel unhappy and end a marriage for no good reason", that doesn't prove your point either. Say my future wife is statistically more likely to end our marriage then me. How does that make my marriage unequivocally bad? I just don't get it at all. The fact that some subset of marriages end in divorce, and that subset is more likely to be initiated by a women, does not in any way prove that marriage is bad for FIRE. Anyway, here's a research study on the matter: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

As someone who is currently going through a divorce (which not surprisingly was initiated by a woman), I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for me to trust another woman enough to marry her.  You think you've found "the one", and then she just up and leaves when she's not feeling happy.  Fuck that.

That sucks, Schaefer Light.  It's hard to remember that not everyone is like that when you're in the space where someone is totally changing the life you thought you'd lead.

Thanks.  You're right about that.  I'm not in a good place emotionally right now and I recognize that my judgment is clouded.  I do realize that not everyone is going to break up a marriage for seemingly no good reason, but it's going to be really tough for me to make that kind of commitment again knowing what I know now (i.e. two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, and something like 90% of divorces of college-educated couples are initiated by women).  Add to that the fact that I'm now paying $1,000 per month in alimony (definitely bad for FIRE ;) and I think that's enough to make any man hesitant to re-marry.

Ouch, sorry to hear that. How long were you married for and for how long do you need to pay alimony for? Why would you need pay money to a perfectly functional adult? We all waste our breath about being "fiercely independent" these days.

[Re3iRtH]

That is true.  There is data that suggests women are typically less happy in marriage than men, though.  What's funny about this is that women are also more likely than men to encourage their lovers to marry them in the first place.  Thinking back on my relationship, it was definitely my wife who decided when we were getting married.  I was committed to spending the rest of my life with her, but I wasn't in any big rush to set a date.  She sure was.

Huh. I'd be very interested in some hard data on this. 

From page 23 of the study linked below:

"One paradox of gender, marriage, and the life course, is that young single women appear to desire marriage and commitment more than men do, yet married women appear to be less satisfied by their marital experiences than married men are."

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

Thanks for the link! You did the work for me :) This is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Young women desire marriage and commitment more than men, then are quick to file for divorce if she is "less satisfied". I hope one day, a real rain will come down and wash this garbage from society.

[Ann]

Seriously?  You just called all young women garbage* and wished they would be washed from the earth?  You already have a  solution!  You don't have to marry OR EVEN DATE.  No one forces you to do either. 

I was pulling for you earlier, but the tone is becoming a little hateful.

*Yes, you called all young women garbage.  You didn't put any modifiers on your statement.