Divorce corp

[kev374]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]Select spouse carefully.

Stay married.[/quote]

I agree but the process is lopsided.

Marriage is too easy compared to divorce. The careful selection part is not encouraged.

There are vested interest in making marriage easy but divorce difficult.[/quote]

way too many women want to get married on the fast track due to their biological clock

way too many people want to jump into marriage because they don’t want to be lonely and the woman gives ultimatums of break ups if they do not marry them within their fixed time frame

[NotCranky]

Men with cats meet more good women than men with dogs. I would say it is the choice of pet that really matters.

[scaredyclassic]

Obey Tg’S third law, never get with a woman who has horses.

[scaredyclassic]

There are no good decision, just terrible or utterly disastrous take your pivk

[scaredyclassic]

We have always told our boys never to bring home morons. I think they get it.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter]

Most married people fully understand what “faithfulness” and “adultery” mean.

As for the issue of fault in a divorce, each couple should have to decide for themselves what they are willing or unwilling to accept in marriage. I think an argument could be made that all people should have to sign a contract of sorts before getting married.[/quote]

People fight over all kinds of stuff not just sex outside of marriage.

Is watching porn all time being unfaithful? How about fantasizing in your mind only?

I’m not sure what kind of contract you have with your husband but if it’s like a promise to have dinner together at least 3 times a week, and not watch tv more than 20 hours per week, the terms are likely unenforceable in court.

I think that writing those conditions down on paper might exacerbate any disagreement because it sets the stage for an adversarial contractual rather than a give and take “growing and changing together” relationship.

One spouse could easily take the stance that whatever is not convered by the contract is not part of the deal.

Btw, could you post a sample contract so that we can learn?

[scaredyclassic]

Defining sex is critical.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t find CAr’s comments to be feminist at all.

A true feminist would want full equality and full liberation from the oppression of traditions.

CAr wants cultural preservation and the perpetuation a certain perceived “wholesome” way of life. She wants to punish adultery because she views it mainly as a male issue. In the process, she’s willing to throw her real feminist sisters under the bus.[/quote]

I gotta agree with this. It’s some the most anti-feminist garbage I’ve ever read. My feminist grandmother (who would be 114 now) is vomiting in her grave.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]

Most married people fully understand what “faithfulness” and “adultery” mean.

As for the issue of fault in a divorce, each couple should have to decide for themselves what they are willing or unwilling to accept in marriage. I think an argument could be made that all people should have to sign a contract of sorts before getting married.[/quote]

People fight over all kinds of stuff not just sex outside of marriage.

Is watching porn all time being unfaithful? How about fantasizing in your mind only?

I’m not sure what kind of contract you have with your husband but if it’s like a promise to have dinner together at least 3 times a week, and not watch tv more than 20 hours per week, the terms are likely unenforceable in court.

I think that writing those conditions down on paper might exacerbate any disagreement because it sets the stage for an adversarial contractual rather than a give and take “growing and changing together” relationship.

One spouse could easily take the stance that whatever is not convered by the contract is not part of the deal.

Btw, could you post a sample contract so that we can learn?[/quote]

Our agreement was designed specifically not to exacerbate disagreements. It’s not adversarial at all. To the contrary, it was designed to establish an understanding of what we can expect of our marital relationship. Most people don’t discuss these things, and that’s a big part of what causes so many divorces — when expectations are misaligned, and the the partners are unable/unwilling to communicate openly with each other.

You asked for a sample, so here goes. Don’t blame me for the length…you asked for it. 😉

……

Purpose: In
this Agreement, made in a spirit of mutual cooperation, we desire to define what our respective property rights are after marriage. We believe marriage is a lifelong commitment. A good marriage requires much sacrifice on the part of both spouses. Our current laws prevent spouses from making the necessary contributions to the family and marriage since they have to think selfishly to prevent themselves from being financially and emotionally devastated in the even of a divorce. Our beliefs and viewpoints are detailed in the Addendum to the Post-Nuptial Agreement attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1.

…blah, blah, blah…lists existing separate property and how future property will be categorized (inherited wealth belongs to that spouse, irrespective of fault, etc….Discusses how commingling of these funds will not constitute a change of character of this property into community property, etc…Both have had independent legal counsel, blah, blah, blah.

Exhibit 1:

Philosophy:

We believe marriage is a lifelong commitment. During the course of a committed (lifelong) marriage, many decisions are made which benefit the marriage and family, but would disadvantage a spouse in the event of a future divorce. A good marriage requires much sacrifice on the part of both spouses. Our current laws (no-fault, unilateral divorce, and lack of adequate spousal maintenance, etc.) prevent spouses from making the necessary contributions to the family and marriage since they have to think selfishly to prevent themselves from being financially and emotionally devastated in the event of a divorce. These laws encourage selfishness, and selfishness dooms marriage. We believe all “traditional” causes of divorce would not exist if not for selfishness. Therefore, we are attempting to create a document that will protect the spouses and children from the selfish acts of another. The spirit of this document is to protect and defend the marriage, and to avoid divorce by assigning negative consequences for grievous actions.

We believe marriage is a partnership where both spouses complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of marriage is to provide the best possible environment for the offspring of that couple. This often means that parents will provide different, but equally valuable goods and services for the family.

…We firmly believe that homemaking is as valuable as wage earning, and find our laws are often lacking in fairness and compassion when spousal support and retirement awards are made. We affirm that the greatest financial asset in a marriage is future earning capacity/income earning potential of the wage earner(s). We recognize that a homemaker’s contribution is front-loaded, and requires extreme, long-term self-sacrifice. It is also recognized that a person who devotes him/herself to the occupation of homemaking is permanently disadvantaged if he/she should re-enter the wage-earning workplace, since his/her lifetime earning capacity/income-earning potential is greatly reduced. It is recognized by us that our current laws put homemakers at a distinct disadvantage where “no fault” divorce is concerned. We believe homemakers should not be penalized for providing the extremely valuable service of caring for their families.

…We also recognized that the wage earner can be penalized for the homemaker’s immoral and unethical acts. “No fault” divorce leaves the wage earner vulnerable to paying alimony and child support to a spouse who commits adultery, physically or emotionally abuses him/her, or decides to leave, unprovoked. Half of the community property is lost to the spouse who was not committed to the marriage. The wage-earning spouse might have to pay, indefinitely, for a spouse who tore his/her family apart. We believe this is unfair and unethical.

With this agreement, we hope to create a marriage that has some safeguards for the spouse who has integrity and is committed to the marriage. Since we believe “no fault” divorce rewards immoral and unethical behavior, and puts a committed spouse in an unfairly vulnerable position, we jointly agree that , in the event of a divorce, we choose to adopt a “fault-based” distribution of assets. Although child custody cannot be determined in a nuptial agreement, we would prefer that the children also remain with the committed spouse, and that this spouse have priority where child custody is concerned.

For the purposes of this agreement, fault shall be based on one (or more) of the following:

1. Adultery during any portion of the marriage until divorce is finalized (period of separation considered marriage). There is no condonation. Adultery is defined as a romantic (emotional or physical) relationship with another person. This include romantic kissing or spending time with a romantic interest, to the detriment of the marital relationship. If it can be proved that adultery existed during the marriage, even if the divorce decree is final, the case can be appealed, and the offended spouse can claim assets based on fault.

2. Extreme physical abuse, documented by at least two police reports.

3. Desertion or abandonment of at least three months, where the abandoned spouse does not agree with the separation.

4. Extreme, continuous alcohol or drug abuse with the user being unwilling to attend counseling.

-Drugs: 1 or more weekly, average, and continuous for over 1 year.

-Alcohol: 5 or more drinks per day, average, and continuous for over 1 year.

5. Extreme emotional abuse. Defined as continuous, callous, knowing and malicious intent to hurt the other spouse. Continued for at least one year, and where the offending spouse is unwilling to attend counseling for as long as the problem continues.

6. Intentional and grievous actions which jeopardize the health and well-being of the family. Must be severe enough that life is considered intolerable and that the offending spouse cannot and will not remedy the problem or refrain from such behavior for the remainder of the marriage.

7. “Unilateral” divorce without one of the preceding factors as the cause. An exception to this can be made if the couple seeks counseling, at least once weekly for at least 18 months, and the counselor determines that one spouse is rendering life so intolerable that the counselor recommends divorce. Both spouses must agree upon the choice of counselor. If the counselor determines that the couple should divorce, the assets shall be distributed as in our “mutual consent” agreement.

At no time shall age, gender or physical attributes (height, weight, age, baldness, wrinkles, illness, etc.) be considered fault for purposes of this agreement.

[It goes on, but I will spare you the rest. Not edited for typos, etc.]

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t find CAr’s comments to be feminist at all.

A true feminist would want full equality and full liberation from the oppression of traditions.

CAr wants cultural preservation and the perpetuation a certain perceived “wholesome” way of life. She wants to punish adultery because she views it mainly as a male issue. In the process, she’s willing to throw her real feminist sisters under the bus.[/quote]

Wrong. I want to preserve *choice* for families. What’s right for one person/family will not necessarily be right for another. There is no moral judgement there.

Additionally, I don’t think of adultery as just a male issue. I know full well that women are guilty, too.

I’m a feminist, but also a realist who acknowledges that while men and women have equal value, they have different, complementary abilities and priorities at different stages of life. The law should reflect this.

And what goes for the man goes for the woman as well. I want ALL SAHPs (male and female) and income-earning spouses (male and female) to be protected.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t find CAr’s comments to be feminist at all.

A true feminist would want full equality and full liberation from the oppression of traditions.

CAr wants cultural preservation and the perpetuation a certain perceived “wholesome” way of life. She wants to punish adultery because she views it mainly as a male issue. In the process, she’s willing to throw her real feminist sisters under the bus.[/quote]

I gotta agree with this. It’s some the most anti-feminist garbage I’ve ever read. My feminist grandmother (who would be 114 now) is vomiting in her grave.[/quote]

While I agree that this can be interpreted as “anti-feminist,” please explain why you think it’s incorrect (garbage, as you say), and be specific about your disagreements. Please cite statistics, research, or some sort of evidence to back up your arguments.

It’s one thing to have strong beliefs and opinions, but quite another to think that these opinions constitute fact.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter] All too often, men take everything of value to a woman, and when it’s his turn to keep his end of the bargain, he backs away from the deal. It’s essentially a deferred compensation agreement, and alimony is a way to make sure that men fulfill their end of the agreement.
[/quote]

This sounds suspiciously like another type of commercial arrangement that occurs between certain men and women, just over a longer period of time…[/quote]

Absolutely. I’ll get flamed for saying this, but this “arrangement” has existed for all of known human history. It’s why it’s the “oldest profession” in the world. IMHO, it’s perfectly natural and normal, and the primary basis for male-female relationships going back for almost all of human history. It’s only “immoral” because we’ve been socially conditioned to see it that way.

Not saying that it shouldn’t change, or that I like it the way it is; but we have to work with reality as it is. Hopefully, the feminists (especially males) will create an environment where this won’t be the case…where women will be judged in the exact same ways that men are, and vice versa. Where very ugly, old, infertile, rich, obnoxious women can get the most desirable males. (Not holding my breath for that one, even though Kev seems to think we’re there already.)

Maybe, there will be a day when our reproductive biology and our sex can be separate, where men can have children and financial stability without women, and women can do the same (without having to worry about fertility, pregnancy, nursing, childcare, etc.).

We’re not there yet, though we are making some very slow progress.

[CA renter]

[quote=kev374][quote=CA renter]
The problem lies in the fact that a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is back-loaded. Women will often give up their most valuable assets (youth, beauty, fertility) to a man because there is an implicit and explicit understanding that her husband will contribute his most valuable assets (wealth/financial stability, power, social status) in the back half of the marriage. [/quote]

Utter feminist garbage and it’s absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

Youth, beauty and fertility – women demand these attributes of men as well. Women will refuse to marry men who they do not find attractive so why do you think a woman is getting a bad deal in terms of attraction? A woman expects a man to give her children so she expects fertility from a man as well. And a woman demands a man be as youthful as her so the expectations are same here.

The bottom line is women want it all AND MORE from a man. Not only do women demand youth, beauty and fertility from a man they ALSO in addition DEMAND financial resources whereas a vast majority of men will not expect a woman to have money IF she has beauty.[/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about. It is VERY common for some of the world’s most beautiful women to be married to much older, uglier men…but those men are almost always fairly wealthy or more powerful. It is very rare to see very wealthy men marry ugly, older, infertile women (*newly marry them,* not stay married to the women they were with when the men were not wealthy).

If everything between the sexes were the same, we would not see such disparate remarriage/marriage rates at older ages.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster.pdf

Why is it that older women who marry younger men are criticized (think about Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher and how she was criticized and belittled…while her ex-husband Bruce Willis married a younger woman with an even larger age difference, but we never hear a peep about that).

This is a PDF, so not sure if it will link properly, but for men and women over the age of 45, a woman’s chance of finding a new spouse is half that of a man’s:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthymarriageinfo.org%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D310&ei=FUjaUp23D9DzoAS6p4CABQ&usg=AFQjCNFGDVMcrzkWRhTAdZgoJEP4U9cdag&bvm=bv.59568121,d.cGU

……

In 2003, 7.0 percent of older men and 8.6 percent of older women were divorced and had not remarried. For divorced women, the probability of remarriage after age 45 is less than 5 percent

In 1990, 30 of 1,000 divorced women aged 45 to 64 remarried during the year, a decrease from 45 per 1,000 in 1960. A comparable proportionate decline is seen for remarriage among women aged 65 and older; 4 per 1,000 divorced older women remarried during 1990, compared with 9 per 1,000 in 1960. Divorced men, on the other hand, were more likely to remarry, although they also experienced declines in remarriage rates.

In 1990, 67 per 1,000 divorced men aged 45 to 64 remarried, a decrease from 97 per 1,000 in 1960. In 1990, 19 per 1,000 divorced
men aged 65 and older remarried, compared with 30 per 1,000 in 1960.

http://www.remarriage.com/Remarriage-Facts/65-and-older-and-remarriage.html

—————-

And the other posters are right, this is not a feminist stance; this is the stance of a realist. Again, I DO NOT LIKE THIS ARRANGEMENT, but that doesn’t change reality.

Also, while a man’s fertility might decline slowly over time, a woman’s fertile period is relatively short. Additionally, sperm is very cheap and requires very little effort from the man to produce it (for lack of a better way to put it); a woman’s contribution to the creation of new life is far, far, far greater. A single man can father thousands of children without even knowing it, while a woman knows every single child she has unless she was in some kind of a coma. The biological value of a child (and the child-making process) is very different for men and women.

[CA renter]

[quote=kev374][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]Select spouse carefully.

Stay married.[/quote]

I agree but the process is lopsided.

Marriage is too easy compared to divorce. The careful selection part is not encouraged.

There are vested interest in making marriage easy but divorce difficult.[/quote]

way too many women want to get married on the fast track due to their biological clock

way too many people want to jump into marriage because they don’t want to be lonely and the woman gives ultimatums of break ups if they do not marry them within their fixed time frame[/quote]

This is because that “biological clock” is a very real thing for women. With every year that passes, she is less and less likely to find a good mate and/or have biological children. This is not true for men.

And the reason women give that ultimatum is because they know full well (either consciously or subconsciously) that their most valuable assets are youth and beauty (and fertility). There is no incentive for her to be monogamous with a guy who is unwilling to commit to her after a reasonable period of time. It is to her great detriment to wait until he has determined that nothing “better” will be coming along (which is usually why the guy is unwilling to commit in the first place).

A man who expects a woman to spend her best years in a monogamous relationship with him, without any commitment on his part (marriage), is like a woman expecting a man to spend all of his current and future wealth on her without the expectation of a sexual/romantic relationship (possibly children).

Having said that, I agree that people need to do a far better job of vetting prospective mates. IMO, putting all your cards on the table and discussing expectations, beliefs, philosophies, etc. is imperative…and it should be done as early in the relationship as possible. That way, everyone’s interests are aligned, and everyone can make an informed decision about what they want to do.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]

While I agree that this can be interpreted as “anti-feminist,” please explain why you think it’s incorrect (garbage, as you say), and be specific about your disagreements. Please cite statistics, research, or some sort of evidence to back up your arguments.

It’s one thing to have strong beliefs and opinions, but quite another to think that these opinions constitute fact.[/quote]

Because I don’t think a woman’s main contributions to a marriage are youth, beauty and fertility. Or at least it shouldn’t be. I’d be a complete failure as a father if my daughter thought those were the best things she has to offer. Or if my son thought those were the important attributes when looking for a wife. I’m quite sure none of them would make a list of the top 10 for either of them.

[Author]

Posts