“They say?” Who says this just for starters? I’d say it’s anyone’s right to end a marriage. I would personally advise people to try to iron out any difficulties but none of my business what other people do. I cannot imagine that what other people do would or should influence an individual to not marry.
I talked with my wife about this thread. She had a novel POV that nobody has yet pointed out here.
A bug/feature of the nuclear family is that it fails like a nuclear explosion. It’s either all together or it blows spectacularly apart for the parents and for the kids. And as many divorced people will attest, it also tends to fission all their friends into her team and his team.
That’s a brittle failure mode.
Conversely, imagine a more village-like semi-communal living arrangement. There’s lots of food and other resource sharing, lots of group child rearing, group elder care, and everybody generally looks after everybody else in most areas of life.
In that environment the downsides to any given couple splitting up are vastly reduced. Assuming of course they don’t have such hatred for each other that it poisons the whole village.
A consequence of this difference is that to the degree we collectively choose the nuclear family option, there’s MORE need for permanent relationships that weather the difficulties rather than splitting at the first sign of disharmony or inconvenience. Whether we label these more stable relationships “marriage” or “LTR” doesn’t really matter.
This happens quite often to women, probably more so than men, as soon as their husbands decide the women are no longer attractive.
Not everyone chooses the nuclear family model. My culture considers the multi-generational extended family the ideal norm. We also advise our young people to marry based on the desire for commitment rather than “love”.
What you’re implicitly arguing for is the right of men to hire a housekeeper, cook, and bedmate, and then fire them at will for underperformance.
At a bare minimum, you’re arguing for at-fault divorce, where in the event of serious dissatisfaction, some judge will rule on how the two parties have performed versus the Official Rules of Marriage and extract monetary penalties from the offending party.
Where your Official Rules seem to be based on sexual fidelity going both ways (maybe not good but certainly fair), and various other performance items you don’t flesh out that may or may not be fair or equal.
Ultimately, the current rules that SAHM’s earn the right to money simply by being married developed directly from the common disasters of the earlier era where women and children could be abandoned to penury at the whim of their man.
In direct answer to your title, yes, some men who preferred the abandon-at-will world will be put off by the current reality. But the current reality has existed in most of the USA since about the 1970s. So this isn’t news, except to the fraction of people who’ve actively buried their heads in the sand for the last 45 years.
I completely agree. An emphasis on a pair rather than a community, one relationship rather than several, makes that one relationship pretty important.
Nice idea but since we dont live in such a situation we cannot get it to apply in the modern world. Besides such a scenario would have its own downfalls as well.
On “shared” money.
Lets say that during the marriage one of the partners acquires money or property because of inheritance. In a divorce would the other partner still have rights to half of that?
Generally, no they won’t.
http://family.findlaw.com/divorce/inheritance-and-divorce.html
It’s the same with premarital properties/money.
I find most men who are afraid of marriage doesn’t know/understand divorce laws and think it’s more stacked against them than it really is. Statistically, it’s the women’s standard of living that drops after divorce. Not men.
I think “generally” is overstating the case. It depends on how the proceeds of the inheritance are treated - if you keep that money/property you inherited completely separate from joint property/funds , it can remain separate property. But once you’ve mingled the separate property/funds with joint* , it’s usually going to make it all joint property/funds.
- Maybe you put the money in a joint account, or you sold the house you inherited and the one you own jointly with your spouse to buy a bigger house that you jointly own. Or you used the inheritance to renovate the kitchen in a house you jointly owned. There are all kinds of ways that separate property becomes joint property, and I’m sure it happens frequently.
I think a good rule is thumb is if you think you would resent sharing your money with someone even if things don’t work out, don’t get married.
I think my husband and I both treat that aspect like an assumed responsibility that comes with marriage. When you get married, you commit to sharing resources while you’re together, but also helping to ensure the financial stability of the other person even if it doesn’t work out. I’m not suggesting people have an indefinite responsibility to their exes, but I wouldn’t resent paying alimony for a few years if it meant a better chance he had a roof over his head.
Course that’s easy to say when I’m not pissed off at him!
Are all assets considered shared in an LTR? If the relationship is an LTR and some assets are in one person’s name (bank, retirement, property, etc), does the other person have any claim to them in a breakup? I assume not. In a marriage assets (and debt) are shared regardless of whose name is on it (except for inheritance as described above). And what about alimony? I also assume that wouldn’t be a factor in a LTR.
If that’s the case, I could see it as a good reason to not get married–especially when there is a wide income disparity. There will always be the issue of child support regardless of the type of relationship. I could see reasons like being able to hold onto most of your assets, not having to pay alimony, and not take on any of their debt as valid reasons for not getting married.
In the cases you know personally, did you hear both sides? It’s usually a lot more complicated than that.
It’s always complicated. People who think only one person is to blame in most failed relationships are not seeing things clearly. That’s not how relationships work. Take it from someone who’s watched every single one of her mother’s 5 marriages fall apart: relationship failure is a perpetuation of mutually shitty behavior.
This user/post combination made me laugh.
And I just learned where that username came from!
Quite. She wasn’t suggesting that we should all adopt “It takes a village” as our way of life. As you say, that ain’t gonna happen.
What she was saying is that IF you buy into the nuclear family, THEN you also buy into durable pair relationships. It was a response to Textual Innuendo’s hijacking of your thread with his contention that LTRs are better than marriages because the pair bondings are much weaker.
My wife’s point being that IF once chooses a nuclear family AND one chooses a model of weak, easy to break pair bonding THEN one is doing it wrong.
Said another way, IF you (any you) want weak pair bonding to be a successful approach to life and child-rearing, THEN find a village to do it in.
Oh, they don’t need to hate each other: if your friends are the whole village, any time things go badly there’s going to be part of the village on one side, part of the village on the other side and part of the village saying “fuck this shit, don’t talk to me until you’ve got this solved, lalalalala!”
I live in an actual village… when a couple has an argument over where to go on vacation, the village knows it. When someone has gotten home late after a night out with the people from work, the village knows it. When that someone’s family (be they parents, spouse or roomie) isn’t happy about it, the village knows it. I’m rarely home, and if I go to the supermarket the day after arriving the cashier greets me with “hey, yeah, I knew you were home! How long are you staying this time?” If I go right after arriving, she’s the one who tells everybody else.
And mine is about 2000 people in the official census (3 to 4 times that in the summer); friends of mine live in a 40-people hamlet nearby. The same room acts as everybody’s living room, gaming space, tutoring area and meeting room.
SAHMs are presumed to have contributed to the family by caring for the children and often managing most of the family business - housework, shopping, ferry service, making all the appointments. They serve an important and valuable function in the family.
Yes. Absolutely. It seems our OP doesn’t understand that.