- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,626
- Likes
- 1,670
Is marriage a social and economic trap for men? Why do men marry at all? In today's western societies, marriage is not a prerequisite for sex. Besides companionship, are there any advantages for men to get married?
In the US today, just over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The divorce laws overwhelmingly favour women to such an extent, that the vast majority of men find themselves either financially bankrupt or dead trying to pay the massive amount of child support and alimony payments that are decided without any reference to the man's earning capacity, his take home pay, his health or other personal situation. The Bradley Amendment passed into law in the late 1980's in the US forces men to pay child support and alimony payments regardless of whether they are disabled, in prison, or even dead!!
Even when wives earn more than their husbands, unless the difference is significant, the man ends up paying alimony to his wife regardless of whose fault it was that resulted in the breakdown of marriage. So if your wife cheated on you and you filed for divorce, you'd end up having the responsibility to support her for life (her life, not yours, so even if you die, your estate will be charged the alimony amounts).
Governments in western countries have made it more and more difficult to obtain relief from this financial servitude resulting from divorce, because they see marriage as a welfare system. In addition, paternalistic views of women have been coupled with feminist rights advocates in a strange union so much so that men are always the ones that get shafted.
Even co-habitating couples who don't want to get married are not spared, in most western countries, you are treated as being married if you co-habitate for a year or so even if you are not married.
Considering the deterioration in the marriage construct, what could be done to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their gender? I propose partner contracts, which would be renewable, 11 month legal contracts between couples designed to frustrate the current laws regarding co-habitation and marriage. For 11 months, the "partner contract" would entitle both partners to live together for all practical purposes as married spouses (without actually marrying so as not to invoke marriage laws). After 11 months, a decision could be made to mutually renew the contract or to let it lapse so that the couple could move on.
In this way, both parties enjoy the benefits of "marriage" without actually being married. If kids are desired, then the parties could formally marry or keep renewing their contract. There should be agencies that facilitate such people who have been in contracts to find new contractual partners through a dating website or something similar. Sounds like a much better alternative to marriage? Or not?
In the US today, just over 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The divorce laws overwhelmingly favour women to such an extent, that the vast majority of men find themselves either financially bankrupt or dead trying to pay the massive amount of child support and alimony payments that are decided without any reference to the man's earning capacity, his take home pay, his health or other personal situation. The Bradley Amendment passed into law in the late 1980's in the US forces men to pay child support and alimony payments regardless of whether they are disabled, in prison, or even dead!!
Even when wives earn more than their husbands, unless the difference is significant, the man ends up paying alimony to his wife regardless of whose fault it was that resulted in the breakdown of marriage. So if your wife cheated on you and you filed for divorce, you'd end up having the responsibility to support her for life (her life, not yours, so even if you die, your estate will be charged the alimony amounts).
Governments in western countries have made it more and more difficult to obtain relief from this financial servitude resulting from divorce, because they see marriage as a welfare system. In addition, paternalistic views of women have been coupled with feminist rights advocates in a strange union so much so that men are always the ones that get shafted.
Even co-habitating couples who don't want to get married are not spared, in most western countries, you are treated as being married if you co-habitate for a year or so even if you are not married.
Considering the deterioration in the marriage construct, what could be done to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their gender? I propose partner contracts, which would be renewable, 11 month legal contracts between couples designed to frustrate the current laws regarding co-habitation and marriage. For 11 months, the "partner contract" would entitle both partners to live together for all practical purposes as married spouses (without actually marrying so as not to invoke marriage laws). After 11 months, a decision could be made to mutually renew the contract or to let it lapse so that the couple could move on.
In this way, both parties enjoy the benefits of "marriage" without actually being married. If kids are desired, then the parties could formally marry or keep renewing their contract. There should be agencies that facilitate such people who have been in contracts to find new contractual partners through a dating website or something similar. Sounds like a much better alternative to marriage? Or not?
