Who here wants to get married and why?

[BeExcellent]

What exactly are the benefits I'm getting from a woman by signing a marriage contract that I can't get from her outside of the contract? Nobody in this thread has answered this question....

See post #182 by ITDG. He gives a good list of what the value is.

I can tell you having been legally married it IS different. It just IS. It is a public declaration that you are formally forming a family and it is grants a status that has multiple social advantages described by Guru and BTC and others in this thread.

 

[guru1000]

Tenacity, some women will not agree with civil unions. These are typically (not always) the women who would make the best wives because of the massive social and biblical indoctrination they are culturally immersed in. So the day comes when you meet such a woman, but because you have this uncompromising stance of never marrying, she splits—and then you settle for the civil union with a girl who lacks the social and biblical indoctrination that might have made her better LTR material.

For this reason alone, I’m open to marriage. No reason other than this.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

So, after a brief skim through the thread, it seems that some think there are marriageable woman after all - the singular ones that have had their psychology and feminine nature preserved with a decent upbringing and all that.

Now, if someone can maintain this in the ideal, and then in reality treat women in the mass as a mere means to an end [sexual gratification] then how is that not contributing to the chaos and carnage in our culture... not to mention a cognitive dissonance in those concerned?? I'd say this reflects a fundamental split in a man's psychology, which can not bode well.

 

[Urbanyst]

Tenacity, some women will not agree with civil unions. These are typically (not always) the women who would make the best wives because of the massive social and biblical indoctrination they are culturally immersed in.

You keep saying this, but what EVIDENCE do you really have to support it?

This has been debunked by the fact that a woman living in the U.S. will become "Americanized" if they are under 30. I see women even older than that come fresh off the boat and become Americanized in a few years.

More blue pill fairy tales from you. Me and @Tenacity keep pushing this point and you avoid it lol.

 

[Masculinity]

If y'all looking to give away half of your stuff, just send me a private message before you get married. I'll be happy to take it all.

 

[guru1000]

You keep saying this, but what EVIDENCE do you really have to support it?

This has been debunked by the fact that a woman living in the U.S. will become "Americanized" if they are under 30. I see women even older than that come fresh off the boat and become Americanized in a few years.

More blue pill fairy tales from you. Me and @Tenacity keep pushing this point and you avoid it lol.

I’m literally surrounded by it, meaning dozens of my friends/acquantainces who grew up within and not within these cultures married into these cultures. This is my evidence. This is how intelligent people formulate opinions, based on observable facts.

Now show me your actual evidence to the contrary, as if you keep refuting evidence without counter-evidence, this makes you a fool. Simply stating you observed cultural women becoming Americanized without observing their marriage success rate is not evidence of the marriage success rate of these type of women.

 

[Tenacity]

Listen @Tenacity I understand where you are coming from. I get it. But here is what you must understand about WHY I am electing to this for him. There are a number of reasons why and here they are:

1. We have 3 minor children together. For the next 10 years some or all will be living in the parental homes and will require financial support. My youngest child has a physical disability, which increases costs to take care of her. My ex husband and I remain a solid team as co-parents and our children are extraordinarily well adjusted as children from a divorced home. After they all graduate high school I am the one paying for college. If we have children who live in the parental home while attending university I do not want them to experience undue hardship because of financial duress. So reason #1 is because this puts the children first.

2. My ex husband could have stripped me of 500K or more worth of cash, retirement accounts and income producing assets during our divorce but he didn't. My portfolio was worth around 1M when we split. Because he didn't strip the assets I have been able to double the portfolio due to opportunities that came along during and after the divorce and increase my net worth to over the 1M mark with assets around 2M. I see this as a gift. So I am going to support him because I recognize that he didn't clean my clock when he could have. I didn't have to recover financially from my divorce. That is worth a great deal to me and I think it deserves reward. Basically in not taking my assets in the short term I am going to use those assets to support him in the long term. I think that is a fair thing to do, and it gives him peace of mind that he will be financially OK as he ages.

3. My ex husband could have sued me not only for assets but also for spousal support and child support as he was the stay at home parent for more than 10 years while I traveled extensively on business. In not doing this I retain flexibility to ebb and flow according to my current income stream which varies a bit based on vacancy rates, client load, etc. So if I have a tight month where I have less income I'm not bound by a hard and fast court mandate to pay "X" amount.

4. My ex still assists me with my property portfolio a fair amount when I am gone on business. I trust him explicitly to handle specific tasks that I assign him. He was lazy in the marriage but he has proven loyal since and he understands that our financial fortunes remain tied together (although admittedly in a rather unconventional way) through the income properties. It is in his best interest to help me with managing assets that create the income stream that will support both of us in the long term.

And I'm not supporting him in some lavish lifestyle. Eventually the lifestyle I am able to enjoy will be at a different level than his, but that will happen over time. He will end up with a paid off home, a reasonably new car of his choice within reason, and a financial safety net for income and retirement. Do I have to do all this? No I don't. I just think given the gift I got out of the divorce in the sense of remaining financially intact I will do it to repay him. I got my million on the front end if you will. Because of that I'll be able to give him his on the back end over time from the residual income stream. I deeply appreciate his trust in me, his loyalty and how the divorce ended up (whether he did it for altruistic reasons or not, the result is the same.)

Okay so you are saying you are OK with paying this dude lifetime residual checks.....all because he didn't take you to the cleaners when he potentially could have? You see it as him doing you a "favor"?

Let me ask you a question. Isn't that like saying you have no issues going to court to testify letting the dude who broke in your house go free.....because he only stole the TV and some money in the drawers.....but because he didn't take the furniture, jewelry, keys to the second car, and other items..... then he "did you a favor" and thus, he should go free?

A chick isn't doing me a favor by settling out of court based on INEFFICIENT/STUPID laws BeExcellent. The laws should NOT be there in the first place to even allow her to implement them. Which is why I will never sign a Marriage Contract, I will never (ever) put my assets in jeopardy.

@BeExcellent can't you see that you got ripped off? How can you be happy about that? I don't care if there was an out of court settlement and the "damage" could have been bigger, there should not have been any DAMAGE in the first place! What the hell is wrong with your ex-husband? Can that lazy S.O.B. NOT go out and get a job?? How on Earth can you not be pissed off about that?

See post #182 by ITDG. He gives a good list of what the value is..

Nothing that dude listed is exclusive to a Marriage Contract. I can get everything outside of it by just deciding to reduce down my plates to 1 woman and "LTR" her, or get it from multiple plates.

Tenacity, some women will not agree with civil unions. These are typically (not always) the women who would make the best wives because of the massive social and biblical indoctrination they are culturally immersed in. So the day comes when you meet such a woman, but because you have this uncompromising stance of never marrying, she splits......

Let....her....SPLIT. I will kindly show her the door, or kindly order her an Uber, or kindly drive her to the Airport. Within 1 to 2 days I will have replaced her with another woman that is providing the same benefits the chick who just left was providing, which is sex, companionship, and some level of quality benefits. There's absolutely nothing special, unicorn-ish, or anything about any of these women on the market dude. It's all in your head. YOU are propping these chicks up to be special, when they are not.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

In my state, alimony is based on 3 things:

Length of marriage
Standard of living
Ability pay

Please note that nothing in those 3 things has anything to do with how good a spouse your ex was. They can sit on their azz and do nothing and still be eligible for alimony.

And if you are a good provider, it works against you. The more you improve yourself and earn more, the more alimony you pay.

Also, there is no limit on amount or length of years. There is no concept of a base living wage to limit the amount of alimony you pay. There is no concept of maximum length of time for your ex to become self sufficient.

What BE did (and it makes sense) is she reduced the amount of pain and contention she would face by settling out of court with her ex. However, she did that because she knew she would be totally fvcked in family court.

So, again, when you get married, you are placing yourself at potential risk, hoping that your ex doesn't take you to the cleaners. And even if they settle out of court and are reasonable, the sword of family law is hanging over your head and you still wind up paying more than you should .

-Augustus-

 

[guru1000]

Let....her....SPLIT. I will kindly show her the door, or kindly order her an Uber, or kindly drive her to the Airport. Within 1 to 2 days I will have replaced her with another woman that is providing the same benefits the chick who just left was providing, which is sex, companionship, and some level of quality benefits. There's absolutely nothing special, unicorn-ish, or anything about any of these women on the market dude. It's all in your head. YOU are propping these chicks up to be special, when they are not.

If the utility of women for you is only sex and companionship, then any woman will do. Why not just spend $100 on a low-grade hooker rather than bother with OLD? All women are the same, right? You'll have less emotional meltdowns, no? I'm being serious.

I, as an example, would like to have the same woman raise my children and have an intact family structure, among other reasons. Some men would like to be married for other reasons or benefits that they could not otherwise get outside of marriage. So if this were my and others' goal or let's just say we were open to this, then would we choose this woman among American women where the divorce rate is approx 40% or from a cultured woman where the divorce rate is 10%?

It's a matter of statistics. It's a no-brainer, hardly worth a discussion.

 

[guru1000]

@Augustus_McCrae , what you state is correct, if improperly mitigated. You do realize spousal maintenance and surrendered assets can be mitigated through a "fair" (as jurisdictionally defined) prenup? You also understand that setting aside a prenup is an exception (based on the strength of the contract and the protected spouse's handling of monies thereafter), not the rule.

It seems one side of the argument looks only at the risk, if poorly mitigated. The other side of the party looks at both the risks and benefits of getting married. The latter is how intelligent people make decisions, the weighing of the pros/cons, which best serve them.

One can cross the street and watch a car accident. And based on this decide never to cross a street again. Or one can learn to look both ways before they cross.

You were a victim of the family court and laws; we get it. We are teaching those who are open to marriage how to navigate the institution.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

It's either a Catholic girl for me... or the monkhood.

Better start going to Church if I want to get married.

 

[Tenacity]

If the utility of women for you is only sex and companionship, then any woman will do. Why not just spend $100 on a low-grade hooker rather than bother with OLD? All women are the same, right? You'll have less emotional meltdowns, no? I'm being serious.

I already asked this question 3 years ago lol: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/question-why-not-just-screw-escorts.222962/

I, as an example, would like to have the same woman raise my children and have an intact family structure, among other reasons. Some men would like to be married for other reasons or benefits that they could not otherwise get outside of marriage. So if this were my and others' goal or let's just say we were open to this, then would we choose this woman among American women where the divorce rate is approx 40% or from a cultured woman where the divorce rate is 10%? It's a matter of statistics. It's a no-brainer, hardly worth a discussion.

The children argument has merit, even though you technically can be a Father outside of a marriage contract. The chick might not "like it", but it can still be done with you and her in a relationship along with raising the kid, without there being any marriage tied in with it. Of course you will say no "quality woman" will go for that, which begs the question.....does she love YOU or does she love the "act' of being married?

Just this entire notion that a chick LOVES YOU to the point of wanting to marry you, but you say you don't want to say a marriage contract and all of a sudden.....her love vanishes? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

@Augustus_McCrae , what you state is correct, if improperly mitigated. You do realize spousal maintenance and surrendered assets can be mitigated through a "fair" (as jurisdictionally defined) prenup? You also understand that setting aside a prenup is an exception (based on the strength of the contract and the protected spouse's handling of monies thereafter), not the rule.

It seems one side of the argument looks only at the risk, if poorly mitigated. The other side of the party looks at both the risks and benefits of getting married. The latter is how intelligent people make decisions, the weighing of the pros/cons, which best serve them.

One can cross the street and watch a car accident. And based on this decide never to cross a street again. Or one can learn to look both ways before they cross.

You were a victim of the family court and laws; we get it. We are teaching those who are open to marriage how to navigate the institution.

I agree that if a person decides to get married they should do whatever they need to do to protect themselves via prenups/contracts, etc.

Also, your statement : "You were a victim of the family court and laws; we get it", Is an attempt to minimize what I've written here as being a personal agenda. That is false. The things I've stated are facts. One of the purposes of a forum like this is to educate other men, to perhaps make them aware of things they didn't know. That is why I've written about marriage and family law on this forum. And the things I've written about are not exclusive to me. They are built into the system.

How many men are truly knowledgable about:

Imputed income
Standard of living
The various types of alimony
That they might not be able to retire because the court deems that they have an ability to pay/earn that's greater than the income retirement would provide them?
That the income from retirement accounts Is considered under their ability to earn and is potentially subject to alimony they may have to pay their ex?

Also, consider that even if you put prenups in place, that does not prevent your ex from suing you. Just the fact that you're married opens up a potential pandora box of legal action she can attempt to pursue against you. Even if she has no real case, if she lawyers up, it will cost you time, money and grief.

And as you've stated: "one can learn to look both ways before they cross." Agreed. That's why I've posted here about family law.

-Augustus-

 

[guru1000]

Now there’s a strong post @Augustus_McCrae, as you tend to both, the con- and mitigation- sides of the argument.

Yes, your experience is valuable for the discussion. I agree. You state that an ex can sue you for anything outside of or even within the marital construct. This is true. The same bodes for any woman you could have a relationship with outside of marriage. Anyone can sue anybody for anything and effect expensive legal costs on both ends even if the case has no merit. I should know, as my business practices incorporate this as a method of negotiation.

So accordingly, what’s of even greater consequence is WHOM you marry or have a civil arrangement with.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

Now there’s a strong post @Augustus_McCrae, as you tend to both, the con- and mitigation- sides of the argument.

Yes, your experience is valuable for the discussion. I agree. You state that an ex can sue you for anything outside of or even within the marital construct. This is true. The same bodes for any woman you could have a relationship with outside of marriage. Anyone can sue anybody for anything and effect expensive legal costs on both ends even if the case has no merit. I should know, as my business practices incorporate this as a method of negotiation.

So accordingly, what’s of even greater consequence is WHOM you marry or have a civil arrangement with.

What I'm saying is that when you enter into a marriage contract , it exposes you to things you would not normally be exposed to. And the family court supports this legal action.

Some examples:

Alimony
Charges of misappropriation of marital assets
Charges of hiding marital assets
Potential charges regarding the handling of items from the equitable distribution schedule

You aren't exposed to the above if you aren't married. Also, a prenup probably doesn't protect you from some of those charges.

And again, the charges can be totally groundless. You still have to pay to defend yourself.

-Augustus-

 

[BeExcellent]

Okay so you are saying you are OK with paying this dude lifetime residual checks.....all because he didn't take you to the cleaners when he potentially could have? You see it as him doing you a "favor"?

Yes that's how I see it. My goal you see was to have enough passive income to be able to be at home with my minor children BEFORE they are grown and gone out of the house. So this introduces a time value. You as a finance guy understand the time value of money. My ex didn't cut my income engine in half during the critical mass phase of building the passive income stream and if he had I would not have recovered quickly enough to be able to be home and parent while the children were still here (which again was my goal.) In fact I have been able to double the portfolio as I mentioned. Half the portfolio = bad....Double the portfolio = good. My ex knew the reason I had built the portfolio and he didn't want to effectively take away my ability to afford to be able to be a parent in the home, something I had afforded him for many years. I gave up my early years of motherhood because I was the high earner after his business partner screwed him over. So for us its about the children, which you seem to discount @Tenacity.

What the hell is wrong with your ex-husband? Can that lazy S.O.B. NOT go out and get a job?? How on Earth can you not be pissed off about that?

He's not an ambitious man, which I didn't see when we married (he appeared to be). When we divorced he did own his own building and business that he had started after being a stay at home dad for many years. He foundered in that business for a number of reasons. As soon as we were divorced he sold his business and building and did get a job, where he continues to work today. But he doesn't earn what I earn. Not even close. His job at a school does afford my son access to a private education I otherwise could not afford, so that is a very real benefit for my son. My ex could always go back into the service industry and manage or bartend or etc. and make much more money but what he is doing now benefits our son and I'm happy to supplement his income because again, there are benefits to what he is doing.

@BeExcellent can't you see that you got ripped off?

I don't feel that way at all. My ex gave up his right to child support payments, to spousal support payments, and not only agreed to acquiesce regarding all the property (including the marital homes and ALL the income properties), he signed quit claim deeds that relinquish his ability EVER to change his mind and decide he got a raw deal and come back after me in our community property state. I am bullet proof where he is concerned. No way in hell I would have gotten anything anywhere near the settlement we worked out had I so much as stepped into a courtroom. The judge would have assumed my ex was too naive and stupid for his own good (because who would sign on for such a bad appearing deal?)

On paper he got an extremely raw deal. But what the deal did was allow me to retain ownership and control over all those assets so I could grow the portfolio and make sound business decisions as I saw fit. My ex lives in one of my houses at no charge except utilities that he pays. I pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance. If I choose to sell that house I can ask him to move to a different house or I can buy him something else. He can't argue about it or get in the way of me making financial decisions. He knows I'm not going to leave him homeless or destitute and that I'm a good business person and he understands the benefit in doing things the way I dictate. And make no mistake, I'm in a position to DICTATE, but I'm generous and we remain a team in many ways. I could leave my ex high and dry. My divorce decree allows that and my ex has no recourse if I were to go that route. But I'm not. I gave him my word.

Our agreement was crafted for specific reasons and is based on trust. Mostly on him trusting me. What do I care in 10 years if the portfolio has doubled again and throws off plenty of income that easily supports my ex and I? He's played ball my way, I have no desire to punish that. I'm worlds better at handling money than my ex. My ex knows this. I don't have the same "It's all mine" attitude as @Tenacity. I'll be comfortable, he will be comfortable, the kids see why we have done things as we have, they are well adjusted, everybody is happy. All WITHOUT court mandates prescribing to us how best to do things.

I left the marriage because of the stultifying laziness that came after his failed partnership with the nightclub. I learned over the ensuing years that I can't fix someone else, no matter how much I want to. All I can do is stay and put up with it...or not stay and not put up with it. I chose the later and it was the correct choice for all involved.

If at some point my ex is self sufficient to the point where he no longer needs financial means from me? He and I can chat at that time and decide then what is best. If he wins the lotto or marries some multi-millionaire then of course that changes the landscape substantially. But because the court has no say, I am not OBLIGATED in any way financially to him. I retained choice, control and autonomy as well as my financial assets. So I think I did fine after all.

 

[guru1000]

What I'm saying is that when you enter into a marriage contract , it exposes you to things you would not normally be exposed to. And the family court supports this legal action.

Some examples:

Alimony
Charges of misappropriation of marital assets
Charges of hiding marital assets
Potential charges regarding the handling of items from the equitable distribution schedule

You aren't exposed to the above to you aren't married. Also, a prenup probably doesn't protect you from some of those charges.

And again, the charges can be totally groundless. You still have to pay to defend yourself.

-Augustus-

Augustus, contracts do not have to be written to be enforced. Contracts can be implied with the "meeting of the minds" as the litmus test. Accordingly, within a civil union, some examples of legal allegations can be:

• Ownership of the home and other assets (implied ownership);
• Distribution of the home and other assets (implied ownership);
• Hiding of jointly held assets (with joint being implied ownership);
  
• Compensation for employment opportunities and asset appreciation lost.

The above was contrived in a few seconds. If I were to research the jurisidictional case law, regarding these specific implied contracts, I could actually build a serious case against another.

Point is ... you are never protected from an egregious litigator, whether married or not. And thus choose carefully WHOM you enter into a marriage or civil union with.

 

[BeExcellent]

And as much as a lazy man you guys might find my ex husband to be, here is the thing. With regard to choosing a spouse, notice something. I chose a man who did NOT screw me over. He could have and he didn't.

My ex chose a woman (me) who also will NOT screw him over.

For all our faults and for the fact that the marriage failed, we both at our core are honorable people, not selfish ass holes. So we managed to choose wisely in that regard at the end of the day, both of us.

That is the point of the discussion ongoing between Guru and Augustus. That is what men need to understand. For good outcomes the choice you make in a spouse is CRITICAL. Even though we are divorced, my ex and I have a good outcome when all is said and done.

 

[Bible_Belt]

the choice you make in a spouse is CRITICAL. Even though we are divorced, my ex and I have a good outcome when all is said and done.

Mine too. I think she is a good person with a good heart. I'm glad I was married, and now glad I'm divorced. All of us are the person we are because of our life experiences.

I'm not sure, for the thousands of pages of discussion of women on this web site, that I remember seeing the phrase "good heart." I have heard every other possible assessment criteria, I think, from credit score to hotness of her social media pics. No one looks at the little things that give larger clues about the type of person she is. Hell, guys who are stuck in the 'all women are evil' mindset will even argue that an accurate judge of a woman's character is not possible. If you believe that, then no you should not get married, for it will indeed be the disaster you fear.

 

[Urbanyst]

I’m literally surrounded by it, meaning dozens of my friends/acquantainces who grew up within and not within these cultures married into these cultures. This is my evidence. This is how intelligent people formulate opinions, based on observable facts.

Now show me your actual evidence to the contrary, as if you keep refuting evidence without counter-evidence, this makes you a fool. Simply stating you observed cultural women becoming Americanized without observing their marriage success rate is not evidence of the marriage success rate of these type of women.

Umm.. just because a marriage doesn't END.. that doesn't make it "successful" or happy.

How do you define a "successful marriage"? I would love to know lol.

I know a married couple where the husband sleeps in the basement. There is no sex and no love. The woman goes to church every week and is "traditional" born in Asia LOL. She wants a divorce but the guy doesn't want to lose his house and kids.