The dumbest reason to end a relationship of 1-5+ years.

[amale]

WHY, just why? Why do some women do that? Why would they ruin their own happiness and end a relationship with man that may be their perfect partner?

Maybe transforming the relationship from a state of 'bf/gf' to husband and wife would make these women feel more secure in the relationship and make them feel as if the relationship is strong enough and serious enough. Why should it be considered as shallow and unnecessary? If a guy loves a woman well enough, I dont think he'd find a problem with marrying her. *shrug*

This is shallow because this is all about pieces of paper and jewelry. And this is unnecessary because you can live togehter until death without marrying.
And if a woman loves a man well enough, why not just trust his words? Why is it always from the woman's standpoint?

It's not always from a woman's standpoint. Dude, I don't care for marriage either, but that's my choice. Just like it was the lady's choice to want to get married. That doesn't mean I'd try to force my opinion on it to everyone else. I get it that you don't agree with it. Neither do I. But calm down about it. People aren't just going to agree with you because you think your opinion on it is the right one. It's right for you, not for everyone else.

Well, OP doesn't care for marriage, too, but people disagree with him, even though it's supposed to be his choice.
What I meant by the standpoint, is that it's always "if he loves her, he must do what she wants", be it anything including marriage. I've never seen it vice versa.
My opinion isn't even an opinion, it's just a couple of self evident facts.

 

[TheRealCallie]

People have different reasons for getting married. Sometimes it's for money, sometimes it's arranged, sometimes it's because they believe in the institution of marriage, sometimes people get pregnant and feel they are obligated. Sometimes it could be whatever else you want to think up.
You don't know why each individual person gets married, but saying one reason is stupid or negating that some people feel marriage is real is disrespectful to anyone that has been or is married.

If YOU don't want to get married, fine, but don't judge people that want to or make light of it for people that believe in it.

 

[Solivagant]

Well, OP doesn't care for marriage, too, but people disagree with him, even though it's supposed to be his choice.
What I meant by the standpoint, is that it's always "if he loves her, he must do what she wants", be it anything including marriage. I've never seen it vice versa.

It is his choice. People disagreeing with him doesn't change that.

Just for the record, there are also men who have badly wanted to be married and left women who didn't want to be married. I've met them.

I'm just speaking logically.

Putting logic to an emotional experience probably isn't going to help you understand it better. I'm not convinced that all of these anti-marriage sentiments are in fact rooted in logic anyway. Some make sense, but it seems to me that logic is mostly being used to mask or justify some other emotion, namely fear.

Pfft… the amount of insecurity you state here is staggering. Marrying to feel safer? To demonstrate its seriousness? Really?

Are not most of the arguments against marriage based around the idea that it's safer not to marry? That's how it sounds to me. Otherwise, "It's old" and "It's all about showing off" are really not very compelling arguments.

It doesn't have to be a need to make it right.

^ +1.

 

[amale]

Solivagant
First of all, it's pro-marriage sentiments which are actually often based on fear. Read this very thread. Many pro-marriage responses are openly just fear of the man leaving. "Escape hatch" and other creative metaphors make it quite obvious.
Anti-marriage sentiments are not based on fear, that's your rationalization to explain yourself why others have opinions you don't like (they can't be right, of course, so they have to be e. g. cowards). I can assure you that I'm not "afraid" of marriage, as well as I'm not "afraid" of eating at McDonald's 24/7, and yet I still have reasons to not do any of that nonsense.
"It's all about showing off" is actually a compelling reason. What if they got married, and than the husband wants to spend tons of money on a Lamborghini, you know, to show off? What should the wife do, just agree to "make him happy"? This is exactly the argument pro-marriage people make.
"A marriage doesn't guarantee anything", another one. You ignored it.
"Obvious lack of trust" is the main one, at least for me. Again, you completely ignored this one.

 

[Paraiyar]

WHY, just why? Why do some women do that? Why would they ruin their own happiness and end a relationship with man that may be their perfect partner?

Maybe transforming the relationship from a state of 'bf/gf' to husband and wife would make these women feel more secure in the relationship and make them feel as if the relationship is strong enough and serious enough. Why should it be considered as shallow and unnecessary? If a guy loves a woman well enough, I dont think he'd find a problem with marrying her. *shrug*

Some men have been put off marriage by the financial risks that come with the divorce courts being as gender biased as they are along with the somewhat related issue of alimony and child support. Of course living with a partner for a sufficient amount of time often carries the same risks even without the formalization that marriage provides.

I personally think that the traditional family unit is integral to the survival of a civilization but I can understand why a lot of men have gone off the idea.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Some men have been put off marriage by the financial risks that come with the divorce courts being as gender biased as they are along with the somewhat related issue of alimony and child support. Of course living with a partner for a sufficient amount of time often carries the same risks even without the formalization that marriage provides.

I personally think that the traditional family unit is integral to the survival of a civilization but I can understand why a lot of men have gone off the idea.

Well, if you are going to go there, you also have to take into consideration that employers are also gender biased, since men make more than women for the same job.

But I know MANY women who pay child support to their ex because they got the kids and the women didn't. Yes, a lot of times the women take the kids, but that doesn't mean it always happens that way. Same with alimony, when the woman makes more, the woman has to pay the man. That is of course, for the states that even consider giving alimony. Many don't, many only do so for rare cases.
I could have gotten alimony if I had pushed for it because he insisted I stay home with the kids, meaning when he left, I hadn't had a job for 10 years, making it VERY hard for me to get a job. He paid the bills until I got a job, but he up and left me with a house payment, a car payment and two kids with no job.

 

[amale]

TheRealCallie, obviously, two wrongs make right in this very particular case, but do you have any proofs that females get paid less for the same job? Also, how less is less? A house and a car less?
Your first two sentences contradict each other. The first one is statistics over exceptions, but the second one is exceptions over statistics.
Even if the wife initiates the divorce, directly or idirectly, she still gets everything almost all the time. She can cheat on him with three football teams at once and be rewarded with his possessions and their kids.
Divorce law is a joke, and not even a funny one.
I can't imagine anyone with a working heart who can't see how painfully unfair this is.

 

[TheRealCallie]

TheRealCallie, obviously, two wrongs make right in this very particular case, but do you have any proofs that females get paid less for the same job? Also, how less is less? A house and a car less?
Your first two sentences contradict each other. The first one is statistics over exceptions, but the second one is exceptions over statistics.
Even if the wife initiates the divorce, directly or idirectly, she still gets everything almost all the time. She can cheat on him with three football teams at once and be rewarded with his possessions and their kids.
Divorce law is a joke, and not even a funny one.
I can't imagine anyone with a working heart who can't see how painfully unfair this is.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. There is proof that men make more than women, look it up. I said what happened in MY case, I COULD have gotten alimony in my state because they still allow it here for certain cases. I didn't want it. I never asked him to pay the bills, he did it anyway.

And no, the wife does NOT always get everything in a divorce. It depends on what the divorce laws are for each state (or country, I only know about the US). Some states are no fault, some states are 50-50, which is what my state is. Yes, in my case I would have gotten more because he had a job, I didn't, I got the house, the kids, the car (that isn't in my name), most of the credit card balances. He left with just his clothes. I didn't ask him for anything because I didn't want anything. I do get child support yes, but guess what, those are HIS kids too, so, no, I shouldn't have to pay for everything concerning them, although, more often than not, I do.
As for the cheating, he cheated on me, so what then? That means I should be entitled to more than him because of that fact or doesn't it work that way because he's not a woman and it might negate whatever point you're trying to make with that. I don't know what the divorce laws are like where you are, but where I am, it's not like that.

 

[amale]

TheRealCallie, obviously, two wrongs make right in this very particular case, but do you have any proofs that females get paid less for the same job? Also, how less is less? A house and a car less?
Your first two sentences contradict each other. The first one is statistics over exceptions, but the second one is exceptions over statistics.
Even if the wife initiates the divorce, directly or idirectly, she still gets everything almost all the time. She can cheat on him with three football teams at once and be rewarded with his possessions and their kids.
Divorce law is a joke, and not even a funny one.
I can't imagine anyone with a working heart who can't see how painfully unfair this is.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. There is proof that men make more than women, look it up. I said what happened in MY case, I COULD have gotten alimony in my state because they still allow it here for certain cases. I didn't want it. I never asked him to pay the bills, he did it anyway.

And no, the wife does NOT always get everything in a divorce. It depends on what the divorce laws are for each state (or country, I only know about the US). Some states are no fault, some states are 50-50, which is what my state is. Yes, in my case I would have gotten more because he had a job, I didn't, I got the house, the kids, the car (that isn't in my name), most of the credit card balances. He left with just his clothes. I didn't ask him for anything because I didn't want anything. I do get child support yes, but guess what, those are HIS kids too, so, no, I shouldn't have to pay for everything concerning them, although, more often than not, I do.
As for the cheating, he cheated on me, so what then? That means I should be entitled to more than him because of that fact or doesn't it work that way because he's not a woman and it might negate whatever point you're trying to make with that. I don't know what the divorce laws are like where you are, but where I am, it's not like that.

The proof is on you, since it was you who made the statement. And you could've cited it twice already.
I said "almost all the time", not "always". And yet, "almost all the time" is enough for a bias to exist.
From your story, it's impossible to decipher what part the law played in it, but you got the house, the kids, the car, the credit card money, and he got some clothes. By your definition, that's what 50-50 looks like?
It's really simple what I'm saying. If I bought a house, it's unfair to kick me out of it. If I'm male, it's unfair to take the kids away just because of my gender. And yet this is how things are in many cases in the US, and West in general. Other countries? As far as I know, Australia is even more 50-50.

 

[TheRealCallie]

From your story, it's impossible to decipher what part the law played in it, but you got the house, the kids, the car, the credit card money, and he got some clothes. By your definition, that's what 50-50 looks like?
It's really simple what I'm saying. If I bought a house, it's unfair to kick me out of it. If I'm male, it's unfair to take the kids away just because of my gender. And yet this is how things are in many cases in the US, and West in general. Other countries? As far as I know, Australia is even more 50-50.

The "law" didn't play any part in it, that's what him and I AGREED on. I got the house, along with the payment after I got a job. I got the car, along with the payment after I got a job, he took the paid off truck. I got the kids because HE didn't want them full time. I got most of the credit card debt. Sounds to me like he got more out of it than I did.
He LEFT the house, I didn't kick him out. He LEFT the kids, I didn't keep him away from them.

No, that is NOT how many cases are in the US. But one thing I think you are forgetting is that most men let the women have the kids. Then there's also this thing called shared custody, where each parent has the kids 50% of the time.
My brother has FULL custody of his 3 kids. He would be getting child support from the mother if they both agreed that they wouldn't enforce support. I know quite a few men who have custody of their kids and get child support.

 

[VanillaCreme]

Any properties or belongings that you acquired before the marriage won't be included in any divorce. Typically. Anything after though, is usually looked at and divided whatever way. And the wife doesn't always get everything. I've heard of some women getting messed over just like some men do.

 

[Lacrecia]

Pfft… the amount of insecurity you state here is staggering. Marrying to feel safer? To demonstrate its seriousness? Really? The way I see it, when a couple fully trusts each other is when they’ve officially become a husband and a wife, it’s not up to a wedding or a father telling them to kiss, it’s simply them trusting each other. I seriously hope that people realize in the future that living in cohabitation as a normal couple is enough to live happily; it’s a great thing to know that that practice is on the rise while marriages are going down.

Your definition about marriage differs from mine. You see in it something mainly financial and shallow, while it should be a symbol of love and union between two individuals and yes give them both or to one of them a feeling of security. And it would be just silly to assume that many people today are not insecure. lol
If one claims that a man (or a woman) is ready to do anything, why stop at marriage if his/her partner wants it? I see a paradox in claiming that one "would do ANYTHING for the one he/she loves," yet refuses to accept marriage, why should be such evil thing? unless there is a doubt about loving the person one is ready to do anything for lol.

This is all what I have to say. And I will not visit this thread again as diversity of opinions does not seem to be accepted.

 

[amale]

From your story, it's impossible to decipher what part the law played in it, but you got the house, the kids, the car, the credit card money, and he got some clothes. By your definition, that's what 50-50 looks like?
It's really simple what I'm saying. If I bought a house, it's unfair to kick me out of it. If I'm male, it's unfair to take the kids away just because of my gender. And yet this is how things are in many cases in the US, and West in general. Other countries? As far as I know, Australia is even more 50-50.

The "law" didn't play any part in it, that's what him and I AGREED on. I got the house, along with the payment after I got a job. I got the car, along with the payment after I got a job, he took the paid off truck. I got the kids because HE didn't want them full time. I got most of the credit card debt. Sounds to me like he got more out of it than I did.
He LEFT the house, I didn't kick him out. He LEFT the kids, I didn't keep him away from them.

No, that is NOT how many cases are in the US. But one thing I think you are forgetting is that most men let the women have the kids. Then there's also this thing called shared custody, where each parent has the kids 50% of the time.
My brother has FULL custody of his 3 kids. He would be getting child support from the mother if they both agreed that they wouldn't enforce support. I know quite a few men who have custody of their kids and get child support.

If the law wasn't involved, I have no idea why did you even started with that story, then. That conversation was about the law from the very beginning.
First, the most divorces are initiated by women. Second, how do you even know that the most men agree to lose their children?
How many of those quite a few men you know have successfully robbed the hell out of their wives? Alimony sounds nice, but what about cars and houses?

 

[TheRealCallie]

You seem to be under the impression that all divorces end badly. They don't. My ex and I agreed on everything before any lawyers were contacted. Of course the law was eventually involved, but as we agreed on everything, there was no big battle and there never will be with me and my ex.

My brother's ex wife was addicted to sleeping pills, he could have taken her for everything, but he didn't. Neither did any of the other people I know. He got custody of the kids, he got the house, he got the car, but guess what? Most courts WILL give the house to the parent who gets custody of the kids, because the kids are more important and need a safe place to live. The house almost ALWAYS goes to the person with the kids.

 

[AmytheTemperamental]

I think that people focus too hard on how things could end, instead of how they can continually work at improving them.

---

That being said, I happily left my marriage, the house, the belongings, the chance of alimony and even the child support. We have a written agreement for custody. I guess I could have it a lot worse, but I also didn't make my choices based on other people's accomplishments/failures.

 

[VanillaCreme]

amale, you get your warning now to stop the obvious hating on women. I tried to reason that it was just you sharing your thoughts, but if you're going to constantly generalize women because of your "self evident" opinions, then you're going to take a vacation.

There's a difference between discussing something, and then putting something down because you don't like it. Enough of it.

 

[amale]

You seem to be under the impression that all divorces end badly. They don't. My ex and I agreed on everything before any lawyers were contacted. Of course the law was eventually involved, but as we agreed on everything, there was no big battle and there never will be with me and my ex.

My brother's ex wife was addicted to sleeping pills, he could have taken her for everything, but he didn't. Neither did any of the other people I know. He got custody of the kids, he got the house, he got the car, but guess what? Most courts WILL give the house to the parent who gets custody of the kids, because the kids are more important and need a safe place to live. The house almost ALWAYS goes to the person with the kids.

I have a strong opinion that if there are kids, then a divorce is a bad end. If there are no kids and they both enjoy wasting time, they can marry and divorce seven times a day, I won't give a ****.
"The house almost ALWAYS goes to the person with the kids." - I see where you are coming from, but the person you are taking a place to live in from is pretty important, too. Also, it is almost always the female who gets the kids, just with no reason. I somewhat agree on "kids first" sentiment, but my opinion stands, the laws are too rigid, biased and brutal.
Also, did your brother (I guess it was still him? I kind of lost in all those stories and details) get her house and car, or his own?

 

[TheRealCallie]

I have a strong opinion that if there are kids, then a divorce is a bad end. If there are no kids and they both enjoy wasting time, they can marry and divorce seven times a day, I won't give a ****.
"The house almost ALWAYS goes to the person with the kids." - I see where you are coming from, but the person you are taking a place to live in from is pretty important, too. Also, it is almost always the female who gets the kids, just with no reason. I somewhat agree on "kids first" sentiment, but my opinion stands, the laws are too rigid, biased and brutal.
Also, did your brother (I guess it was still him? I kind of lost in all those stories and details) get her house and car, or his own?

No, a divorce is not always bad just because there are kids. Sometimes they are, but not always and definitely not most.
I never said the other parent wasn't important, just that the kids are MORE important because they can't go out and find a new place to live, they rely on their parents for that, so yeah, the person with the kids gets the house. Often times, when one gets the house, the other gets something else, such as money or a car or whatever they might have accumulated together.
A lot of times, the kids go with the mother because of things like breastfeeding and whatnot. That is, of course for younger children. A lot of times, the men don't fight the kids staying with their mother, but if you think that a lot of men don't get custody over the mother, you'd be wrong.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but it sounds to me like it's your opinion based on your own bias, not rooted in fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.

As for my brother, the house was in both their names, the car was his.

 

[amale]

amale, you get your warning now to stop the obvious hating on women. I tried to reason that it was just you sharing your thoughts, but if you're going to constantly generalize women because of your "self evident" opinions, then you're going to take a vacation.

There's a difference between discussing something, and then putting something down because you don't like it. Enough of it.

Obvious hating on women is a pretty serious thoughtcrime, I agree. But can you at least show me where did I do it, exactly? It has to be one of my posts which convinced you?
And I gave objective reasons why I was putting marriage down, it's not just because I don't like it.

 

[Paraiyar]

Some men have been put off marriage by the financial risks that come with the divorce courts being as gender biased as they are along with the somewhat related issue of alimony and child support. Of course living with a partner for a sufficient amount of time often carries the same risks even without the formalization that marriage provides.

I personally think that the traditional family unit is integral to the survival of a civilization but I can understand why a lot of men have gone off the idea.

Well, if you are going to go there, you also have to take into consideration that employers are also gender biased, since men make more than women for the same job.

But I know MANY women who pay child support to their ex because they got the kids and the women didn't. Yes, a lot of times the women take the kids, but that doesn't mean it always happens that way. Same with alimony, when the woman makes more, the woman has to pay the man. That is of course, for the states that even consider giving alimony. Many don't, many only do so for rare cases.
I could have gotten alimony if I had pushed for it because he insisted I stay home with the kids, meaning when he left, I hadn't had a job for 10 years, making it VERY hard for me to get a job. He paid the bills until I got a job, but he up and left me with a house payment, a car payment and two kids with no job.

Women do typically earn less than men for the same job but as I'll expose in the following links the notion that this has anything to do with a general gender bias is a lie manufactured by a certain ideology to create gender warfare:

[video=youtube]

http://www.hawaii.edu/religion/courses/Gender_Wage_Gap_Report.pdf

And that fact that alimony favours person who earns more is a sign of gender bias from the start since that is typically the man. Why should they pay their ex-partner anything when there is no process of accountability to ensure what that money is spent on? And in my country, the non-custodial parent pays child support which is also problematic at best.