Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
ParticipantYou can’t enforce any sex terms at all. Consent is still always required.
ParticipantLegalzoom.com says they’ll do your prenuptial for 995.00
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]Marriage is an anachronism. The whole concept should be abolished.
The industry should be deregulated. Government should get out of the way so people can innovate and create individualized contracts that work for them.[/quote]
My decision not to take the sole breadwinner path was in part because of the government, I wanted to be liberated from the things you guys are legitimately terrified of and from Carenters man v. woman society which I think is prehistoric fantasy and manipulation. It is so condescending the way she says, “men are coming around “, when there is something she likes. ….but I am not in complete disagreement with divorce law especially where kids are concerned. If you want to marry some weak foreigner or some plastic trophy wife, I think there would be lots of risk there, individual contracts would be cool, should be legal, prostitution is probably what you would get but legal and of a little longer term, cool….but if you find a modern woman who can stand on her own two feet , then you will be o.k. too. If you want the other stuff consider you are going to probably pay for it and get on with it….but you love your money too much…what would everyone think of you when the inevitable divorce rip-off occurs? How would you ever recover from your self-fullfilling prophesy of doom that your brotherhood loves so much? That would be worse than dealing with the stigma of being an unwanted man with dogs.[/quote]
I’m not sure I 100 perc. Understand that but I am 100 perc. In agreement with it.
ParticipantNo.
ParticipantOf course, marriage itself is no place for romantics.
ParticipantThere is something to be said for blindly jumping off a cliff into the unknown..
had I not gotten married and had a bunch of kids I’m pretty sure I would be more broke today.
Prenups, individual contracts, are as romantic as cardboard condoms.
ParticipantI knew I shouldn’t have reproduced and brought yet more people into this false world of illusion and suffering. Dammit.
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]Blog star, absolutely, people should have an array of choices to do what makes them happy.
You’re thinking self-fulfillment on an individual and family level. I’m thinking society in general, and policies and laws concerning marriage.
I believe a large number of women (more like a majority) want to be sahp and they want protection. It’s not really about equality in that men can do it too. Men who go about becoming homemakers and seeking provider spouses the same way women do will never make it.[/quote]
Seemed like your personal world view that the options with women are terrible I didn’t really see the policies and law context in your comments so much. Just a lot of naysaying and over exaggeration of how bad women are. I am surprised a progressive liberal doesn’t see all kinds of women they could potentially work with despite a potentially terrible system…almost seems like a hoax.[/quote]
women are bad, but only in the sense that people are bad. we are just kind of lame, weak, subject to major failures, blind, idiotic, shortsighted and dumb.
Participantthe national trend is toward some reform…endless payouts just don’t sit well with people’s feelings about equality, the potential to work and change and fairness…
really, getting married is such an incredible risk for so many high earners…to not get a prenup is just a sign that when one is in love, one is on drugs so powerful, mindaltering and fuckedup that heroin and cocaine might as well be tea and aspirin.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Which brings me to my next question…
If SAH spouses and alimony awards are “relics from days gone by” and no longer appropriate, would you agree that the tradition of a woman taking a man’s name and naming her children after him is equally inappropriate? After all, these traditions are carried forward from times when women and their children were the property of men. There is far less justification for this tradition than for alimony awards for SAHPs.[/quote]
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if my kids didn’t have my name. That custom is a relic.
If I get married, I will marry up the class ladder, not down, so the mom’s name would probably go farther.I like how the Spanish hyphenate names.
CAr, you like to point to Europe as an example. Did look at their attitudes regarding sex and marriage?
As far as our system here, it is what it is. People go in with their eyes wide open. I don’t have much sympathy if things don’t work out and they feel screwed.[/quote]
It’s easy to say that you don’t care about your kids having your last name because you’re unlikely to ever have kids. Ask most men out there, and they would most likely disagree with you, entirely. And try polling men to see how many would be willing to take the wife’s name so that the whole family can have the same last name and avoid the hyphen drama, altogether. I’d like to see the results of that poll.[/quote]
The hyphen drama. A play in one act by scarddycat.
People often tout the tax deducti in in real estate but yet never praise the deductibility of alimony.
Make the payment of alimony non deductible and the receipt of it taxed at 50 percent from dollar one and see if that curbs the divorce rate.
ParticipantUltimately, it’s not the deferred comp analogy that’s wring;; it’s the living the working spouse in to a compensation number that’s unfair.
As they say in the prospectus past performance doesn’t predict future results.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]
Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.
Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).
Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.[/quote]
I’m kind of persuaded. But kind of not. It has value but it’s also a form of consumption, being with children. While paying someone else costs money getting the opportunity to stay ho me has tremendous value to the SAH too. The work clearly has value but the deferred comp analogy fails in a way because the earning spouse is not some kind of machine or Corp. That necessarily keeps running and earning in the same way but is prone to breakdowns and the reductions in alimony often won’t reflect that because it would demotivate him to work work work work.
Would it seem absurd for the working parent to be compensated for the time lost she were able to spend with children because of work commitments? Since we are monetizing contributions, why not monetize sacrifices?
That said, I’m almost in agreement with you CaR.
It would all seem fairer if a worker could intentionally reduce their income. I mean sometimes people just wanna slow down and a deferred comp scheme you’ve envisioned puts the worker on the rat race treadmill forever! Any reduction is viewed as an effort to spite the ex. But maybe the worker is losing will. Or just can’t take it…
why must he keep going simply because of a past pattern?
Ach. The whole system sucks.[/quote]
Easy solution: stay married (or don’t get married/have children at all).
As for the wage earning spouse getting more time with the kids, I’d say that most modern custody arrangements give the wage earning spouse about equal time with the kids. It only seems fair that the financial interests be split equally, as well.[/quote]
this aren’t easy solutions. Two involves changing the past and one involves changing yourself.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=CDMA ENG]UCgal,
I don’t get it. You home school but they are attending classes as well?
Can you elaborate on the schooling situation?
CE[/quote]
Not UCGal, but based on her posts here, I believe her kids to to public schools.
I’m the one who homeschools (and scaredy, based on what he’s posted here). But since you’ve asked (maybe have an interest in homeschooling your own kids?), many homeschoolers’ kids participate in different sports and attend a variety of classes, both academic and creative.[/quote]
the last hyphenate goes part time to a charter school with kids who are home schooled half the week. The others got the full dose of family culture / edu. Jury is still out on the effects. One thing I can say is our adult kid seems really like hanging out and talking with us whereas I had to get far away at that age.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]
in my own personal, admittedly very limited experience,; kids really like to see their parents happy with each other. Not that that’s the only factor obviously. But they enjoy that a lot.so why be miserable. I think there’s always a way to get back to happiness if things don’t get too far off track. Moods change. Accept and tolerate.[/quote]
No doubt about that. Kids love to see their parents being loving toward one another. But I think that the choice outlined by SK is this: unhappily married parents in an intact home, OR divorced parents. Unless there is extreme abuse and/or constant, violent rages happening on a regular basis, I just don’t see how children would choose to live in a divorced family situation in most cases.[/quote]
I dispute that they have v to be unhappy. I refuse to accept the premise.
-
AuthorPosts
