Early Retirement Extreme Forums

white belt wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:43 pm

I suspect the fear of losing "everything" in divorce is a <WL6 phenomenon, because after that point one realizes that there are other forms of capital beyond financial. Similarly, those who are pursuing traditional FIRE instead of ERE will likely feel more vulnerable to such risks.

Especially if cutting it close by the 4% rule as a combined household w/o the experience/skills to live on the same amount when single.

This came up today. It's not the first or only one.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this- ... 1648053167

Getting citizenship or residency in each others countries would be a big benefit, especially as mix-nationality relationships are becoming ever more common (and immigration laws becoming ever more tighter)

Edit: but I agree pre-nups are worth considering if there is a substantial asset differential between the spouces. Although the enforceability of such agreements varys between jurisdictions.

chenda wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:56 pm

Getting citizenship or residency in each others countries would be a big benefit, especially as mix-nationality marriages are becoming ever more common (and immigration laws becoming ever more tighter)

Actually this arrangement worked against me/us for multiple years (between 2006 and 2018). In an effort to prevent immigration via arranged marriages on the Danish side w/o violating various human rights legislation, lawyers came up with a rule that coincidentally excluded about 1000 expats and their spouses. It was not resolved until one of those expats was rich/influential enough to draw media/political attention at which the rules were changed to demand a work/educational resume that also not entirely compatible with FIRE. I know one other FIRE'd couple (different combination of countries) when one party had to work a BS job for 6 months even when they didn't need to in order to check a box on the blanket immigration forms. I realize this is nothing compared to the barriers that countries selectively throw up for most potential immigrants. It's more to say that getting married might actually be detrimental.

Riggerjack made an excellent post in the "Singledom vs Coupledom" thread.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:10 pm

This thread is all backwards. The cart before the horse.

If she isn't worth slaving away in a cube or on a ladder, 40 hours a week, for the rest of your life, dump her, and find the woman who is. This is better for both you and her. If she's not for you, then the reverse is also true, free her up to find her ideal mate.

If you aren't worth her dropping a career and living in a cave, van, or dumpster to be with, then you have a different set of issues to work on.

Finding the right partner is half the battle. The second half, that ends in victory and celebration. The first half of the battle is being the right partner, before you find her.

Economics is just a detail to work out, afterwards.

Having 2 people who are on board with each other's values and who love being around each other is so much more preferable to being single.

I'm not sure if I saw this on here or elsewhere. Great relationships>single>bad relationships. Too many people focus on the negative aspects without considering that there are benefits they are not seeing. It's the same with whether or not to have kids. If you are thinking too much about the negative aspects, it may be because you haven't found the right person yet, or you need to adjust your thinking.

theanimal wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:27 pm

Riggerjack made an excellent post in the "Singledom vs Coupledom" thread.

That seems like an rather high threshold.

@jacob yes I remember you telling me about that actually. I suppose the lesson is marriage is a legal contract, the risks and benefits have to be carefully considered.

@chenda- I don't disagree. But why wouldn't you have a high threshold for someone you plan on spending decades, the rest of your life with?

theanimal wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:43 pm

@chenda- I don't disagree. But why wouldn't you have a high threshold for someone you plan on spending decades, the rest of your life with?

Yes I agree...But it does reduce the options I think.

jacob wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:53 pm

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this- ... 1648053167

I think it's @arebelspy, who was present here.

He banned me on MMM on discussing some issue, well... it didn't turn out good for him but maybe .

But it does reduce the options I think.

That's the point. Options are everywhere. If one is hetrosexual, there are over 3 Billion options.

If one lacks for options, then:

The first half of the battle is being the right partner, before you find her.

One can only woo/seduce/beguile the right partner after that potential partner is found. Being the right partner is the work of a lifetime, and isn't dependent on finding. Getting the Being part right, makes the finding part easier.

If one is searching for a needle in a haystack, use a magnet. Or, in this case, be a magnet.

chenda wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:06 pm

But it does reduce the options I think.

For thousands of years people paired up with one of the few appropriate people in their tribe or village and stayed together for life. We are all offspring of those who had very few options and yet here we are. In other words, I don't think too few options is the problem.

I've yet to meet a man I'd work 40 hrs a week for the rest of my life for or live in a dumpster for. I'd find one of the other 3 billion options.

chenda wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:11 pm

I've yet to meet a man I'd work 40 hrs a week for the rest of my life for or live in a dumpster for.

Same here (with reversing genders), but for me the conclusion is to live alone and not to be in a random lukewarm relationship. It might be a matter of preferences - some people may prefer weak and flawed companionship to being alone. However, turning that companionship into a marriage is a bad idea IMO - sooner or later, it will be seriously tested (illness, money problems, diverging wants or just getting really bored of each other) and likely end up in a divorce.

The fact that I am unwilling to work 40 hrs./week (even for just 5-10 years!) to be with any man, and no men are willing to live 24/7 in a camper/dumpster lifestyle with me might be my essential conflict with monogamy.

OTOH, it was pretty easy to find 3 men willing to live part-time camper/dumpster lifestyle with me and/or semi-support me with their 40 hr. week CalorieKing lifestyles. So, polyamory for the win-win-win.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:51 am

So, polyamory for the win-win-win.

Yes I've deeply valued your writings on the subject 7, they have been very useful to me.

@zbigi - That's a good observation, I expect there may also be some residual social pressures from a time when singleness, especially for women, was a high risk economically and socially.

jacob wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:53 pm

Especially if cutting it close by the 4% rule as a combined household w/o the experience/skills to live on the same amount when single.

This came up today. It's not the first or only one.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this- ... 1648053167

I found this quote from the article particularly interesting:

Olson said that while he doesn’t think money had anything to do with the divorce, retiring early gave them time to explore and realize that they wanted different things.

“It very well could be the case that if we had just been going to our normal 9-to-5 jobs and…not really confronted with the existential questions that FIRE gives you of who am I, what do I want, what do I want out of life, we might have stayed together,” he said.

We've had a few discussions in the past about how one or both spouses early retiring can change a relationship dynamic enough to lead to divorce. I wonder if the FIRE divorce rate is lower, higher, or comparable to that of the general population?

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:51 am

So, polyamory for the win-win-win.

Among the fifty-some lab rats living in my building it is certainly becoming more popular. Will & Jada are apparently the most famous polys. I've witnessed three (strange, confusing, inappropriate, disproportionate) explosions of bottled rage among the polys here. Coincidence?

Ego wrote:Among the fifty-some lab rats living in my building it is certainly becoming more popular. Will & Jada are apparently the most famous polys. I've witnessed three (strange, confusing, inappropriate, disproportionate) explosions of bottled rage among the polys here. Coincidence?

Well, based on the overall impression you've given us of the residents of your building, I find this result entirely unsurprising. You can't successfully attempt polyamory until/unless you've otherwise mastered the task of being a decent human in an intimate relationship. Although my illness has currently made my daily default sexual mode celibacy, I am still in some level of relationship with 3 different partners I have now known for more than 7 years (!!!) Also, you have to be very freedom focused and in possession of some skills of diplomacy. I think you also have to have achieved the level of adult cognitive development that allows for perspective on the entire relationship system.

Jealousy is a problem, so you have to have the mind-set (also found in ERE, permaculture and other systems level models) that the problem can be the solution. To offer a conventional example; a couple that has been together for some while is out for dinner, one of them notices that the other is briefly checking out the waitress. There are several different mature functional ways to process the incident, and the polyamorous way might be to honor the energy and put it to work within relationship, maybe talk up the incident into a 3 way fantasy later that evening. Obviously, mature couple who have zero intention of actually venturing outside of monogamous committment will do this sort of thing too. It's roughly equivalent on a developmental level to breaking the fourth wall in a film or text, so indicative of the modern partnership marriage verging on the post-modern.

Anyways, I do feel jealous at times while practicing polyamory, but I tend to combat this feeling by focusing on my preference for the overall freedom the practice allows for me. Also, the fact that there is no way in heck that I would want to have several men all to myself.

I also think it might be fine to categorize modern polyamory as a facet of postmodernism i.e. as a reaction to the inherent power dynamic and abuse structure put into place by earlier patriarchal societies, which would then imply that the participants should "theoretically" be aware of the postmodern principles operating the system of the symbol stage it is derived from and embody them. This would theoretically mean that the participants understand as 7wb5 put it:

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:15 pm

You can't successfully attempt polyamory until/unless you've otherwise mastered the task of being a decent human in an intimate relationship.

I think extrapolating to that the participants need to understand "the problematic parts of traditional and maybe even modern relationships" and how to deconstruct them into something more complex that is less restrictive onto the participants, but carries its own inherent risks of complexity (because we all know that coordination of multiple people is very tough, and bringing powerful emotions into the mix isn't making it any easier), and on top of that, each actor needs to be very self-aware emotionally and understand how to process those feelings in a healthy-ish way.

I'm not the type of person who can manage this easily, so I tend to stick with one partner and try to manage it in a way that deconstructs and plays with power dynamics in a way that honors the relationship.

Supposition: Traditional monogamist relationships require solid [embodied+all emotions included] Kegan3 to work well. That is, you have to be able to see yourself through the eyes of your partner. Functional polyamory by extension would require solid Kegan4 in that it requires the ability to see partner#2's perspective of you flirting with partner#1 and vice versa and all the way around.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:15 pm

You can't successfully attempt polyamory until/unless you've otherwise mastered the task of being a decent human in an intimate relationship.

From what I've seen in my real life petri dish, those attracted to polyamory believe they are being decent. They just have a different definition of decency. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that they have an ideal of how they want to define decency and when faced with the reality of how it makes them feel, crisis ensues.

@jacob, seeing the #2 perspective is not enough. Being able to feel what they would feel is maybe a step further.

In all my years, I've never seen a couple with what appeared from the outside to be both a healthy relationship and an open one. Maybe it is because I see openness as a symptom of unhealthfulness. I could be wrong about that and continue to look for examples to prove me wrong. Up to now I have only seen it result in some really unusual reactions like the one at the Oscars.