Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

[Spartan_Warrior]

@GandK:

Thank you for saying that. By the way, while you're here, I had another question. If a nest egg earned after marriage would be split, is that the entire nest egg, or just the part earned after marriage? For instance, if I can show that my 401k had X amount before marriage, then I continued contributing to it after marriage, would the entire value be split, or merely the value minus X?


@secretwealth:

I find it amusing how much value you place on political correctness versus actual correctness. However, what about "the way I said it" did you find so offensive? As I stated, I thought my comments in this thread (up until it became about gangbanging me) were rather measured and impassive compared to some of the blatantly judgmental, bitter, emotional, and misandrist responses it generated. (Not to mention the merely frustrating off-topic responses... like yours.)


@Altoid:

I never once said I am more interested in younger women. That was someone else. You're putting words in my mouth.

[JohnnyH]

Hats off to Spartan for remaining rational despite emotional character attacks... Also, hats off to GandK for such great info, dispelling some myths and exposing other bizarre gotchas.

M'kay. Let me sum it up for you, dude: Don't get married. <shrug>

You didn't read what SW (and I) said, we want long term committed, monogamous relationships... The women we love demand marriage and won't compromise, so rock and a hard place.

Men want less marriage, women want more. This is a widespread trend, not just us ERE weirdos. Men aren't marrying anymore, it is women that have to sell us on the idea, no longer the other way around.

As a woman, I find it especially satisfying that women can have a child for free, or $140 for a vial of sanitized sperm, while men need women at a much higher level to have a child.

Like I said earlier, I agree with you (for different reasons). I can make babies on my own and as long as I don't have a baby daddy I can be free to pursue freedom in all my relationships. Why would I do anything else?

There are many, many reasons... Talk to someone who grew up not knowing their father:
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequ ... statistics

[Triangle]

@Spartan_Warrior and Triangle:
I seem to recall you mentioned that you are not attracted to women of your own age, and more interested in younger women?

Lol, I also never said that. I've slept with a woman almost 20 years my senior only a few weeks ago. See how I said "slept with" and not "married"? In fact when I think of it, I think the youngest woman I've ever had romantic relations with was only about a month younger than me.

So you're imagining something here.

@BecaS: I don't think I got my point across last time. I know. Don't marry. That's why I'm not married. I don't think Spartan or myself were asking for opinions if we should get married. This is a somewhat abstract debate about marriage.

Kind of like I'm not in the market for buying a new car, but I might still debate the pros/cons of a certain car with other people. When I say "this new BMW is too expensive for the value it offers", "don't buy it" is not a helpful answer in such a discussion. I've already not bought it. I'm debating the BMW (or marriage) as a concept, like a scholar might study something he isn't actually personally doing.

[BecaS]

Ahh. This thread is devolving into Liberated Men Meet The Rules Girls.

That's what it's all about.

Everything else here is straw men, so much tilting at windmills.

I know why I didn't get myself into these situations. I voted with my feet. JohnnyH, Spartan, Triangle, it's a shame you didn't know me when I was 22. I would have solved this dilemma for you quickly, kindly and without remorse. That whooshing! sound you hear in my wake is the door that never touched my butt when I was on the way out.

I wasn't particularly marriage-oriented either. I just didn't have much patience for being played.

[altoid]

@S-W & Triangle,

Sorry... I didn't go back to this thread far enough, before making the assumption. My bad.

I still don't see why people are taking this personal, it is just a discussion, right? At least we all be quite honest and frank about our own opinion.

[Triangle]

shame you didn't know me when I was 22

Too young.

I just didn't have much patience for being played.

"Played"? Again, I do not know what you mean. In your hypothetical situation, were we on a date? How did you get played?

[henrik]

In myCountry, family law provides three options for married couples to arrange their financial affairs. I'm not sure about the exact legal terms in English, but essentially:

A- Separate assets. The couple is in effect considered not married for financial and asset purposes. Anything either party accumulates during the marriage is their own. This does not affect other terms and rights and responsibilities of marriage, and spouses still get primary right to inherit (along with children) in case of death;
B- Common assets. Anything either party accumulates from the wedding day on is common property (needs to be divided in case of divorce, deals and sales need approval from both spouses, etc);
C- Compensation of asset increase. Specific assets belong to and are controlled by individuals separately. The spouse whose assets have increased more during the marriage is liable to compensate the other spouse proportionally upon divorce.

The choice is made by the couple jointly when they file for marriage. All the options and liabilities are gender neutral. There is a government registry that keeps track of the couples' choices. The default choice is option B. Underage children have a right to support from both parents regardless of the parents' marital arrangements or lack thereof.

Personally, I think marriage and financials should be separate in the same way it's a good idea to separate church and state, but this is strictly a personal preference (one I fortunately share with my wife!). Above all I like it that the government recognises all options as equally valid under the law (no complicated prenups and legal arrangements required) and that the couple is prompted to think about the issue and make a deliberate choice.

[JohnnyH]

JohnnyH, Spartan, Triangle, it's a shame you didn't know me when I was 22. I would have solved this dilemma for you quickly, kindly and without remorse.

Proposal?

You say "Don't get married!" but now you insinuate that any man who doesn't seek marriage is "playing" the female?...

Funny that males who make impulsive lifelong commitments and decisions are given so much more respect than males who take a life long commitment seriously.

[BecaS]

Thread getting confusing, I apologize for misconstruing anyone's intent.

In replying to JohnnyH and perhaps to Spartan (although I'm not sure of his current relationship dynamics) and perhaps to others:

If the person with whom you are involved is not getting a decent, desired return on their investment, why is that person continuing to pour their precious assets, energy, life into you?

If you can't give them what they need or desire in a reciprocal relationship, why are they continuing to hang around? Because they *love* you? I submit that they don't love themselves enough!

I never was "Rules" girl, that book came out long after I was married with kids. When I was single I really didn't want to think that hard about the guys with whom I was involved. If I was available and wanted to go out on a date and the guy asked, I went. If not, I didn't. When a guy came along whose life blueprint most closely matched mine, he was interested in making a long term commitment, I was as well by that point in my life, we liked each other, then we loved each other, it worked out, we got married. Happily ever after. Great choice. I am happy. We are happy.
When I was younger, prior to being married, I was involved with a guy who didn't reciprocate my emotional intensity, involvement or desire for a future together. I was very young, and that particular desire was not a desire to be married in general, it was a desire to be with him. He didn't exactly dismiss it but he didn't reciprocate it either. It took my young self a little bit of time to sort this all out. It wasn't spelled out to me like it is in "The Rules," and in retrospect, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have followed "The Rules" script anyway. If I have to work that hard to hold a man's attention, seriously, NO, I have other things to do. Once I figured out that all of the wishful thinking in the world wasn't going to make him want what I wanted in terms of a relationship with him, I was out of there. Hurt like hell, was in many ways the end of my innocence, but it was absolutely the right thing to do and I'd do it again.

Anyway, by my estimation (which admittedly does not have to be adopted by everyone else) if you are involved with a person who wants something from you that you'll never be willing to give, and that person is hanging around hoping that you'll change, and you know that you won't, if you are drinking the free milk, you are playing the cow. You are taking advantage of that person's emotional vulnerability.

Just because that person is a willing participant in the devaluing of their time and energy through their involvement with you doesn't let you off of the hook in terms of your participation in it. Just my humble opinion.

If everybody involved is getting what they want in an honest and frank exchange of "ideas," (so to speak), then no harm, no foul. There's no "play" going on there.

I cannot ERE forum internet date you, Triangle. I am ERE forum internet married to Lila Orchid. She asked first. But thanks for asking!

[Spartan_Warrior]

Spartan (although I'm not sure of his current relationship dynamics)

It's quite irrelevant to the topic, since I'm not soliciting relationship advice, so no worries.

If the person with whom you are involved is not getting a decent, desired return on their investment, why is that person continuing to pour their precious assets, energy, life into you?

Wait... so if I don't want someone to get any of my assets when a relationship ends, that person isn't getting a "decent return on their investment"? I hope I'm misunderstanding you, otherwise that's the most blatant display of gold-digging ideology yet...

When I was younger, prior to being married, I was involved with a guy who didn't reciprocate my emotional intensity, involvement or desire for a future together...

I just realized something. You and probably some of the other angry irrational posters seem to be projecting their emotions from previous relationships with men who didn't want to marry them onto any man who doesn't want to get married. That explains all the vitriol.

@henrik: That sounds like a reasonable arrangement. Where do you live?

[Spartan_Warrior]

I know why I didn't get myself into these situations. I voted with my feet. JohnnyH, Spartan, Triangle, it's a shame you didn't know me when I was 22. I would have solved this dilemma for you quickly, kindly and without remorse. That whooshing! sound you hear in my wake is the door that never touched my butt when I was on the way out.

Yes, yes, we know. Men concerned about risks to their assets in a divorce are horrible partners. Haven't heard that one in this thread yet.

[BecaS]

Wasn't talking about money, Spartan. I was speaking of emotional needs and/or lack of congruency in life plans. Don't worry, I'm not (nor would I ever) have come after you for your Big Pile O' Cash, real or imagined, actual or potential.

[BecaS]

Oh BTW, WHOOSH! Life calls. Interesting thread. Thanks to all who participated. Carry on!

[secretwealth]

@secretwealth:

I find it amusing how much value you place on political correctness versus actual correctness. However, what about "the way I said it" did you find so offensive? As I stated, I thought my comments in this thread (up until it became about gangbanging me) were rather measured and impassive compared to some of the blatantly judgmental, bitter, emotional, and misandrist responses it generated. (Not to mention the merely frustrating off-topic responses... like yours.)

Again, just for the record--I'm not offended by anything I've read in this thread, either written by you or anyone else.

And I'd like to emphasize: I'm happy to stop posting off-topic responses if people stop misunderstanding my position/emotions in this discussion (hint: I have none, as I've already stated).

[GandK]

@GandK:
... if I can show that my 401k had X amount before marriage, then I continued contributing to it after marriage, would the entire value be split, or merely the value minus X?

Value minus X, in the scenarios you mentioned.

[LiquidSapphire]

OMG do I even dare tiptoe in here?

So for the record I am a 30 year old semi-retired ERE style woman in CO. I'm divorced, considering marriage with another guy who has a 4 yr old kid with a spendy ex. So I feel perhaps I have a unique perspective.

So my divorce went fine and the keys to that were the following: entering and exiting with similar asset levels, no kids, separate finances, and not caring about "stuff" aka who got the couch. Neither of us gave much of a shit. I did tell him he better not even think about touching my 401K or my pension or I'd fight him to the bitter end. He didn't. I don't think he was entitled anyway. And I hadn't even discovered ERE yet then

OK can I get on my soap box about Child Support? What a blasted RACKET. Let me tell you our little story about CS. When Boyfriend got divorced, ExWife was so happy to have full custody that she agreed to not ask for CS at the hearing. Both got up in open court and said this. Also at the time of the hearing boyfriend was unemployed. Done deal, right? NOOOOPE. Judge says that that is unconscionable and slaps Boyfriend with $300/mo in payments. That the ex didn't want anyway. Well he didn't pay her, she didn't want it, it was a formality right? NOOOOPE. 9 months later she calls him up and says, "I want you to start paying CS, I want to visit my sister in Europe." I SHIT YOU NOT. He pays her now. This is when I first started hating this woman. Now that boyfriend is gainfully employed and all, had we run the formula/spreadsheet nowadays, he would owe over $1000/mo to this woman. what? He only makes $67000/year. and that doesn't even include child care, which he would also be on the hook for paying like 75% of. The reason it's so high is because he makes more than she does and she has full custody. You have to have over 1/3 of the overnights to make a dent in the custody and even at 50/50 he'd still pay a serious chunk of change to her, because of the income differential. Now, this kid does NOT consume $1000 of food, shelter, and incidentals. So I agree that the way CS is set is total bullshit and lame and I hate it and it sucks. I can take good care of a 4 year old for way less than that.

So we're thinking about getting married in spite of all this. Why aren't we married yet? Well I have an irrational fear that she's going to attempt to get her grubby hands on my time/assets, and I want no legal responsibility for her child. I don't mind helping out, but I want it to be my choice, not because of some stupid arcane law or whatever. And yes, I'm afraid of divorce wiping me out. It's true that premarital assets are yours. However, APPRECIATION of those assets are, well, marital assets after you marry unless you get a prenup or trust or what not. So I have $300,000 upon marriage, that appreciates at 7% a year until 10 years from now it's worth, I don't know, let's say $600,000. Yeah the first $300,000 is mine. And the remaining $300,000 is OURS unless I do fancy legal footwork. Goes for houses too, they appreciate, don't you know?

So at that point, you start to wonder, why are we doing this marriage thing anyway???? And the only reason I would get married is emotional. I want to know we're committed. And I want to know we're in it together. And I'm starting to think I can get those things by just buying a house together and going on a great hike somewhere and saying some lovely words to each other while we're alone rather than getting married. So I don't think I'm getting married. It helps that I do not want kids. I have no idea how I'd feel about it if I had kids.

OK I'd like to say 2 more things without getting my head chopped off pretty please.

Wanting an untraditional life with a traditional woman but securing that in a nontraditional way... yikes, tough find but you know what, you're only looking for one person and she might be out there. If she's on board with the ERE thing, she might be on board with the no marriage thing.

Oh and also - my boyfriend is totally fine with a prenup/trust/whatever. Totally fine. Mainly because I've framed it as "I want to protect myself from your crazy ex" and he understands that argument. He's an INTJ though. Maybe just go find yourselves an INTJ woman, eh? It also helps that I am willing to lose some assets in joining our lives together. Maybe not all of them, but yeah, some. I just love him that much. Maybe once you meet the right person, the trust comes with it, along with the willingness to potentially sacrifice. I don't know. Just saying.

[henrik]

A question to those who've made elaborate claims that asset sharing = real commitment.
If you cannot trust your partner to stay and take care of you in need without the law enforcing financial liability up front, then is it not perhaps you who is having trust and commitment issues?

@Spartan-- I'm in Estonia.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@LS: Thanks for posting that little horror story. Great examples confirming pretty much every single one of my concerns, from (debatable but IMO fairly obvious) gender bias to irrational child support payments ($300/mo out of a $0/mo salary! ).

Also, I didn't even think about appreciation! So even if I go into marriage with my full ERE nest egg already earned, if there's a divorce after ten years I would only get back the original principal and half of the earnings over that time frame, so it would still be a huge loss after inflation--and my retirement plans would still be pretty much killed. Ugh. So much for waiting for retirement before marriage as a hedge against these risks.

By the way, I miss seeing you around these parts lately. Hope all is well!

@henrik: Good question.

[Avni1]

To those proposing an exclusion of assets earned pre-marriage, How would this work in the following scenarios?

X marries Y. X is 10+ years older and has the ERE stash already, has downshifted and will be low income for the forseeable future. Y just got their first real job and is only just starting their asset accumulation. In the event of a divorce, X's assets are excluded but Y's are fair game (since they were earned during the marriage)?

Or - some years later, X starts dabbling in real estate and makes leveraged bets using the ERE stash. The housing market blows up and X is now massively in debt. Y, through marriage, is now on the hook and likely to be the one who will pay it off since X's earning potential is severely compromised by all that time out of the workforce. So should Y be consulted on investment decisions X makes with the ERE stash since it affects them? If so, doesn't Y reasonably deserve a share in the risks and rewards that go with it?

The possibilities for things going one way or the other in a marriage that lasts 30/40/50 years are limitless. Only the very boring (AND very lucky) indeed can project what will happen over that timespan. The financial inter-mingling from day zero only makes explicit what is implicit in any marriage I would consider entering i.e. you're marrying me, my extended family, all my baggage from the past and all my choices from today on (and therefore have a say in it).

Again, I have no issues with people arranging their unions differently.

A

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Avni: I agree, both of those situations are examples of how marriage introduces uneven financial risk. I like your first scenario since it allows me to actually run some numbers.

Based on the understanding I currently have--and let me be clear, I am in NO WAY presenting these opinions as fact--if X enters the marriage with 500,000 in assets, and adds nothing to it but appreciation at 4% (assuming a 3% SWR and an actual appreciation of 7%), and Y enters the marriage with 0 in assets but adds (let's say) 25k a year to a nest egg, also appreciating at 7%, then after a ten year marriage their assets would look like this:

X would have $745,416.
Y would have $362,639.

Source: http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/financ ... ulator.php

Since X started with 500,000 that initial amount would be sheltered, so X would have accrued 245,416 that would be fair game for splitting in divorce. The total of their "marital" earnings would thus be 608,055--which, presumably, would be split in half, allowing each individual to walk away with $304,028 of the shared assets. Y loses out on 60k for no real reason.

Again, I agree, that is not fair.

It's also interesting to think about how this would look if X continued adding even 10k a year from side ventures or excess appreciation. Then at the end of 10 years, X would have 868,484, or 368,484 in "marital" earnings--about 6,000 more than Y's, so it would be a wash and no one would really lose out. Or, maybe Y only saves 20k a year. Then suddenly Y only has 290,041 in marital assets at the end of 10 years, and therefore any splitting of the marital assets would benefit Y unfairly.

If anything this just proves to me how arbitrary and unfair these laws actually are, in practice. And makes me even more inclined toward a "what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours" attitude.

Do these "separate finance" marriages that Brazil and Estonia allow exist in any shape or form in the U.S.? Or is it always up to the arbitrary decision of a divorce court after the fact?