Difficulties with partners

[Jim]

I cannot imagine the form a pre nuptial agreement would take to cover the parties fashion choices.
Let's face it, they are more about money than anything else really.

I brought this up in the context of the fear of the woman winning most of the assets. I'm just thinking that if one partner chooses to leave the marriage they don't get more than half possessions. A marriage break-up may still be tragic in many ways, but it shouldn't nearly bankrupt one party.

[Sinned]

Unfortunately that's not what happens particularly if there are children involved. But there are those in this cafe that have more experience of it than me [0].

Faldaguy, since the opposition is emotionally based I don't see that there are any tactics that would work to overcome such opposition. But if anyone could come up with any suggestions I am willing to try them.

[0] Precisely zero.

[Dust]

My heart sank when I read the cutting up part. I’m certainly not going to advise any sort of separation. However, it seems like petty and infantile behavior on her part. I’m not married or even in a relationship, and honestly stuff like this makes me even less likely to want to find a partner/get married/raise a family. I would hope after X number of years there would be some bond that would transcend these sorts of squabbles.

You have an advantage. You can introduce your style preferences to any potential partner before anything gets serious. But you need to be open and honest early. Anything you don't tell her early, will be a problem later...

[Dust]

Unfortunately, given the way that laws work in most places, the woman wins in any sort of separation usually leaving the man broken and forlorn.

Isn't that part of what pre-nuptial agreements are about?

In my marriage, we are both 100% in agreement that divorce is not an option because of our religious views, but if that's not the case such agreements would seem worthwhile.

That view of "divorce is not an option" is the one that will make it work. Religious or otherwise, you both need to be in it for the long haul. "Till death do us part" for real.

So called "no fault divorce" broke marriage, legally speaking. Now a woman can be rewarded for breaking her vows, not living up to her side of the bargain, and royally screwing up the whole family. It makes no sense. No other contact would ever be entered under those terms.

I have heard of pre-nuptuals being written specifically to do away with no fault divorce, but I have no idea of they hold up in court...

[STEVIE]

"Till death do us part" for real.

Hi Dust,
When that was conceived, death was expected to arrive a whole lot earlier and that creates a whole set of other issues.
I certainly have respect for anyone who practices their beliefs in this manner.
However, marriage is a reciprocal arrangement and when that is dysfunctional, surely no one can argue for it to be maintained at any cost?
Sorry, but from my angle, it is simple economics keeping "us" together and very little to do with the promises made 42 years ago.
Sad but true.
Steve.

[rode_kater]

That view of "divorce is not an option" is the one that will make it work. Religious or otherwise, you both need to be in it for the long haul. "Till death do us part" for real.

I disagree. People change, sometimes you remain compatible, sometimes you don't.

So called "no fault divorce" broke marriage, legally speaking.

Not sure why you target women here specifically, but any contract that does not offer a way out is not a contract, it's a jail. The alternative to no-fault divorce was hiring private detectives to spy on the spouse to try to dig up dirt. Once the trust is gone, why are we trying to hold something together that doesn't want to be?

Here in NL we distinguish between marriage for the state, which is a contractual/financial arrangement, and marrying for the church, which is a religious one. You can do one, the other or both, as you choose. In some SF books, they refer to marriage as being a contractual arrangement with a fixed term and agreements on children and with optional renewal. I've always found this a more sensible way to view the issue, and I think the only tenable one if we get so far as to be able to live hundreds of years.

It's similar to the way I prefer cats to dogs. My cat stays because I treat him well and he would like to stay. He does not stay out of some misguided sense of loyalty.

[Dust]

So called "no fault divorce" broke marriage, legally speaking.

Not sure why you target women here specifically, but any contract that does not offer a way out is not a contract, it's a jail. The alternative to no-fault divorce was hiring private detectives to spy on the spouse to try to dig up dirt. Once the trust is gone, why are we trying to hold something together that doesn't want to be?

No-fault divorce sounds good on paper, but in reality it makes the contract a jail for the man, with his wife as the jailer. In most places it's been tried, women are given financial incentives to end the contract, while men are forced to continue financial support of the woman who left him (or he left to escape abuse, etc.). That's not a contract. She has a way out (of the part she doesn't like, while still getting paid child momma support/alimony), but he loses half of everything (or more), loses his kids, and loses a sizable chunk of his future earnings. He's not out of that contact. He is still paying his end.

Here in NL we distinguish between marriage for the state, which is a contractual/financial arrangement, and marrying for the church, which is a religious one. You can do one, the other or both, as you choose. In some SF books, they refer to marriage as being a contractual arrangement with a fixed term and agreements on children and with optional renewal. I've always found this a more sensible way to view the issue, and I think the only tenable one if we get so far as to be able to live hundreds of years.

I have no problem with separating the legal and religious sides of the contract. I believe it's the same way in Mexico.

It's similar to the way I prefer cats to dogs. My cat stays because I treat him well and he would like to stay. He does not stay out of some misguided sense of loyalty.

Treating your partner as a pet is demeaning. Dog or cat. I love the critters, but your relationship with your spouse should be a while lot more...

[Dust]

"Till death do us part" for real.

Hi Dust,
When that was conceived, death was expected to arrive a whole lot earlier and that creates a whole set of other issues.
I certainly have respect for anyone who practices their beliefs in this manner.
However, marriage is a reciprocal arrangement and when that is dysfunctional, surely no one can argue for it to be maintained at any cost?
Sorry, but from my angle, it is simple economics keeping "us" together and very little to do with the promises made 42 years ago.
Sad but true.
Steve.

I'm not saying to stay in a violent, abusive situation. But the attitude of making it work is important. Even my stubborn religious views have room for separating abusive spouses. I'm not for them going on to remarry, but they can separate to get away from violence for sure.

But if all it is is economics, you are in for a world of hurt, especially as a man. She can walk and steal half your life's work and then some at any time. If it's just economics, I can't tell any man to ever get married today.

[crfriend]

I'm not saying to stay in a violent, abusive situation. But the attitude of making it work is important. Even my stubborn religious views have room for separating abusive spouses. I'm not for them going on to remarry, but they can separate to get away from violence for sure.

Note that violence can be physical (e.g. demonstrable via visible scarring or bruising) or, more perniciously, emotional (which leaves no visible marks). I was involved for a number of years in the latter with my late ex- before it devolved into the physical when one evening I found myself being assaulted and held at gunpoint. I got the Hell out of there as fast as I could manage it.

From a practical perspective, especially for "mature adults", I'm not really a big fan of marriage as it's too restrictive from a legal point of view and makes a clean break in case of irreversible trouble more grief than it needs to be. The basic structure of fidelity and mutual support can go on without the legal strictures -- and in fact should, because that's ultimately the basis of truly functional relationships.

I can see it where there will (or may) be children involved, but not otherwise. And in this day and age, with what the future seems to hold, I cannot imagine bringing a child into the world.

[moonshadow]

I'm not for them going on to remarry, but they can separate to get away from violence for sure.

With all due respect Dust, surely you must realize that your personal religious views have no bearing on what others choose to do with their lives?

I will apologize in advance, for what I'm about to say is sure to offend someone, but I can't help myself. I have seen the oaths of religious matrimony flat our ruin too many lives in my observation. Far too many people stay glued together not for children, but rather simply because they believe it to be a sin if they separate, and thus, they remain in a relationship they are miserable in.

It is a subject that hits close to home. My mother has finally (hopefully) gotten out of a very emotionally abusive relationship with her husband. After four years of listening to the horrendous stories of the things he would do and say, and the things he allowed his family to do to her, my sister and I finally got her out of there... Why did she have such trouble leaving the abusive situation? Because she was convinced that it would anger God if she left.

Now I know what you're probably thinking, that my sister and I had no business intervening in someone else's marriage. True, both of us do not meddle in the marital business of strangers or even people that we know that have their own families to lean on. But this was our mama, and the two of us were all she had, and you just don't f--- with a guy's mama, and if God has a problem with that, he can take it up with me. If he wants to cast me to hell for getting my mother out of a bad situation, then so be it.

[rode_kater]

No-fault divorce sounds good on paper, but in reality it makes the contract a jail for the man, with his wife as the jailer. In most places it's been tried, women are given financial incentives to end the contract, while men are forced to continue financial support of the woman who left him (or he left to escape abuse, etc.). That's not a contract. She has a way out (of the part she doesn't like, while still getting paid child momma support/alimony), but he loses half of everything (or more), loses his kids, and loses a sizable chunk of his future earnings. He's not out of that contact. He is still paying his end.

I feel you're conflating two issues here. No-fault divorce doesn't mean someone can just leave if they want to, it just means they don't need to fabricate collect evidence to file to divorce. You (here at least) still have to show that the marriage is no longer viable, but you don't have to prove whose fault it was. The easiest way is by living apart for a year.

If men are treated badly by the courts afterward, that's a Men's Rights issue that needs to be addressed separately. Partner alimony isn't what it used to be, it's basically about the children these days. In any case alimony is just another contract that needs to be agreed by two parties. And it can happen whether or not you're married.

Here any assets you had before you got married remain yours after divorce, though this obviously varies by jurisdiction.

[Sinned]

Currently, here, to get a divorce one partner has to nominate the other partner of one of the 5 grounds for divorce - adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, living apart for 2 years agreeably and living apart for 5 years without agreement. But as from April 2022 the law will allow no-fault divorces where there is agreement on the terms of the divorce. A step in the right direction as it means that one doesn't have to "dish up the dirt" on the other. Marriage is a contract that finishes on the death of one of the partners, just like any other contract, but, again like any other contract, it should be allowed to be terminated at any time with the agreement of both parties Even a marriage in a church has the civilian aspect of registering the marriage with whatever the local authorities are.

Incidentally because my bride-to-be was late to the church [0] and the Registrar had to leave for another wedding we signed the marriage register first then went through the ceremony.

[0] Her father was driving her to the church and stopped on route to talk to her and make sure she really wanted to go through with it. It was a small, quiet affair and organised quickly. And no, not for the reasons you would think. I had a flat and a job in another town to go to so we decided to get married at short notice. Everything, on the whole, turned out for the best.

[Kirbstone]

So at age seventy-nine-and three-quarters I still go to work 5 days a week. MOH jokes with her friends....'I married him for richer, for poorer & in sickness in health &c &c, but NOT FOR LUNCH!'

Tom

[STEVIE]

It was a small, quiet affair and organised quickly. And no, not for the reasons you would think. I had a flat and a job in another town to go to so we decided to get married at short notice. Everything, on the whole, turned out for the best.

Hi Dennis this made me smile, "not for the reasons"!
We were officially engaged in October 1980 and wed in Mar 81.
The wedding had actually been arranged some 2 years prior to that, we were both still studying.
Just wish I could echo the last sentence.
Steve.

[Sinned]

Steve, I met her in July 1975 and married February 1976. I spent the intervening time in Falkirk and, briefly, Forfar. We had an overdraft and neither sets of parents were rich, families were spread out so a large wedding was not possible. But hey, we were in love. It didn't matter. We married on a Saturday and left her on the Sunday to move to a new town. She had two weeks notice to work and joined me.

Yes it all could have gone tits up and there is the outside possibility it still might if I pushed too hard. My eldest son said at one point that he expected us to separate so I, for one, am determined to prove him wrong. I'm sorry that yours hasn't worked out.