Govt free marriages

[pittsflyer]

Women typically wont even deal with a married man because that woman can enter his life legally at any time. So if you want to be a celibate munk the rest of your life sure you can just live apart but good luck finding another woman to do that. I suppose you could just hire out your sex and live apart, now THAT might actually be viable.

This is what women think of married guys on dating sites or really most guys for that matter (see attached).

Well, no, just because the government provides for divorce is no reason to hold back from marrying. My goodness, they aren't going to URGE you to have a divorce!

And of course, its perfectly possible to have a government free divorce even if you're married. Just start living separately and filing taxes separately, the deed is done. Of course, in such a case getting another marriage might be an interesting challenge, but hey . . . just live together, right?

Don't look for me to indulge in such antics.

 

[Stealth001]

Ever meet a person who has been separated for years and can't afford a divorce battle? For them, the civil marriage system has become bondage.

 

[pittsflyer]

Yep, and most women are still able to get their sexual needs met even if they are not divorced. For men it is MUCH harder. The bondage is 10 fold for men.

Ever meet a person who has been separated for years and can't afford a divorce battle? For them, the civil marriage system has become bondage.

 

[ValleyGal]

Yep, and most women are still able to get their sexual needs met even if they are not divorced. For men it is MUCH harder. The bondage is 10 fold for men.

How so? Imo, there is no difference. From my viewpoint, most men view porn and touch and most women do not. How, exactly, do you think women are getting their sexual "needs" met?

And for those who can't afford divorce trials, there is always negotiation. In fact, often when negotiation can't be reached, all the facts can be presented to a judge and he can make decisions based just on the facts and costs very, very little - likely less than the wedding.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, I'm guessing what he's saying is that men are far less discriminating about who they'll have sex with when compared to women. In other words - a woman can go out any day of the week and find some schlub willing to have sex with them - whereas men have a more difficult go of it.

That's what I gathered from what he said.

Now, I don't necessarily know that I agree with that. To an extent - it's probably true - but the fact they're separated has very little to do with it. Generally, men are less discriminating than women are, so generally women can probably find some schlub to have sex with quicker than a man can. At the same time, however, I don't think being separated or "not single yet" has much to do with it. It's just the nature of the differences between men and women.

As for being "unable to afford a divorce battle" - in most states - it's not the divorce that's the battle. It's things like child custody. Divorce itself in most places is no-fault - and split 50/50. The state will ask you to list all of your assets, their approximate value, and then ask you to determine from that list a 50/50 split. The only way it can become contentious is if you're either not honest about the value of things - or you have your heart set on a specific item.

When I went through my divorce - the only thing that kinda looked like it may become an issue was a watch I was given as a wedding gift. I received a rolex as a wedding gift from her family. When asked to list out all of the items and proposed split - I put that in my column. They rose a stink about it - so I told them I couldn't care less about the damn watch. I simply put it there because it made sense as it was a gift. If it was going to become a stickling point - I'd be more than happy to put it in their column and adjust mine accordingly with other things. My goal wasn't to keep any specific thing - but rather to get them the heck out of my life as quickly as possible.

Once I told them that - they backed off - and it ceased being an issue.

 

[DZoolander]

To be honest - I find the whole discussion here kinda weird and in a way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For all the talk about "Governmental Intrusion" and "Bondage" - I simply can't get away from the idea that the only thing that gets these people's goats is that they feel the state isn't punitive enough toward the woman.

 

[pittsflyer]

I dont think divorce should be punitive at all. The guy takes his stuff and the woman takes her stuff and what ever they lagitimatly bought together they split. No alimony and child support should be capped at 25% of say $20/hr. If the man or woman makes REALLY good money then thats just sucks for the other person UNLESS it was a REALLY long marriage like 10-15 years and one of the partners litterally built the others career. But these short 4-5 year marriages should be treated like a break up by the courts.

The whole point of the very word divorce is to separate not be on the hook for crippling payments for a quarter of your life. If you want the kid to have a brady bunch life maybe try a little harder to make the marriage work. The whole point of child support is for nessecities not a harvard college fund or so mom can live in the hamptons but thats what it has become in alot of instances.

Why do you think we have a negitive birth rate amoung certian demographics?

To be honest - I find the whole discussion here kinda weird and in a way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For all the talk about "Governmental Intrusion" and "Bondage" - I simply can't get away from the idea that the only thing that gets these people's goats is that they feel the state isn't punitive enough toward the woman.

 

[pittsflyer]

I am not even talking about finding some "schleb", most women will not touch a guy with a 10 ft pole even for a relationship or ongoing sexual relationship if he is married but alot of men will consider it with a married woman as long as she is solidly separated.

It is true that this is just a man and woman thing but the married not married thing expoentially compounds a mans sitaution where as its almost a non factor for a woman to swing to a new vine.

Its hard enough for a guy out there that is totally unattached let alone married. That is why, I think, men are much more weary of getting married in the first place. I have done the online dating thing and asking women out in public places and its not pretty, especially online.

Oh and being broke from the divorce makes you almost as untouchable as being married did. IF guys could still hook up with a decent woman after a divorce and all the liabilities then it would not be such a big deal. A decent looking nice womans company can ease alot of problems but when your treated like a lepar in the dating world that money and legal attachment status start becoming really important. Thats why some guys will pretend like they dont even have kids because women dont want "baby momma drama".

It is women that drive these behaviors in men. Guys are not going to step up to a sexless plate, metaphoricaly speaking.

Well, I'm guessing what he's saying is that men are far less discriminating about who they'll have sex with when compared to women. In other words - a woman can go out any day of the week and find some schlub willing to have sex with them - whereas men have a more difficult go of it.

That's what I gathered from what he said.

Now, I don't necessarily know that I agree with that. To an extent - it's probably true - but the fact they're separated has very little to do with it. Generally, men are less discriminating than women are, so generally women can probably find some schlub to have sex with quicker than a man can. At the same time, however, I don't think being separated or "not single yet" has much to do with it. It's just the nature of the differences between men and women.

As for being "unable to afford a divorce battle" - in most states - it's not the divorce that's the battle. It's things like child custody. Divorce itself in most places is no-fault - and split 50/50. The state will ask you to list all of your assets, their approximate value, and then ask you to determine from that list a 50/50 split. The only way it can become contentious is if you're either not honest about the value of things - or you have your heart set on a specific item.

When I went through my divorce - the only thing that kinda looked like it may become an issue was a watch I was given as a wedding gift. I received a rolex as a wedding gift from her family. When asked to list out all of the items and proposed split - I put that in my column. They rose a stink about it - so I told them I couldn't care less about the damn watch. I simply put it there because it made sense as it was a gift. If it was going to become a stickling point - I'd be more than happy to put it in their column and adjust mine accordingly with other things. My goal wasn't to keep any specific thing - but rather to get them the heck out of my life as quickly as possible.

Once I told them that - they backed off - and it ceased being an issue.

 

[DZoolander]

I dont think divorce should be punitive at all. The guy takes his stuff and the woman takes her stuff and what ever they lagitimatly bought together they split.

Well, that's how it's *supposed* to work theoretically. In my case when I went through a divorce (since we didn't have children) - that's pretty much how it went. Everything that was mine prior to the marriage stayed mine. Anything that we acquired during our marriage was split.

Where it might get a little more complicated - is say the guy owned a home prior to getting married. At the time of marriage, the home was worth $125,000. At the time of divorce - the home was worth $525,000 (using easy numbers here). The $400,000 appreciation in price occurred during the time of marriage, so that $400,000 is considered community property and ought be split 50/50.

That's the only place where it really gets a little more complicated. Fortunately, in my marriage, it was pretty easy to figure out. Anything of substantive value was purchased after we got married.

No alimony and child support should be capped at 25% of say $20/hr. If the man or woman makes REALLY good money then thats just sucks for the other person UNLESS it was a REALLY long marriage like 10-15 years and one of the partners litterally built the others career. But these short 4-5 year marriages should be treated like a break up by the courts.

I actually don't know anyone that's ever had to pay alimony. Then again, most of the couples I know they both career people, and make roughly the same ballpark of money. So it could be that my sample group is bad.

Child support is also a weird one to me. I've got a friend that receives child support from her baby-daddy - and the amount she gets is total crap. It's something like $300/mo. Then I looked up what I would owe in child support (when we had one child) - and the calculators said that I would owe something like $2500/mo. Now I know that I earn more than this other schmo does - but not THAT much more. Not like 800% more. So, I dunno how exactly he gets away with paying $300/mo when the state calculator says I'd be owing over $2k a month.

That part is confusing to me.

 

[DZoolander]

I can also see what you're saying to a degree about the relationship stuff. That was also, though, a little bit outside of my experience.

I had married the first person I'd ever been with - so there was a side of me when things went south that felt like I'd wasted my teenage years and early 20's. When I was with her - I'd always felt a *little* envious of my friends who dated around. But, I blew it off with the idea that what I had was somehow more meaningful. When that turned out not to be the case - I decided to take that opportunity and see the "other side of the fence" and date around.

So I made a deliberate choice that I would *not* get involved in a serious relationship until I felt I'd dated around enough.

I also didn't date for nearly 2 years after I got divorced. I didn't want there to be any kind of emotional ties to my ex when I started out.

During that time - I heard she had like 2 relationships - and knew she got remarried. So that goes toward what you're saying. She didn't exactly sit around mulling over what had happened and figuring out how to better herself...lol Nor did guys she dated apparently expect that.

When I did begin dating again - I found that being divorced didn't make a lick of difference, really. Women were, of course, curious what happened if we progressed far enough along where they felt comfortable asking. Whether or not it made me more or less desirable as a long term candidate - I dunno - because I didn't intend to stick around long enough to find out. But, at least on a prima fascia level, it didn't appear to make any difference. I had no problems sleeping with them - and my divorce didn't seem to factor into that equation.

So, dunno about that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, I'm guessing what he's saying is that men are far less discriminating about who they'll have sex with when compared to women. In other words - a woman can go out any day of the week and find some schlub willing to have sex with them - whereas men have a more difficult go of it. . . . .

Biologically, women don't seem to be wired to want sex as much as men want it. I think that's the sole determinant for what you observe here. Certainly, when I was working, a few women made it quite clear they were available to me even though I was - and still am - married.

 

[pittsflyer]

I remember dating and one woman said it was too close since my divorce so she broke contact and another one reading her profile said she did not want any "baby momma drama" and this was pretty consistant across the board.

Maybe it depends on where you are at too.

I can also see what you're saying to a degree about the relationship stuff. That was also, though, a little bit outside of my experience.

I had married the first person I'd ever been with - so there was a side of me when things went south that felt like I'd wasted my teenage years and early 20's. When I was with her - I'd always felt a *little* envious of my friends who dated around. But, I blew it off with the idea that what I had was somehow more meaningful. When that turned out not to be the case - I decided to take that opportunity and see the "other side of the fence" and date around.

So I made a deliberate choice that I would *not* get involved in a serious relationship until I felt I'd dated around enough.

I also didn't date for nearly 2 years after I got divorced. I didn't want there to be any kind of emotional ties to my ex when I started out.

During that time - I heard she had like 2 relationships - and knew she got remarried. So that goes toward what you're saying. She didn't exactly sit around mulling over what had happened and figuring out how to better herself...lol Nor did guys she dated apparently expect that.

When I did begin dating again - I found that being divorced didn't make a lick of difference, really. Women were, of course, curious what happened if we progressed far enough along where they felt comfortable asking. Whether or not it made me more or less desirable as a long term candidate - I dunno - because I didn't intend to stick around long enough to find out. But, at least on a prima fascia level, it didn't appear to make any difference. I had no problems sleeping with them - and my divorce didn't seem to factor into that equation.

So, dunno about that.

 

[pittsflyer]

I think if you make an effort to pay then its alot harder for the state to come after you then if you dont pay at all. You will accumulat earrears but as long as your paying I dont think the state will take action. I am guessing its because there are too many men not paying anything.

Well, that's how it's *supposed* to work theoretically. In my case when I went through a divorce (since we didn't have children) - that's pretty much how it went. Everything that was mine prior to the marriage stayed mine. Anything that we acquired during our marriage was split.

Where it might get a little more complicated - is say the guy owned a home prior to getting married. At the time of marriage, the home was worth $125,000. At the time of divorce - the home was worth $525,000 (using easy numbers here). The $400,000 appreciation in price occurred during the time of marriage, so that $400,000 is considered community property and ought be split 50/50.

That's the only place where it really gets a little more complicated. Fortunately, in my marriage, it was pretty easy to figure out. Anything of substantive value was purchased after we got married.

I actually don't know anyone that's ever had to pay alimony. Then again, most of the couples I know they both career people, and make roughly the same ballpark of money. So it could be that my sample group is bad.

Child support is also a weird one to me. I've got a friend that receives child support from her baby-daddy - and the amount she gets is total crap. It's something like $300/mo. Then I looked up what I would owe in child support (when we had one child) - and the calculators said that I would owe something like $2500/mo. Now I know that I earn more than this other schmo does - but not THAT much more. Not like 800% more. So, I dunno how exactly he gets away with paying $300/mo when the state calculator says I'd be owing over $2k a month.

That part is confusing to me.

 

[Stealth001]

Well, I'm guessing what he's saying is that men are far less discriminating about who they'll have sex with when compared to women. In other words - a woman can go out any day of the week and find some schlub willing to have sex with them - whereas men have a more difficult go of it.

That's what I gathered from what he said.

Now, I don't necessarily know that I agree with that. To an extent - it's probably true - but the fact they're separated has very little to do with it. Generally, men are less discriminating than women are, so generally women can probably find some schlub to have sex with quicker than a man can. At the same time, however, I don't think being separated or "not single yet" has much to do with it. It's just the nature of the differences between men and women.

As for being "unable to afford a divorce battle" - in most states - it's not the divorce that's the battle. It's things like child custody. Divorce itself in most places is no-fault - and split 50/50. The state will ask you to list all of your assets, their approximate value, and then ask you to determine from that list a 50/50 split. The only way it can become contentious is if you're either not honest about the value of things - or you have your heart set on a specific item.

When I went through my divorce - the only thing that kinda looked like it may become an issue was a watch I was given as a wedding gift. I received a rolex as a wedding gift from her family. When asked to list out all of the items and proposed split - I put that in my column. They rose a stink about it - so I told them I couldn't care less about the damn watch. I simply put it there because it made sense as it was a gift. If it was going to become a stickling point - I'd be more than happy to put it in their column and adjust mine accordingly with other things. My goal wasn't to keep any specific thing - but rather to get them the heck out of my life as quickly as possible.

Once I told them that - they backed off - and it ceased being an issue.

I believe child support in many cases is reasonable. You should support your children. However, it would be nice to ensure that they actually get the money and that mommy doesn't blow it on a new party dress.

Let's say that your wife abandons you. The Bible stipulates that you are not to divorce her, but rather seek to reconcile. She files for no-fault divorce. Now she's entitled to 50% and 50% of your retirement. If you make more than her, she gets spousal support. Remember, she abandoned you. Why is she entitled to anything? Isn't "marriage" supposed to offer some security???

In a Government Free marriage... she only takes what is legally hers and what she can carry. Now that's security.

 

[Stealth001]

I dont think divorce should be punitive at all. The guy takes his stuff and the woman takes her stuff and what ever they lagitimatly bought together they split. No alimony and child support should be capped at 25% of say $20/hr. If the man or woman makes REALLY good money then thats just sucks for the other person UNLESS it was a REALLY long marriage like 10-15 years and one of the partners litterally built the others career. But these short 4-5 year marriages should be treated like a break up by the courts.

The whole point of the very word divorce is to separate not be on the hook for crippling payments for a quarter of your life. If you want the kid to have a brady bunch life maybe try a little harder to make the marriage work. The whole point of child support is for nessecities not a harvard college fund or so mom can live in the hamptons but thats what it has become in alot of instances.

Why do you think we have a negitive birth rate amoung certian demographics?

There must be "grounds" for divorce to offer justice. But today, if you have done nothing wrong, and she abandons you, the state looks at it like it is dissolving a corporation and making the more profitable support the less profitable. They offer no personal justice or protections. If she has no grounds to leave you... she should not be rewarded one red cent. She's breaking the marriage contract. If anyone owes anything... she owes YOU.

 

[Stealth001]

With proper powers of attorney and wills shared rights over finances and healthcare can be established. What real "security" does civil marriage offer? Especially considering the No Fault divorce law throughout the country.

Honestly, far more individual security (for both him and her) can be found in government free marriage.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

With proper powers of attorney and wills shared rights over finances and healthcare can be established. What real "security" does civil marriage offer? Especially considering the No Fault divorce law throughout the country.

Honestly, far more individual security (for both him and her) can be found in government free marriage.

In other words, the actual security in the marriage comes from the parties getting married to each other?

Everybody already knows that. The fact that the marriage is legal doesn't make it less secure.

 

[pittsflyer]

I suppose if you could get your stuff and yourself out of the country you could avoid a mass confiscation. I was reading about this the other day apparently its getting more popular for people that can get permission from the other country.

 

[Stealth001]

I'll rephrase my question...

What real security does "civil marriage" offer that cannot be attained in a "government free marriage"?

What liabilities are found in "civil marriage" that are not found in "government free marriage"?

 

[pittsflyer]

Civil marriage offers security to the woman (if she is the lower wage earner) and espeically if she is a mom. The man gets no security unless he is a dead beat and can prove he has been a dead beat for a period of time determined by the courts. If he has proven that he has not made any real money in X number of years then he is off the hook.

But if you are a degreed professional making good money the courts will hook you up every time.

I'll rephrase my question...

What real security does "civil marriage" offer that cannot be attained in a "government free marriage"?

What liabilities are found in "civil marriage" that are not found in "government free marriage"?