Everything Forever or Nothing Ever Again

The "deal breakers" checklist skirts the true issue. I accept been married longer than most HN members have been alive, which is no accident. So I'll temporarily be arrogant plenty say my peace on the theory that someone might find it useful, and then duck and cover. There really is only i affair that matters: You and your partner must share the same value organization, or at to the lowest degree if not identical, then there must not be cadre values in conflict. Why? If you hold on cadre values, then any disagreements (and there will be many) will exist about implementation, not about the desired stop country. Those are healthy discussions, even if stressful. It is possible to both be "on the same side of the problem" -- information technology is the two of you confronting the problem, and the disagreement is about how to become from signal A to point B. On the other manus, when a core value is in conflict, the only way one person can be happy is if the other person gives upwards a part of themselves. That is at the very least the seed of resentment, and can't assistance but be a wound that volition not heal. So.. Pace ane: Analyze in your ain mind your ain values. Until you accept washed that, you have nothing to go on. Step two: Get to know your potential partner well enough that yous both understand each other's cadre values. Brand sure they are uniform. I wish I could say I did this, but in all honesty I had been married for 20 years before I understood information technology. I merely happened to get lucky -- growing upward nether similar circumstances as my bride has given us common touchstones.

The trouble is people oftentimes change in primal ways. It is difficult to cull a partner in your early 20s who will retain the aforementioned value system throughout their life. Both myself and my ex are very different people from what we were in our 20s. There are many factors that contribute to a successful marriage. I'd say commitment is one - you accept to want the marriage to work. You lot take to have that the other person is an individual and have that they aren't your twin and also that they are free to grow. You lot may disagree, for case politically, nonetheless you have to respect them and allow the differences. It's tough to run a three legged race for 30-forty years.

I find that people who marry young grow together. The post almost core values hits it correct on the caput in my years of feel. Nothing has come close to ruining my matrimony as much as that.

I've been married nigh 19 years, and I think I'grand articulate on what you're saying. But I haven't heard information technology put quite this way. Tin can you cite some concrete examples of these values, and, perhaps, common ways that an otherwise seemingly uniform couple might non share them? Thank you.

Person A is religious and values spiritual growth. Person A wants their kids to believe in God and develop spiritually. Person B is atheist and thinks religion is a crock. Person B wants their kids to decline organized religion and affluent spirituality down the toilet. Person B is willing to let A go to church on Sundays to make the relationship work since B is attracted to A. Merely there volition probably be big problems with this over fourth dimension, especially if kids come up into the picture.

> Tin you lot cite some concrete examples of these values, and, perhaps, mutual ways that an otherwise seemingly compatible couple might not share them? Thanks. A friend of mine's married woman once said to him, almost planning some extended vacation despite his busy schedule: "if you loved me you'd make time!" Betwixt my wife and I, this is a punchline. But for many perfectly reasonable people it would be a sincere request worthy of fulfillment. A couple having unlike reactions to this argument could hateful a lot of resentment built-up over fourth dimension.

Why should we get married in the commencement place? And how practise yous clarify your values? Can y'all give some examples of what your values are?

Everyone'southward goals vary, merely I got married because I wanted kids and I wanted help raising them from someone with a vested interest in doing so.

Why did you want kids? I ever felt similar I should desire to go married and that I should want kids, just I but... don't. The desire just isn't there. I'm 29 and accept been with my partner for long enough that wedlock and likely kids are now the next stops on the what you lot're supposed to do in life railroad train. And I gauge it's not that I actively don't want information technology. I only don't feel an inclination toward or away from information technology. There's just kind of an absent feeling virtually information technology... There's non annihilation internal making me want it (there is external pressure from my partner though who does want to get married and from society who expects us to get married). Does this feeling change? Or am I merely weird? Or should I just do it anyway?

Getting married and having kids is not for everyone. Rather, I'd say nosotros should do more as a society to encourage people to recollect very difficult nigh these decisions rather than continue to treat them as standard operating procedure. I had a crappy homelife equally a kid and I believe that caused me to really want to create a contented machismo, which included children. Really, from the time I was just a little kid I was called upon every bit a mentor to other children, by the time I got to high school I was a camp advisor, was teaching in an evening pre-schoolhouse program for abused children, etc. So from an early on age I found myself in a parent-like office. My kids are my earth, but I don't believe for a minute that everyone would discover the experience as rewarding.

Most women in a relationship will emphatically tell you when they desire to get engaged, married or accept kids. They also take a biological clock to have kids before they're 35, and most listen to that clock. Men don't have that clock, so there'south different types and levels of motivation. In my case, I wasn't interested in having kids until my tardily 40s, when the circumstances were convincing (responsible partner, as late in life as reasonably possible.) Although I prefer beingness around adults, I understand that kids are doing their job when they require attention. I find my "clone" to be a plus overall, though expensive. Career-wise, I vaguely thought having kids would be an advantage somehow, merely I was incorrect. In the USA, companies don't intendance about employees ("at will employment"), and the aforementioned is true about your family unit.

That final part depends on the type of employer. In my case, every bit a male, I started to run across a huge improvement in promotions and pay increases once I became a "family homo" (although in my case, I'k not married to my partner, and she came with kids -- but it was e'er treated as a family unit).

> I started to meet a huge improvement I'd capeesh if y'all can aggrandize on that a picayune more. How practise co-workers know? How is it acknowledged?

I didn't want kids until I was 14 and my mom had an oopsie-baby. The intense beloved I felt for my baby sister inverse my listen. And I wasn't incorrect -- despite many, many, many drawbacks to having children, I honey them just the style I'd hoped. But I think people are so different that I definitely would non try to upwardly-sell kids. At least then far, it's like having a 24/seven task, while I have a full-time chore. (Or equally the rest of the comments say, women all want all the kids and all your coin that's merely scientific discipline...)

You don't need to get married to have kids. When yous get down to information technology, the number of things you lot need to accept kids is pretty small—healthy gametes is sufficent. Just what you should have is delivery to your human relationship. Being willing to demonstrate that delivery is helpful, but it's not required.

information technology was probably by and large because "everyone's doing it", but i'one thousand glad nosotros did. a little harder to bail when the going gets tough when the in-laws' friends take given you lot a cuisinart. ;)

I was married for 17 years, for nearly the terminal x unhappily, and together with that person for most twenty. You absolutely nailed information technology - if the values are in sync, it works. Unfortunately sometimes values shift as life goes on.

Wow. Very well said. I have had years of unsettled conflicts because I didn't do this when I married.

<Ctrl-f>divorce Hmm.. no mentions in the entire commodity? I retrieve the writer has something to address. Keep in heed when you lot get legally married yous are signing a legal contract that entitles that other person, in almost states, to one-half of everything you earn during the wedlock. They also earn an entitlement to go along that support for something like half the duration of the marriage, or more, if the wedlock falls apart. I spent xix years married in California to a spouse to refused to work for the final ten years of the marriage. I now take to pay $40k/year indefinitely after losing half my savings and retirement. I had to sell my home to pay her share. Now, on the flip side I have a girlfriend who is one-half my age and I'thou finally gratuitous of my ex which is worth every penny, merely starting over at 42 only sucks. The state has no concept of a spouse refusing to work. They assume that considering she wasn't working it must have been my decision to forcefulness that upon her. By the way, we don't take kids. My friends who have divorced with kids? $7k+/month. It is peculiarly important to keep this in mind if you are a well paid earner. I know a lot of engineers making big bucks who let their spouses stay home or pursue goofy home based businesses or careers every bit 'artists'.

(Disclosure: I got divorced in the past year) I don't see why marriage is not treated just the same as other contracts. Clearly defined partnership understanding, defined renewal periods, defined termination clauses and definitions of crusade. You could still protect both parties by requiring the partnership to include an equitable asset distribution clause. The country currently grants union licenses, and so they take a clear hand already in this procedure. They could replace the whole licensing procedure with requiring a written partnership understanding that meets basic requirements. No, instead nosotros have this weird state of affairs of basing everything upon some agreed "permanency" based solely upon trust when nosotros all know in that location is aught of the sort going on. This process could however handle the religious ideas of wedlock also--just renew your contract!

This is exactly the reason that "normal people" (not just celebrities and the super-wealthy) sign pre-nuptial agreements. As a lawyer volition tell you lot, if you don't make those decisions with your partner, the state will make them for you, and yous may not like how they are made.

> defined renewal periods My preface is that that sounds like a really reasonable and prudent arroyo that combines all sorts of adept ideas and principles. It has given me something new to think nigh. The flip side is that children do alter things quite significantly. My retention is nosotros already exclude children from personally entering in to contract law because they don't actually make adept decisions; and in a messy marriage breakdown they could quite reasonably exist expected to exist caught in the crossfire. There are leap to exist issues hither that separate what is needed in family law from ordinary contract law.

Sounds a lot like my situation brother; mine was a two year legal battle finally last this spring. The State has seemingly determined that in guild to be "fair" to whomever is sees as the weeker party (always the female) that information technology will utterly bankrupt and ruin the life of the perceived stronger. I asked several lawyers what happens in homosexual divorces and got a big cup of "dont ask, we don't know, but it can't mayhap exist applicable to you." Look, I didn't want to screw over my ex - I just didn't want to get screwed in the process. This whole business, including the child support insanity, needs to become fixed as it is an antiquated, vindictive organization

> Keep in mind when you get legally married you are signing a legal contract that entitles that other person, in almost states, to half of everything yous earn during the union. And go on in mind through the magic of commingling they will probably get one-half of any you had before the marriage likewise. Skilful luck keeping it's status as split up holding.

Depends on your forensic auditor... but did I mention how much forensic accountants price? :) Basically in a divorce you are fucked unless yous can go on everything amicable and do it via mediation. Otherwise y'all will either lose all your coin to the other political party or to the legal organization. That was my choice - I could accept paid less pension just I would have had to spend $100k in legal fees for a chance that I'd become a sympathetic estimate and things would become my way.

I guess that I've been lucky. I've been divorced twice, and the idea of alimony never came upwards. And then I at least chose well enough to avoid that pitfall ;) Honestly, if my wives (and near-wives) hadn't raised the consequence of spousal relationship, I would accept never considered it. But then, I've never wanted kids. Edit: clarification

This was in the United states. Simply I'm not going to say what country ;) Equally I think, they were both no-fault divorces. And they were some decades ago. The get-go was in the tardily 70s, and the second in the mid 90s.

In a divorce, if you are a man, you are fucked. Especially in CA. Of import distinction, just proverb ;-)

A lot of people consider how much their spouses brand completely immaterial, for skillful reason. Especially since research shows household happiness doesn't really rise over the 100k income marker. Marriage is designed to be a team. I don't think who makes what should matter, and I don't mind the state treating information technology that way. Related story: My father's alimony had a choice. 100%x if it stops later on you die, 85%x if you desire your wife covered if you die early. My dad manifestly chose the latter. He had a coworker who chose 100% for himself and died two years afterwards, ending the pension. I tin't imagine what he was thinking, except that that he must take hated his wife and just been married out of habit.

Or he did a calculation and bet that he would alive long enough afterward retirement that every bit a couple they would be amend off with the 100% payout. So his married woman would only need to outlive him by 2 years for every 7 years he lives (assuming the extra 15% is put away, and if invested it could even be a better deal). So if he lived 28 years, his married woman would need to live 36 years (or more, factoring in interest) for the 85% bargain to be improve.

Yes, I hold. I was lucky, just many people go screwed in divorce. Both women and men. Men considering, as in your example, they get penalized financially. Simply it'southward important to remember that laws and legal precedent almost support for sometime female partners came about because women often got screwed financially in divorce. Even if they could even get a divorce. And sometimes women all the same get screwed financially, and in other means, past divorce. Child support is sometimes inadequate, or finer non collectable. And women traditionally contributed unpaid labor, in the course of housework and childcare. And frequently, they were (and fifty-fifty now, sometimes are) more than-or-less unprepared for decent jobs. Anyhow, based on other comments, a key statement in favor of wedlock, for long-term relationships, is description of intentions. That's particularly crucial, plain, if there will be children. Without a union, information technology's all subject to litigation. And if partners take resources that they desire to protect, they can negotiate a prenup.

>Child support is sometimes inadequate, or effectively not collectable. And women traditionally contributed unpaid labor, in the grade of housework and childcare. By my thinking, this is #metoo level stuff. If we're to have equality, then it is fourth dimension to cease pretending that women are the only parents and that they tin't besides hold professional jobs. I would posit that equality cannot be so long as we keep to hold these outmoded views on gender roles. And yes, I agree that means that it is imperative that men continue to footstep up to the plate, whether within union or outside. >Even if they could even become a divorce. I'm male. It took me 2+ years of legal battles to go a divorce. Tell me how this is a female person-only issue? Side annotation: I have my kids > 60% of the time, but pay out child support, as enforced by state law, as though she has them 100% of the time. I pay all of their various expenses - apparel, medical, camps, activities, etc, because despite what the divorce decree says and despite what I pay her in spousal support AND kid support, she will only continue to whine that she has no money. She walked away with a net worth > $500,000, I walked away with a internet worth of approximately negative-$100,000. So anyone that tells me how women become screwed... well I have some words for you lot.

Yes, I get that yous've had a hard divorce. I empathize. In saying "[e]ven if they could even become a divorce", I was speaking historically. In the US, as recently as the late 19th century or the early 20th century. That's the context in which activists got current divorce law established. And about gender roles. I didn't mean to promote "outmoded views on gender roles". In my opinion, that's for partners to negotiate. But it's undeniable that those traditional gender roles remain all too prevalent. Also, as in your example, it's unfair that you pay 100% child back up but additionally contribute well over l% of childcare, both in time and coin. It's merely that you lot married an asshole. Or more charitably, a victim who probable gets validation (socially and legally) for casting you lot as the asshole.

>Merely it'south undeniable that those traditional gender roles remain all too prevalent. Agreed - and my betoken is this is codified in law, fifty-fifty in my nominally politically progressive country. As many of the other posters in this thread have pointed out, this isn't just sour grapes, merely rather a bankruptcy-producing problem perhaps on the same lodge every bit our systemic issues with wellness-induced financial calamity. Information technology is an case of systemic government failure.

While I'thousand not suggesting it to anyone, your passport yet piece of work as long equally you have no outstanding child back up judgements.

Oh human the thought crossed my mind many times during the divorce process. Especially as a programmer who, at the fourth dimension, had a boss who mostly had concern in Bharat and would have loved a programmer in Asia. (Un)Fortunately I met a girl I plan to marry(haha yeah I don't larn) so I'm trying to stay legal and not forfeit my power to freely render to the US. If, for some reason, the 2d marriage goes s I'm not divorcing. I'm merely leaving. I've already discussed it with my girlfriend and she gets it.

Extremely bold they are done by good lawyers and that both parties are represented. (YMMV depending on jurisdiction, of course.)

The thing y'all're non implicitly suggesting isn't even really helpful since your avails are likely held in American institutions that volition respond to legal claims against your holdings there. Yous might be able to flee overseas, but that doesn't help if your money is nevertheless hither.

Sure. But so y'all need to play information technology absurd, and gradually shift assets to secure forms and/or places.

The first thing a divorce attorney volition do is place a QDRO (qualified domestic restraining club) on whatsoever accounts with substantial assets. This prevents yous from moving money out of these accounts. It'south well-nigh like the legal system has figured out that some people might try and run with the money, and take taken measures to stop that.

Yes, but the fundamental is seeing the divorce coming, and deciding and so to play it both means. Express delivery to working out problems. And too start hiding resources. Cryptocurrencies are now an affordable depression-end option, for those who couldn't workably cover more traditional methods. And yeah, it sounds horrible. But really, information technology's not that different from having savings, in case of chore loss or health issues. And hey, I suppose that two divorces accept left me paranoid. Or peradventure I'm merely not suited for marriage. I hateful, I know that I'm non suited for full-time employment ;)

I went into divorce naively. I was toughing information technology out in a crappy marriage, alternating between being suicidal or whacked out on booze/pot/pills/etc. One night I jokingly suggested divorce to my parents and they took me seriously and encouraged it. I didn't seriously consider it every bit a possibility until that moment. If I had my head on straight, I would take acted differently(switched jobs, taken a mental health suspension, stashed funds, etc). Instead, I did the right matter and divide the $30k cash, kept my loftier paying job(which ended during the divorce anyway) and tried to help her choose skilful representation. It concluded up screwing me.

Damn. That's horrible. I empathize. Leading up to divorces, I've been suicidal and escaped using drugs. And when information technology came down to it, I've too made an effort to be fair. But in my case, my ex-wives also made efforts to be fair. So information technology worked out OK for us. And both of them remain good friends. I of my ex-girlfriends is one of my married woman'south best friends. Almost a sister ;) I acknowledge Landmark Education for that :) Here'south a funny story. My 2d wife and I did a no-fault divorce, and hired an chaser to handle the paperwork. Just he fucked upward, then nosotros sued him in small claims courtroom to recover the fees that we'd paid him :)

Haha overnice. Nosotros started out amicable but and then nosotros got a mediator who sided with my ex and immediately ready the expectation that I'd exist paying $4,650/month for 17 years(until she hit retirement historic period. The marriage was 19 years.). I countered with $two,600/mo and things stalled. Then she got mad one solar day and took a swing at me, forcing me to sleep on a friend'due south couch until she vacated the firm. Finally we lawyered up. She moved out of state so I got to deal with her lawyer and establish that her lawyer thought she was a nutcase. I mentioned the original mediator'southward suggested support corporeality and she was astonished. Her lawyer said she should have taken the $two,600/mo and been happy. Right now I'm paying $3,200/mo and that lasts for iii years, and so I pay for a vocational evaluation and take her back to courtroom(for $10k-$100k co-ordinate to my lawyer). Hopefully the judge will reduce the amount at that signal. Fortunately in California the prevailing attitude now seems to exist that pension is temporary and transitional, and then I'm hoping I don't accept to pay indefinitely.

> And likewise start hiding resource. Skillful luck with that when you have to provide business relationship statements going dorsum years.

It depends a lot on the amounts involved. Certain, you can't move $100K (or even multiple $9K) from bank accounts without authorities oversight. But it's not that hard to divert greenbacks more gradually, over fourth dimension. I mean, I managed to casually larn $50K in gold over a few years, ownership for cash at swap meets. And yeah, if yous've diverted a lot, it might be prudent to relocate to some safe haven, earlier the fit hits the shan.

Not too hard. Y'all simply offset pulling out cash and if anyone asks yous merits an addiction(drugs, gambling, sex, etc).

Exercise yous not sympathise that this would not get you out of your financial obligations in a divorce?

Strangely plenty my ex is so lazy that information technology's been 9 months since the divorce finalized and the QDRO hasn't been filed. If I was an asshole I'd cash out my 401(thou), plough it into BTC and move to some country with a prissy beach and no extradition treaty.

> <Ctrl-f>divorce When well-nigh people commit to beloved someone "for better or worse" they often only actually mean "for better."

What is 'worse'? Is it hurting and suffering from a horrible disease or blow? Is it financial suffering and poverty? Is information technology the feeling of hopelessness that envelops y'all when you realize you made a mistake and married someone who won't contribute to the partnership?

>Is it the feeling of hopelessness that envelops you when you realize you made a mistake and married someone who won't contribute to the partnership? Did you marry my ex? ;-D In all seriousness... I've been looking for the words to impart to my children someday nearly this. There is a beauty in persevering despite financial hardships, medical hardships, and even simply the mundane drudgery of everyday life. I firmly believe that is the truthful basis of this word love, where mutual partnership is formed in soldering through it together. That said, these delivery vows and frankly, the likelihood of fiscal ruin in divorce, keeps people in relationships long by viability. It'due south no unlike than watching someone on life back up, knowing they aren't coming back only yet no one willing to pull the plug. I retrieve what the parent commenter was actually saying is, many enter into marriage with a misguided belief that it is all good times and romance, without the faintest understanding of the undertaking.

This is a perfectly reasonable setup for these agreements. If your spouse is not working and you are married, it is either through mutual agreement or inaction. Fundamentally a marriage is about mutual navigation of life. If you are failing at this, a divorce is an option, every bit are other avenues (marriage therapy, etc). The point of a* union contract working this way is exactly the flip of information technology: to go extreme, if you are calumniating in the relationship and will non allow your spouse out of your joint home, and they eventually manage* to get a divorce, they are now attempting to operate without the concluding N years of piece of work history. How does your spouse get back on their feet now? The person who is taking advantage of the matrimony can be the breadwinner, and the breadwinner (if in that location is merely one) provides the ways of survival. Marriage is a life plan. You lot say that jointly and indefinitely, y'all will navigate life together. This means both of you are (should exist?) planning with both of your current and future states in listen. If one isn't working, they are planning on the other's income to continue life. It's perfectly reasonable for the baseline of a union contract to be shared income and a reasonable time to adjust to the loss of shared income should you get divorced (and that this reasonable fourth dimension grows the longer you are married). You might say, one-half of the elapsing is too much! Then propose something better, and adjust the contract accordingly. You might say, that jeopardizes my wedding, it seems like I don't honey my time to come spouse! If this is important to you, that is something you must work through. Now, it's likewise an emotional thing, so it tin be hard to carelessness send and get a divorce when it'south clear your life plans take utterly diverged; I'grand non trying to trivialize that conclusion. Simply for the default case of wedlock to be "you take understood your mutual obligations and the fact that you are embarking on a mutually navigated life" seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for kids… Kids cost coin and time, which our society for better or worse equates with coin. And then of course kids add to the number. Engineers who make big bucks and "let" (!?) their spouses stay domicile or pursue careers every bit '"artists"' (?!?) are making that choice, either explicitly or by not having the conversation. If you lot don't steer your life, you let your life happen to you. And if you let your life happen to yous, sometimes it will happen poorly. If they are having the chat, then there's common understanding that this is what'due south best for the family, and no ane is letting anyone do annihilation. Information technology's cool to talk well-nigh anyone "letting" their spouse stay home equally if they have some sort of ownership over them, or passing sentence on the value of an artistic career choice from the outside. Is at that place a homo aspect to this, a fuzziness to information technology all? Of course. But feeling incensed on behalf of others considering their marriages are operating in a way you don't corroborate of considering of how you lot got burned… I don't know how useful that is.

I spent years trying to convince her to work at something. She saturday around on facebook while taking days to do simple tasks like laundry. My family encouraged her. Her friends ridiculed her. Zip motivated her. She finally got a chore folding shirts for a local t-shirt artist x hours a week nether the tabular array. You make a mistake of thinking I had some way to motivate her to human action. We tried counseling and she dismissed the counselor("She'due south a liberal women who hates stay at home women"). The counselor echoed my feelings that I just wanted a partner in the matrimony and not take to deport the brunt of literally everything. How was I supposed to make her work? Cutting off her food supply? Put her over my knee? Your comment is naive and frankly offensive.

Did none of this come up up before spousal relationship? And I don't mean offense by this - I know naught almost your particular situation. But personally, I have trust problems, so I would attempt to probe my partner in every style possible earlier committing to marriage, especially in a country where I, the man, stand to lose far more if it doesn't work out. When some people say "Oh I spent $100k on divorce lawyers" information technology absolutely horrifies me. $100k is higher than my entire net worth. My first boss probably lost to the tune of $ane million to his ex wife, despite nevertheless paying the bulk of bills for the kids.

Before marriage and for the beginning 10 years of the marriage she had a job(well, there was that couple years where she sat effectually playing squad fortress classic all mean solar day.. simply still). I was 21. I didn't know enough to enquire the right questions and think ahead.

> Information technology'southward perfectly reasonable for the baseline of a marriage contract to be shared income and a reasonable time to adjust to the loss of shared income should yous get divorced You are positing a right without a responsibility. Why should a spouse with no earning power exist given a gratuitous laissez passer on having obligations? The merely answer I would readily accept is that one partner is responsible for earning and the other is responsible for children, merely exterior that the state of affairs is hard to justify. > How does your spouse get back on their feet now? Challenge that being married disqualifies someone from the workforce is a relic of an era that is long by. In the absenteeism of some hefty commitment (ie, children) it isn't true.

Your spouse does not have a complimentary pass, you and your spouse have agreed that the family has one of y'all working and one not. It doesn't crave justification beyond that being the mutual agreement, and mutual agreement is how marriage moves forward through fourth dimension. Existence married doesn't disqualify someone from the workforce, merely not working for an extended period of time through the above mutual agreement does leave them with trivial work history, possibly reduced education, certainly reduced feel, etc. They made those decisions in the context of a reality that is changing due to divorce, and that alter tin can have radical life results. As such, having a default agreement whereby that change is non abrupt and immediate is perfectly reasonable. A prenuptial agreement modifies this by setting different expectations upwardly front, and allowing everyone involved to adjust their decision-making process.

I think you might be missing something that 01100011 experienced, which bluntly sounds a lot like what happened in my case every bit well. My ex became very mentally ill and had no desire to do anything nearly it - because she knew that either I would suck it up and carry on for the skillful of the kids, or that in the case of a divorce that she would walk abroad with anything she wanted anyway. So she had no incentive to go back to work, to get out of bed, or to do anything at all. Your words sound much similar multiple lawyers I consulted, that somehow it was my fault because I was complicit in non forcing her to piece of work. And similar 01100011 said, how the eff was I supposed to do that?

Mental disease is plain a whole dissimilar category. Would you also slam her as lazy if she got crippled in a car accident? Have you tried to get her help, in the form of therapy? That'southward actually what "in bad times" means. Information technology's probably okay to discover y'all're non upward to the chore, but it'due south not okay to diss her on message boards.

You are using hyperbole and are reading into the word your own meaning. You are being deliberately insulting and using a personal attack, whereas both the parent affiche and I experienced a similar behavior from our spouses and faced the same legal dilemma.

I'm taking your very literal expression "mentally sick" at confront value, as I practise your other words. I haven't assumed a single matter, nor take I been injecting "my own meaning". I'm sorry your marriage ended badly, I'm sure that tin be very stressful. Just the only insults hither are yours.

>Why should a spouse with no earning ability be given a free laissez passer on having obligations? Completely agreed, and withal having just gone through this, I assure you the Country has no problem telling you merely that. At least in my land, the view is that each party should be put into a situation as much like what they had during the union as possible. Unfortunately the way the courts have interpreted this is that a non-working spouse is deemed to have been the childcare provider, therefore they accept more rights to the children plus should exist compensated with the aforementioned quality of life as earlier. This of class means that the working spouse cannot possibly e'er take the life they had previously, considering they will now be forking over nearly all of their income (seriously- I know of a local example where their child support obligation was more than their actual income) to that non-working party. Likewise, it'due south silly for the courtroom to think things volition e'er be "the same" - unless there are sizable avails, of course the not-working spouse will have to go dorsum to work! So yes, I would like to agree with your statement that "Claiming that being married disqualifies someone from the workforce is a relic of an era that is long past" only unfortunately this is still the instance in some (many? almost? I don't know) states. Fifty-fifty nominally progressive ones.

> You are positing a right without a responsibility. Why should a spouse with no earning ability be given a complimentary pass on having obligations? Because it'due south non really a business contract. Yous don't have to "give your spouse a free laissez passer", you can divorce her if she stops earning equally much as yous want her to. But that sounds sociopathic to me assuming you're not struggling financially.

> planning with both of your electric current and futurity states in listen This is what is so difficult about marriage. Yous sign up for a lifetime delivery, but no one plans their life 100% in advance. People change, desires change, realities change.

Sure, merely GP is maxim that abiding planning is the deal. Y'all constantly programme, reassess, and virtually importantly communicate. And you are always aware of the current conditions of the deal, the opportunity cost, etc. Are you in a bad union but promise information technology'll get better? The opportunity cost is X more years to have to pay pension if you become divorced. Decide accordingly.

Just then why do it in the first place? If you want to accept the optionality to constantly program, reassess, and communicate why would you bind yourself into a legal understanding that limits your ability to do that?

Because there are tangible legal and social benefits to doing so, including hospital visitation rights, insurance, etc, equally well the ability to alive in harmony with people you dearest whose social expectations are that you get married. This is of import to many people—especially if they take establish a partner that they tin conceive of spending a lifetime with.

This is perhaps inarticulatedly stated, but the line really does paint the OP in a (IMO deservedly) bad light. Trying to gain a few status points with online strangers while lament bitterly most your ex married woman? Non very classy.

Yeah, agree that it was brusquely stated. Basically, anyone who thinks yous're absurd because your girlfriend is half your historic period is a probably a redpill, and definitely a tool. Information technology's a detail that screams, "Look at me! This guy fucks!"

I'grand just trying to say that information technology's not similar my life completely sucks now. Dating someone one-half your age carries burdens too. People probably retrieve I'm a creep or that I prepare out to ditch my wife for someone younger. I felt embarrassed for a while merely at present I got over it.

Whenever I read people tirade near divorce my kickoff idea is: well, didn't you know the rules going in? The marriage contract is designed to fit a typical relationship. Due east.g. a man who makes $45k whose married woman makes much less or who doesn't work only does most of the child rearing (labor that, in the open up market, is worth a lot more than the $45k the homo makes). The rules of property sectionalization brand quite a lot of sense when applied to cases like that. Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal relationship concerning the ownership and division of holding and the paternity of whatever children. If your relationship is in the minority of relationships that don't fit into this mold (specially if y'all don't have kids), why the heck are you married?

why the heck are you married? "Some people are bigger than social club. Most of us are not. For most of us, society's rules are our rules, and as you lot and your person walk down your bluish residuum beam, you can experience the walking infinite cook away around y'all. It'southward fourth dimension to make The Determination."

Well in my case I decided to marry at twenty and was married at 21. Certain I was legally an adult but I had no inkling what forever meant. I had no thought what to look for in a person. I basically married the first daughter who touched my wiener. Nosotros had plans to have children, only due to her infertility which was exacerbated by poor lifestyle decisions and lack of self-care, nosotros never did. At some point it became obvious that children weren't coming. I didn't ask her to stay home and heighten my children though. On the contrary I invested quite a bit of time and try into supporting her home-based businesses(textiles($6k embroidery machine for example) and painting). Instead she made pot brownies for dispensaries under the table or worked 10 hours a week folding shirts for a t-shirt creative person. She had skills from previous employment only chose a life of laziness. This was while I was working anywhere from one-3 jobs, doing half the housework and spending weekends working on our house or taking care of her family unit.

That labor is not worth more on the open market place. Nannies aren't rich. Not even close. My wife stayed at home and for time watched children. Without question I was the better deal.

A full time alive at home nanny costs $sixty-70k in a major metro area, essentially more than what a typical human being makes. And nannies typically do non exercise cleaning, so add together another $10k for maid service.

> Lodge, in virtually parts of the earth, doesn't like when a relationship lasts also long. To society, a relationship is simply a testing ground—an incubator that prepares y'all for The Decision. And if also many years get past in a relationship without The Decision being made, social club decides that something must be wrong. To help right the wrong, social club will begin to apply pressure on the couple, from all angles. In polyamorous circles, this is called the "human relationship escalator" - the idea that a relationship must escalate up to marriage or be considered a failure. In the polyamorous context this is considered a fallacy, because you lot can still take another live-in, kid-raising relationship while this one ceases to escalate; but in a monogamous context there are real reasons to "fish or cutting bait" other than just social pressure. If you're looking to have a married-and-settled-down life and that's non happening with the current partner, you need to pursue that end-state with someone else, and monogamy requires you to break up the non-escalating relationship earlier yous can do that.

I institute this article to have zero value and zero cogent data because he boils the whole thing down to "gut cheque" (instinct — no existent information here) plus "dealbreakers" (a nebulous category that he makes clear is ever changing for everyone so in that location's non really whatsoever useful info there either). This reads like a long hemming and hawing written by some dude who probably shouldn't ally his partner but he's trying to convince himself it's a skilful idea and seek validation for his bad determination by writing a long abstruse post justifying information technology. Pro tip to the writer, if your relationship prompts you to write a long article justifying your decision-making process near whether or not to marry your partner, then your partner has failed the gut check and you shouldn't ally them. 4/10 article, interesting concepts but zero actionable or new info that isn't already common/universal knowledge in western societies. Information technology'south also just plain weird that he would write an article that long which is clearly based on his life experiences but not share any of his specific life experiences or anything about him. Maybe he thinks subtracting the cocky from the article makes it "more than universally applicable," only really his determination not to include any info about his personal relationship history just makes it less relatable and thus FAR less applicable to anyone.

Lot of interesting ideas here. I would just add a few points. On listening to your gut when y'all are a encephalon person, this is actually trainable, check out the volume Focusing by the University of Chicago psychologist and philosopher Eugene Gendlin. On deciding, it seems to me the two most of import things are if the two of you lot have reasonably common values virtually how you desire to live your lives, and if you trust the other person's moral grapheme and ability to deed rationally, at least when it comes to something really important. If the 2 of you have these, then you can probably piece of work out the difficulties. Thirdly, y'all stand a much better chance of settling problems small and large if you accept a course in interpersonal relationship and conflict resolution skills. Run into for instance Irenic Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. Lastly, you need to have some larger philosophy or religion to go on things in perspective and as basis for personal value across how much your mate loves yous, otherwise you will either be their boob or try to be their master.

Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg changed the way I idea. However, it, ah, doesn't affair at all if both parties don't purchase in.

It'south interesting to me that people in the U.S. (mayhap all the West, I but have experience with the U.S.) spend so much effort trying to observe a matrimony partner. But it does not appear to me that folks are happier in their marriages than in countries where some course of bundled marriage (non necessarily a "large A" arranged marriage, just perhaps a "lilliputian A" arranged marriage) is mutual. I doubtable: 1) We're not special and in fact there are a broad range of people we'd exist relatively happy being married to; 2) It does not take that long to effigy out whether our partner falls into saucepan (1); 3) To the extent that initially happy marriages sour, it's considering of inverse circumstances, and there is little you can do at pace (1) to foreclose those.

Strongest possible agree. My married woman and I were together for 3 weeks before we eloped in Reno (nosotros both bankrupt upward with previous partners to be together). Nosotros're celebrating our 20th in a couple weeks. And for about one-half that fourth dimension we've also worked together. In that location's a dude on this thread who has patently been married longer than I've been live and my 20 years makes me a marriage piker, merely I suspect the real secret is that a marriage is something you build, not something yous find in some godawful dating treasure hunt.

I have trouble agreement why people buckle to social pressure in this day and historic period. If you lot aren't Amish or JW risking your entire livelihood and social circle... is it actually that hard to tell you're relatives you only aren't ready to exist married?

In about of the US, if a human relationship lasts long enough, it doesn't matter much whether y'all "become married" or not. As far as the state'southward concerned, yous are legally married.

What are you referring to? Mutual law marriage? That's only valid in viii states and DC (California is not 1 of those states, FYI). Edit: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, Due south Carolina, Texas, Utah, and the Commune of Columbia are the only U.s.a. districts where one tin can enter into a common law wedlock today. Such marriages are, of course, recognized by other states, only yous won't end up "accidentally" married by doing cypher in New York, for instance.

Add together Washington state to your listing. At that place is case law here whereby if you live together or demonstrate that yous are in a domestic partnership, yous can be liable for spousal support, using the same guidelines every bit divorce. And this is without signing whatever documents or anything "official" to marker the partnership. Edit: in fact, to make this fifty-fifty more messed upward - Washington state had a domestic partnership law, and so got rid of it. So now there is a giant legal grey area where the courts have basically said "we know information technology when we run across it."

Some quick stats on matrimony in a contemptuous thread: 1) Merely 40% of marriages end in divorce these days. 2) Divorced people are much more than likely to divorce multiple times, then first spousal relationship success rate is closer to 75%. 3) In job cantankerous splits, software developers have much lower divorce rates than the general pop. As an single HN reader, y'all probably accept a an eighty% chance of lifelong marriage.

Just anecdotal evidence, merely during my divorce 2 other SW engineers I know likewise got divorced and another one asked me for communication on how to get information technology started. I know lots of SW guys with stories of horrible divorces and insane legal bills which took decades to pay off. Maybe it's because I'm in Southern California where the divorce charge per unit is something like 75%.

This is the kind of thing everyone should think through mail service-highschool/college/in their 20s -- glad someone's written it out. I would love another guide/write-up similar this for friendship -- it seems like people my age (tardily 20s/early on 30s) and younger are in this world where "friendship" means so little (as used by Facebook) and withal then much (every bit used by your actual friends who you make efforts to see and savour spending time with). Finding people that have actively thought through many of life'southward quandaries (should y'all eat meat? how should governments be run? what do y'all want out of life?) and accept formed opinions backed by generally fact only who are ready to change in the presence of new data is and then hard though. I have a hunch I'm not looking in the right places but fifty-fifty in my late 20s I run across so many people who just haven't idea about most of the important shit and are just looking to glob onto someone for the residue of their life. Similar sure, listening to music and digesting memes is peachy, simply if you lot tin can't align or at least come to reasoned disagreement with your partner on shit that really matters, what is everyone doing.

> I'thou not an expert on this, nor am I married—but I've read a lot about it Ooookaaaay.... Sorry, but you have lost what little credibility you might take had right in that location.

Just ally someone who a) deals with their shit and b) doesn't drive you crazy. If you're not certain your dearest involvement is doing "a", find a mouthy asshole you trust and mention things about your human relationship to them. If they don't convincingly criticize your honey interest (or you) then you're probably ok to get married. If you don't yet know what drives you lot crazy: stop. You lot are likewise young to get married.

rodriquezexpet1994.blogspot.com

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17958032

Share this post