Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
BecaS
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by BecaS »

IIRC, Spartan, we used Costco for glasses for the kids. It was the cheapest alternative we could find that participated with our vision insurance. Cost often depends on the prescription. We still use Costco for my husband's glasses.

Part of the increased consumption and higher costs associated with children over adults is that the child, and the situations one is trying to correct/treat, are always changing.

It's not as simple as sending off for a new pair of glasses because OOOPS! you sat on the last pair. The prescription changes as the child grows, as his head grows and his eyes grow. So you can't simply replace the glasses. It's off to the optometrist or, depending on the shape of the child's eye and the rate at which his eyes are changing, perhaps an opthamologist.

And it's not the cost of the individual pair of shoes. It's the cost of the shoes x 2 EVERY FIVE MINUTES.

Of course not one of these things will derail an ERE plan, nor will any one of these things consume $12k/year. But these ongoing monthly costs can easily mean that the kids consume the vast majority of a monthly budget.

I'm betting that if your mom would have a slightly different recollection of the routine childhood illnesses than you and your sister. :) You see it from your individual (and non-responsible) perspective. She sees it from a more global perspective.

We haven't even talked about chicken pox and pink eye and all of the other stuff. :)

My kids weren't particularly sick. Ear/throat construction (two rounds of ear tubes with some other surgical alterations) contributed to a lot of the upper respiratory stuff.

Asthma runs in my family and one of my kids was unlucky enough inherit a pediatric/exertional version of it, along with my seasonal allergies. That complicates upper respiratory stuff as well.

Otherwise the boys were exceptionally active and athletic.

The point is that we are quite typical- these are not exceptional situations nor exceptional costs.

JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by JohnnyH »

Thanks for the reply, Beca, I replied over in the ERE Kids thread.
BecaS wrote: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.
This is where the disconnect comes for me... I don't know that I'll "never be willing to give" marriage. I'm unsure, unconvinced, not sold -that is why we are dating. Right?

It just seems girls are waiting to board the marriage boat within months... Then I start to feel that "milk for free" monster status pressure from her and society in general... I have not ruled out marriage and I am not purposely taking advantage of her... It's just I'm a catch damn it and I need to be wooed! She needs to demonstrate that she is worthy of my life...

Lol, I'm sure that riled many here up and before you reply I SHOULD need to prove the same to her. But most girls I date seem to be in such a rush (biological clock?) that they think simply showing up without a penis makes them worthy of marriage. And the concept that marriage is now a 2 way street, where both have to demonstrate value seems foreign... lol, I blame Jane Austen.

Triangle
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:37 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Triangle »

BecaS wrote: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.
Let me get this straight:

* I don't want to get married
* I don't think I'll ever change my mind
* The girl thinks I'll change my mind
* ???
* It's my fault and I'm "drinking the free milk"

Unless I actively lie to this person, or have made a promise in the past, how am I at fault for her unrealistic expectations?

And I don't see how "dating" is an implicit promise that one day we'll get married. Even if I never tell the girl I don't like the concept of marriage per se, and continue dating her, I think it isn't my fault if she expects this because society tells her that is what happens. If we talk about it I'll tell her the truth, of course.

JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by JohnnyH »

@Triangle: BecaS did say this "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."

Which is good... But I am less decisive than you and haven't ruled out marriage. There's this unspoken rule that you either need to get married or break up; right away or the the male is perceived and treated as a some kind of lecherous monster sucking the vitality out of eligible, innocent young girls.

BecaS
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by BecaS »

JohnnyH, women want a promise of marriage within MONTHS of dating? MONTHS? No wonder you guys are balking!

Months are hardly long enough in most situations, in my opinion. Of course there are exceptions. Some people recognize a life partner immediately.

Taking your time in choosing a life partner is wise, IMHO. Taking your time to get to know a life partner before signing the contract is wise. Heck, taking your time to get to know *yourself* is probably the wisest thing of all.

And yes, marriage *is* a two way street, and the value that both parties bring to the contract needs to be conveyed and appreciated, regardless of gender.

Triangle, sort of. It's more of a personal ethics thing for me. No, you aren't lying to the girl (or the guy.) But by initiating/cooperating/continuing any sort of intimacies with her, you are participating in feeding a continued connection between the two of you. Each of you has a different agenda for that connection. If you know that she (he) wants something more or something different than you, something that you will never give- it is, in my opinion, taking advantage of her (his) emotional vulnerability to continue to accept intimacy from her (him.)

It doesn't matter that you in specific are not the source of any girl's unrealistic expectations. If you participate in an intimate relationship with a woman when you know that she wants marriage and you don't, you are feeding her emotional connection to you, even if that's not your intent. That's a loaded emotional connection if she wants something out of it that you do not. It is, in my opinion, keeping a false hope alive under the pretense of intimacy, an intimacy that means something different to each of you. The problem arises in that you intersect each other's lives, expectations, hopes, dreams, futures, in that very intimate space.

One could say that discordant expectations of marriage should not influence physical intimacy, nor should physical intimacy influence expectations. I don't think this is true. Intimacy is... intimacy. Otherwise we'd give it freely to strangers and it wouldn't carry the emotional weight that it often does.

Of course there are exceptions- some persons in some circumstances are physically intimate without emotional expectations and hopes (realistic or not.) I would say that usually, those parameters are as clearly and as carefully conscribed as the parameters surrounding intimacy with the objective of enshrining a permanent (monogamous) and emotional relationship such as marriage. (Of course this is speaking of marriage in the context of an emotional relationship rather than as a legal/financial contract.)

Just my opinion. I haven't dated in decades. Heck if I know how it works now. For all I know, the parameters are totally different.

secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by secretwealth »

I think it really depends on whether the man tells the woman that he's not interested in marriage or a serious committment. If he doesn't make this explicit (or, worse, lies), then BecaS is clearly right. But what if the man has made it clear that he wants nothing more than, to use the metaphor, free milk? Isn't it her personal responsibility as an adult to decide whether to accept that or move on?

I think BecaS would agree (let me know if I'm off track here) that, in that situation, the man isn't really at fault.

BecaS
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by BecaS »

Secret Wealth, I do agree. If the man tells a woman clearly that he isn't interested in marriage, isn't likely to change his mind no matter what transpires in terms of intimacy, and the woman, fully well knowing that, is intimate with the man on those clearly state terms, then she has accepted those terms.

It gets a little fuzzy for me when either person realizes that they are in an ongoing intimate relationship and that the emotions involved are lopsided, and that the individual hopes and aspirations for the future of this relationship are not congruent.

I'm dancing all around the words here, trying not to be too specific or too broad. The easiest way to say this is that if one person is in love and the other one is not, it's sort of cruel for the emotionally unaffected person to keep partaking of the intimacy offered by the person who is in love. Even if that intimacy is freely offered by the person who is in love, it's sort of cruel for the person who is not in love to keep drinking from that well.

In a perfect world, the person who is in unrequited love will find his or her center, pull himself/herself together, raise his/her own stock value between his/her ears, and move on.

I know that earlier in this thread (I think in this thread, geez, this is a monster thread with a million tentacles) I referred back to a relationship in which I was involved when I was very young, a relationship that was emotionally asymmetrical. Contrary to what I said above, I'm glad that I ended that relationship rather than my partner ending it. The process was painful but I gained strength from it, and clarity. I'm glad it happened and I'm glad it ended the way it did. This contradicts what I just typed. I know that. Having gone through that situation however, I would not recommend to the emotionally detached partner that he/she wait for the person in love to "snap out of it." Per above, I think that's kind of cruel. Also, emotions can be unpredictable things. In addition to moral/ethical hazard, there are all sorts of hazards involved in playing with hearts and minds.

Also, per above, my husband and I are the poster children for Conscientiously Used Birth Control FAIL. That could be a really awful situation for everyone involved if she was in love with you and carrying your child, but the feeling was not reciprocated. I'm sure that it happens all the time, but I can't imagine a more emotionally challenging situation for all parties involved.

Wow, the places this thread has gone!

riparian
Posts: 650
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:00 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by riparian »

I was gonna come back to this thread but I can't really even wrap my head around it now.


workathome
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by workathome »

MORLOCK EAT ELOI

owlet
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by owlet »

lilacorchid wrote: FTR: I find this whole thread to be really odd. Perhaps I hang out with weirdos, but I don't have one girlfriend who married for money or tried to rip off her husband in their divorce. Is there something I'm missing? Can't you guys get a prenup in the US and render all this null?
Me,too. Odd and gross.

Devil's Advocate
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:25 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Devil's Advocate »

The filial-responsibility-law thread set me thinking of alimony. For obvious reasons.

I was thinking of starting a thread on alimony, but I searched first, and came up with this year-long discussion. Haven't read all 12 pages of it (yet), but thought I'd bump it up.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10706
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Divorce law/precedent varies a great deal from state to state. Alimony is not very common any more. Unfortunately (for me), I have heard (been forced to listen to over coffee or Thai food) many divorce financial horror stories from middle-aged men I have dated. The worst-case scenarios generally involve inherited assets and/or choosing to have a second batch of children when middle-aged and at peak of income. At first I was sympathetic when I heard these stories, in part because I could honestly say "I didn't even hit my EX up for child support!" because I am so "good" and self-sufficient (wimpy and prideful), but now I just think it is idiotic and lame for somebody to complain about the end results of entering into a contract without understanding its ramifications.

Also, I recently broke-up with my second "husband" to whom I was not legally married (because he suffered financial ramifications in previous bad divorce) and I took NOTHING away with me and he is still complaining/implying all over Facebook that I am somebody who did not understand the concept of "mutual giving." IOW, sometimes it really is about the money when it comes to divorce but almost always it is about the loss of power or control. Of course, the ability to happily, healthily live on $8000 a year can be as great a power as having $1,000,000 in assets.

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

but now I just think it is idiotic and lame for somebody to complain about the end results of entering into a contract without understanding its ramifications.
According to this thread it's also idiotic and lame (and "odd and gross", misogynistic, misdirected attention, etc) if men contemplate the ramifications of the contract beforehand, too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but what else is new? I AM a man. :D

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by GandK »

7Wannabe5 wrote:Also, I recently broke-up with my second "husband" to whom I was not legally married (because he suffered financial ramifications in previous bad divorce) and I took NOTHING away with me and he is still complaining/implying all over Facebook that I am somebody who did not understand the concept of "mutual giving."
:-( That sucks. Not only that he takes that stance, but that he's airing all his so-called dirty laundry on FB.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Dragline »

Hmmm -- does he have a "L" in the middle of his forehead?

Devil's Advocate
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:25 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Devil's Advocate »

One thing I have never understood : Why is the size of the divorce settlement made out to be a function of the higher-earner's income/wealth? (I say "higher-earner" here, rather than "ex-husband", to keep my comment gender-neutral.)

I can understand it if the settlement amount were made a function of the stay-at-home's opportunity cost. I can also understand it if it's made a function of the shadow price of services rendered (a la M&A computations).

But how does it make any kind of sense to make it a function of, all things, the higher-earner's wealth and/or income? (That figure may conceivably form a ceiling : but beyond that why should it figure at all in the computation of the settlement amount?)
Last edited by Devil's Advocate on Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Devil's Advocate
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:25 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Devil's Advocate »

One thing I have never understood : Why is the size of the divorce settlement made out to be a function of the higher-earner's income/wealth? (I say "higher-earner" here, rather than "ex-husband", to keep my comment gender-neutral.)

I can understand it if the settlement amount were made a function of the stay-at-home's opportunity cost. I can also understand it if it's made a function of the shadow price of services rendered (a la M&A computations).

But how does it make any kind of sense to make it a function of, all things, the higher-earner's wealth and/or income? (That figure may conceivably form a ceiling : but beyond that why should it figure at all in the computation of the settlement amount?)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 10706
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Spartan_Warrior said: According to this thread it's also idiotic and lame (and "odd and gross", misogynistic, misdirected attention, etc) if men contemplate the ramifications of the contract beforehand, too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but what else is new? I AM a man. :D
Obviously, I am not qualified to offer great advice on this topic since my current take on relationships is along the lines of "Admit total failure, give up and become a pumpkin-lady-library-nun." However I will share an anecdote which I would share with my S25 if he were ever in any way inclined to seek me out for relationship advice.

The worst financial divorce story I ever heard was what happened to an ex-BF of mine. He had a fairly high income job and owned his own home and a couple rental properties. Then his parents died within a few years of each other and he inherited a good deal of money from them. Then within six months of his inheritance his wife sued him for divorce and one of his tenants sued him for black mold. He ended up having to trust a younger sister to hold some money in trust for him or he would have been almost completely wiped out. I met him a few years after this happened and although he was 90-something % certain that he never wanted to marry again he was reconsidering the matter because of something that happened to his best friend. His best friend lived with a woman for 10 years and never married her. Then she was offered a very good job in Alaska. So, the reason why he was reconsidering the possibility of marriage was that he "never wanted to have to give the woman he loved a ride to Alaska."

Spartan_Warrior
Posts: 1659
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am

Re: Marriage? With a sub-section for women marrying down

Post by Spartan_Warrior »

@7Wannabe5: :lol: Heartwarming. I guess he'd prefer giving the woman he loved a ride to Alaska--with half of his worldy possessions again!

The idea that marriage somehow prevents or hinders the dissolution of a relationship is another of the long-running fallacies in this thread. Seems to me that a woman who would end a relationship with a man because of a job offer probably doesn't love him whether she's married or not. I doubt the marriage would have stopped her from taking that ride to Alaska; it just would have given her license to take the guy for a ride through "family" court on the way.

Cynicism aside, was there another message in that story that I was supposed to take away other than that most women still demand marriage as a condition of long-term commitment? I'm well aware of that (tragic) fact, lol.

Post Reply