Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

[jacob]

Something I'd really like to see is some tribal arrangement (more than two people, larger than the nuclear family), but the culture isn't there for it.

Corporations and government act as a poor substitute providing benefits and protection but subject to cancellation on a whim.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Something I'd really like to see is some tribal arrangement (more than two people, larger than the nuclear family), but the culture isn't there for it.

But would there be orgies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[jennypenny]

Too bad that ERE-city idea died. Sounds more interesting now

[jennypenny]

@Toska--LOL...but you'd still have Spartan

BTW, is anyone else on this thread getting some weird google ads now? Not while I'm browsing this site, but definitely on others. Several interesting ways to meet singles, and for lots of different activities. Not what I usually get. I'm hoping they're still there after the kids go to bed later

[Spartan_Warrior]

In ERE Tribal Orgy City, everyone would have Spartan.

[Chad]

Not everyone!

[Spartan_Warrior]

Don't worry Chad, I promise I won't stick you with alimony!

[SilverElephant]

As with investments, marriage is about knowing the risks. Jacob pointed this out quite well. You read financial literature, try to gain a crude understanding of the system, of what drives the market up or down and the different classes of investments. In the end, you try to make an informed choice (ideally) based on what you believe provides you with the highest ROI for the risk you're willing to take. You can still lose it all although smart choices will minimize the risk for a given ROI.

Marriage is no different, in my opinion. And, just as with investing, the vast majority of people believe picking a winner is mostly voodoo magic, so either they pick the first one they come across that seems OK to them, or they pick randomly, or go through dozens of them, each time losing a bit (but hopefully building experience), or simply pay someone else hefty sums of money to pick the right one (failing to realize that it's much more lucrative for that person to pick the wrong one to keep you coming back...).

Maybe the only difference is that for investing, a lot of people will concede that it's not magic and you can build some understanding of it. Again, marriage (or rather, dating and the world of attraction) is no different. It's built on (biological) rules that are not completely precise but with an observing eye and a willingness to cast aside society's understanding of what is "obviously correct", you can significantly minimize your losses and even make handsome gains.

[Triangle]

@Jenny:

Clear the cookies in your browser. That way Google doesn't know you've visited the naughty ERE forums.



@SilverElephant:

I agree. With marriage, somehow, even in this forum, people believe there's magic. If you asked me for investment advice and I said "there is only one way. You have to find one broker and trust him forever and sign a contract that you will stay with him and he with you in sickness and health until death do you apart. If it doesn't work out, you didn't try hard enough!", you would think I'm crazy. But somehow with marriage, that's totally ok.

I have yet to see a marriage I'd want to be in.

Has anyone here read a bit of Heinlein? In his SciFi, he often features non-standard families. There's "lineage" families, where you can have X number of husbands and Y number of wives, and they all share money and responsibilities. Sometimes you have to buy your "way in" with a kind of dowry, and every child who leaves the family gets paid out a certain amount to stand on their own feet.

I don't necessarily like that kind of family, but I like his idea that "family is a function of the environment it's in". The "classical" (=Hollywood) marriage is unsuited for most people today. That's why less people marry, and more people get divorced. I'd like to see the stigma lifted and new ideas tried out, instead of clinging to an old, dying idea.

[lilacorchid]

@Triangle - I don't believe that marriage has to be forever. I entered into an agreement with my husband that we would have each other's back until one of us croaked, unless one party abused or cheated on the other party.

As a side bar: I don't understand how people think having a kid together is less binding then getting married. It's not hard to get a paternity test, and even after a person finishes paying child support, you are still tied to the other parent forever due to your shared child. At least with a childless marriage, you can just walk away and never have to see the person again if you choose.

[Spartan_Warrior]

As a side bar: I don't understand how people think having a kid together is less binding then getting married. It's not hard to get a paternity test, and even after a person finishes paying child support, you are still tied to the other parent forever due to your shared child. At least with a childless marriage, you can just walk away and never have to see the person again if you choose.

In the event of an "unmarried with children" break-up, a man would have to pay court-ordered child support but NOT any alimony, nor would he risk being made to split his own assets (regardless of when he accrued them)--theoretically, at least.

Since paying for child support is the ONLY one of the three that actually strikes me as reasonable*, and since I do want kids, "unmarried with children" seems like a fair arrangement from my perspective.

*Not to imply that the court-ordered payments would be a reasonable amount for the necessary costs of bringing up a child; we all know they wouldn't be.

[lilacorchid]

@Spartan - that's not the case here. Common law is treated the same as marriage... you only have to live together long enough, and if you have a child, that period of time gets shorter.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Interesting. (And frightening.) It doesn't appear to be that way in my neck of the U.S., where only legal marriages seem to matter for alimony purposes:

<LINK> http://www.mdfamilylawyer.com/mdpages/a ... rriage.asp

[lilacorchid]

@Spartan - I guess you could take it that way. On the other hand, it does protect too. What if you decided to move across the country with your girlfriend and give up a great job because it was her turn to shine? And then you two split and she had the awesome job and you were working somewhere terrible. It works both ways and is there to protect both parties.

[Spartan_Warrior]

If I've built the bulk of my nest egg for retirement, no matter what, if it gets split, I lose. That's what I'm afraid of. Divorce = going back to work or working longer. A fate worse than death!

The solution for me seems to be, at the very least, to wait until I'm already retired and keep my ERE assets separate.

[Triangle]

I think the most important part is to find an ERE-compatible wife. Either she's into ERE, or she respects your choice. Then go to a lawyer and have them write a pre-nup. I realize those aren't 100% watertight, but a good lawyer should know what you can do and can't do.

If you want to make sure, try setting up an offshore trust fund or something with your nest egg. I think divorce can't touch that. Check with your lawyer though.

[Chad]

...but a good lawyer should know what you can do and can't do.

From what I know, to make it more enforceable, you have to get your own lawyer and she has to get one. She has to pay for hers. She will love that.

[CS]

I don't know how to do quotes, but this was from Spartan Warrior

" But like any investment, there is risk. And it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the fact that, given U.S. family law, the majority of that risk is usually borne by the man."

I find that attitude really irritating. Boo-hoo, you might have to pay some money. Let's see, you get more money in raises from both MEN and WOMEN bosses than women do, and statistically will end off much better off, even with alimony payments, than women who match you in all other factors. The difference between a 2.7% raise (average for women) and a 4.2% (average for men) raise can equate to double the income per year at retirement age. And that doesn't even take into account the difference in accumulation.**

So you have to deal with this one little handicap, while women have to deal with a lifetime handicap of being women. You want to whine about this and feel sorry for yourself go ahead. If you want to go on with life and find someone to spend it with, move on from this mental handicap you have going on and get on with it. Life is short.

** from the book "Women don't ask". Good source of information.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I don't know how to do quotes, but this was from Spartan Warrior

" But like any investment, there is risk. And it strikes me as disingenuous to ignore the fact that, given U.S. family law, the majority of that risk is usually borne by the man."

I find that attitude really irritating. Boo-hoo, you might have to pay some money. Let's see, you get more money in raises from both MEN and WOMEN bosses than women do, and statistically will end off much better off, even with alimony payments, than women who match you in all other factors. The difference between a 2.7% raise (average for women) and a 4.2% (average for men) raise can equate to double the income per year at retirement age.

I don't plan on working until "retirement age"... obviously. Your statistical differences mean nothing to me, especially on my time horizon. What means something to me is that the nest egg I busted my ass for would be compromised, and I would have unreasonably high child care payments or alimony indefinitely. Payments that probably cost as much as what I plan to live on each month. Divorce is the killer of ERE plans.

I laugh at "little handicap." Also, I fail to see how acknowledging a risk is more of a "mental handicap" than ignoring it or denying it, but okay.

[SilverElephant]

I find that attitude really irritating. Boo-hoo, you might have to pay some money. Let's see, you get more money in raises from both MEN and WOMEN bosses than women do, and statistically will end off much better off, even with alimony payments, than women who match you in all other factors. The difference between a 2.7% raise (average for women) and a 4.2% (average for men) raise can equate to double the income per year at retirement age. And that doesn't even take into account the difference in accumulation.**

So you have to deal with this one little handicap, while women have to deal with a lifetime handicap of being women. You want to whine about this and feel sorry for yourself go ahead. If you want to go on with life and find someone to spend it with, move on from this mental handicap you have going on and get on with it. Life is short.

** from the book "Women don't ask". Good source of information.

I was going to write an elaborate answer but I'll settle for pointing out that a man complaining about unfairness vis-a-vis men will almost certainly get shot down with an argument and tone similar to yours, while a woman complaining about unfairness to women is certain to receive critical acclaim. If you're going to make claims such as "lifetime handicap of being women", please elaborate.

Also, "Boo-hoo, you might have to pay some money" is quite something to say on an ERE forum...