Marriage, will you?

This topic will be related to the risk vs reward from your particular culture. However, I can imagine that the majority will relate to the UK, US and AUS systems of marriage.

Growing up I've always thought my life would go down a path of the traditional steps of finding a woman, getting married and starting a family. However, I've completed them steps without the contract part. Here's a few reasons why.

- Currently, the relationship I'm in. We want to be together, without a contract forcing us.

- If I decided to get married, I would essentially be throwing away any power I have in the relationship.
--For example; Right now, if sex was denied to me on a regular basis or my needs weren't met in other activities I have an option to depart, and leave paying a basic form of child support. However, if married.. My option to leave comes with the cost of half of my wealth, assets and pension as well as child-support. Meaning, the cost of me leaving is much higher so therefore I'm much less likely to leave which diminishes the power for me in a relationship.

Or even if the woman decided to be unfaithful in their relationship, you the man are still left financially ruined. So you have no control, as well as being at the whim of your partner who can pretty much do as they please whilst still being in a financially secure position.

I currently feel with them two points that even though I love my partner, it's very unlikely that I'll ever 'man up' and agree to a contract that is severely not in my interest to do so.

I can see from a woman's point of view that the security is something to stop them worrying. However, this is just a case of entitlement and holds little to no argument on the underlying fact that the majority of men that agree to this contract end up financially ruined and powerless; either way.

 

No, very unlikely. First, I have been told, from various people (family friends), since a young age, that they wouldn't get married again. Secondly, as you elude to, taken from a purely transactional point of view (this for that), the arrangement doesn't at all favour men now. The most concerning of things is that your assets are likely to be halved. Anyone that knows anything about compound interest will know how significant this is (literally years of your life gone to get back to where you would've been financially). For me, the benefits of marriage are trivial in comparison to that.

That said, I still, like most people, want both a loving partner and kids. So in the early stages of our relationship, I would subtly make that clear to them. There are those women that would insist on the commitment of marriage. I would not concern myself with those women. Picky as I might be, I am personally able to be picky, so it's really a relatively easy decision for me to make.

Conversely, though I haven't learnt much on the laws pertaining to couples in Australia (Family Law Act), as far as I know, there might be some avenue for intervention by judges in de-facto relationships spanning greater than 2 years in length (among other reasons, such as having a child). Having also done property law, the things you say (especially consistently) in a relationship, can affect your equitable interest in land. So not only would I make clear of my position regarding marriage in the first instance, I would also be cautious as to what I say, and mean what I say. For example, don't tell someone you'll 'look after them' or that the 'house is ours' multiple times throughout the relationship if you don't actually mean it.


Really marriage is about women wanting commitment from a man and his resources, and men wanting monogamy from women, and thus sexual intimacy, and almost always children. Not wanting to marry a woman by no means would detract my commitment from them (although it would fall short of the highest level of commitment, that being marriage), but on the same token, if all that the women is fundamentally contributing to the relationship is sex, and emotional affection, as well as sharing the same biological offspring, then to me that doesn't require the contract of marriage; I don't expect a woman to sign a contract saying they will be sexually exclusive, the failure of which would attract consequences affecting potentially a decade of their life. As an aside, if that part of the deal, the females part, was policed as strictly as the males part was, then I would be open to marriage. It is not in modern society, and thus marriage is a closed off option for me.

 

Probably not. The financial situation really isn't worth it as a male with assets as malak said above. It also costs a LOT of money to organise and despite being a memorable moment in many people's lives, I'm sure I could find a better way (IMO) to spend that money traveling the world with someone. Being solely committed to one person doesn't make people happier.

There's not really much for me to add because it's already been covered above.

 

I'm not sure why you guys aren't looking for girls that are willing to work just as hard as you to earn their own assets thus contributing evenly to the marriage. My mom and dad make equal wages. Me and my current girlfriend (not saying marriage is in the horizon but it is a possibility) will not be making the same wage but she will be pulling around 100k yearly from her career as well so it's not like I'll be the only one contributing to the financial stability of the marriage.

 

I've always been in favor of a stateless marriage.

You get that level of commitment, the ceremony, etc without begging the state for permission or using their default terms.

 

Marriage I have no issue with. I like the idea of marriage. Find someone you like and can tolerate, raise some kids, and not be alone when you're old. What scares me is divorce.

It's not like the old days where your grandparents got married at 20 and stayed together through their entire lives because they had no choice and divorce was a dirty word. Couples worked through hardship and problems instead of giving up. My grandparents have told me numerous times how badly they wished they could have divorced each other, but didn't because of the shame they would bring upon themselves. Instead, they learned to work their marital problems out, and they lived fulfilling lives together.

Nowadays, it's like people think marriage is just something you do to elevate your relationship status rather than making an actual commitment, which makes divorce seem like this simple option to commit to if things aren't the exact dreamworld they imagined in their head.

Then there is the issue of how biased family courts are towards women. It's ridiculous. I hate to sound like an edgy teenager, but that whole aspect scares the shit out of me. One day I wake up, my wife tells me she doesn't love me anymore, has a new man in her life, is leaving me and taking the kids. Suddenly I don't have a house, can't see my kids but on the odd weekend, a large portion of my income is getting zapped to my wife so she can do whatever with it, and there ain't a god damn thing I can do to prevent any of it at that point. Worst case scenario? Sure. But I sure seem to hear about it happening all too frequently.

 

I completely understand your logic and can reason with it. It really doesn't make sense how when entering into marriage, the man suddenly is the one who holds all responsibility and ruin if something doesn't work out.
I mean, maybe back in 1920 when women were only homemakers did it make sense to split assets.
However, this is 2015.
This is the decade of minority rights (Women included). Women are treated more fairly and more equally than they ever have. There are woman leading companies in every industry throughout the world. In some cases, women are the breadwinners of the family. Why should the rules of marriage and assets not change with the times?

With this in mind, I still do have every intention of forming the contract (as you call it). I'm old fashioned, I was raised by a southern-baptist family. Marriage is a very large staple in my life (and my family's). Part of it is because of how much family means to us in terms of our culture where I live, but also as a part of religion. My family is largely religious and marriage, being a religious staple, is important.

People's views on this differ greatly from culture to culture. No two apples are the same.

As for me, I'm thrilled and excited to marry.

 

Never, I see marriage fundamentally as a religious union, being a nonbeliever in God it goes against my beliefs, I don't celebrate Christmas or any other form of Christian or religious holiday, because it would be hypocritical of me.

Another reason to add is I haven't found a man I'd be wanting (all religious and legally beneficial reasons behind) to spend the rest of my life with yet. Although, even if I did, marriage wouldn't be an option for me.

 

For me personally, I would want the traditional form of marriage. This is how I was raised, and how my family was, and what I want. So having a girl have a career is pointless for me. That's not to say that she can't work, but there simply will be more than enough money with just my income, so any work she would do would be out of leisure. Girls that don't conform to that, again, I would not be interested in.

 

I like having ownership of my own individual assets as well, I forgot to mention that. To me, it's not entirely related to the income and asset values.

It might be worth adding that my parents were never married to each other. My father already went through one divorce and had no interest in a second marriage and my mother doesn't believe in marriage. I don't have some of the pressures that other people do.

 

Pro and Con wise, is it financial suicide to get married as a male. I would like to raise children, but I don't know any women worth marrying & playing life on co-op mode with.

 

I second this. Marriage is amazing, but until you've found the 1 person out of billions that exist, it's just a fairy tale to most. I'm really happy whenever I pass a couple that's been married for a long time; it shows me that anything is possible, really.

 

I feel like life is too short to let the idea that, "she may get half my estate" stop you from marrying. Marriage is a wonderful experience that brings unimaginable amounts of joy and happiness.
Regardless. money comes and money goes.

 

Deep down were all just animals. It's in our nature to spread our seed and breed. Getting married to one individual goes against our nature.

That being said ill never get married. Ive been with my partner for 7+ years. We dont need the government to tell us were a couple. We share a home and our assets. I will provide my partner with a nice engagement ring as compensation for not having a true wedding. It took years of convincing but i got her off the wedding wagon. It's financially crippling and eliminates safe exit options. Plus whoever invented the word alimony needs to be shot along with his entire family tree. Why in the world would i ever pay a woman ive divorced thousands of dollars a month? They become "used" to the life you provided them and now your responsible for keeping that life style? Suck a bag of dicks bitch it'l never happen.

 

You put a lot of faith in your ability to control your interest and who you become interested in. Love occurs without control, of course - I don't really need to point that out. But although I recognize that you can try to detach yourself from people who don't meet up to your requirements, or more safely you can even try to avoid romantic situations with these kinds of people, I also say that there is always a (not insignificant) possibility that you will fall in love with someone who doesn't meet those requirements, at which point you will probably opt for the love rather than for the requirements. Regardless, you'll cross that bridge if the need to cross it arises, I suppose.

 

I think the idea is to find someone you wouldn't want to divorce.

 

Selfishness comes with not marrying. Because you've said it yourself, there's financial advantages in not marrying.

I see marriage as long lasting. There's no such thing as divorce for me and I would rather find someone who I am 100% secured with than someone that I still have doubts with which clearly you do. It takes 2 people to have the same perspective and that's one of the things I look for in a person before committing myself in a relationship.

 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of blokes sat in financial ruin after they found someone they were 100% sure about. The fact of the matter is, you do not control that person. They make their own choices, regardless of good or bad. I don't have doubts with my partner, we're very happy. We've managed to raise two children for the last 3 years, if there's any test to a relationships strength, that is it. However, I like to make educated decisions.. With outcomes in my interest. Like I said in the original post, as of right now we could leave each other at any point. So it's in our joint interest to keep each other happy.. Add a contract that leaves the male in a position of financial ruin and the female in a position of financial gain. You no longer have a level playing field, and the "keeping happy" part, could become a one sided sport.

Not necessarily my point, my point is there are financial disadvantages to marrying. I cannot gain an advantage by not doing anything, I can however be at a disadvantage by making a bad decision.

 

That's the difference with my perspective on marriage is that I think that if 2 people decide to get married, they are making it clear that leaving is not an option because whatever happens you are there to make it work. Simply having the option of being able to easily leave in a relationship just leaves people to take each other for granted. In the end, it would be too easy to just walk away one day.

 

I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion.

I'd personally say that a couple are together because they want to be together is stronger than a couple who are 'married' i.e, forced by contract.

I could have left 3 years ago, I could leave today. She could've done the same.

What you need to consider is, when the two persons are in the relationship. You have one who is set to gain from a divorce and one who is set to loose from a divorce. That will become who holds the power. Because essentially, that is the power. The power to leave and financially ruin the other. Yet, face little persecution for their own actions. It enables one to be free and the other to be trapped. You take a fair relationship, make it unfair for yourself. For what benefit? Because #tradition?