6 ms·

A experiment for men who are considering marriage. Write up the pros and cons. Most people are aware of the major possible downsides, loss of assets and lifetim

A experiment for men who are considering marriage. Write up the pros and cons. Most people are aware of the major possible downsides, loss of assets and lifetime alimony payments that comes with a failed marriage (the majority of marriages), but the men I talk to struggle to articulate a benefit, let alone a benefit that would warrant the risk. If you can't find the benefit to you, reconsider, don't just do it beacuse you are "supposed to".

CalRobert 3y ago
It can make getting shared custody of a child easier. It can be useful for visas if you want to move abroad. There are some tax benefits. It really depends on your country though as best I can tell. This advice is good for both men and women though!
- konschubert 3y ago
  It also provides a form of economic guarantee for your wife, who may, if you have kids, accept a huge loss of lifetime income by postponing career advancement.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Sure, though you can have kids and be unmarried, or be married to one person and have kids with another, for that matter.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > It can make getting shared custody of a child easier Not in PA. I've never seen a law that gives preferential treatment to married fathers vs unmarried fathers. On the other hand, keeping hold of your assets and not assuming your partners debt puts you in a way better position to hire a lawyer and prove to the court that you have the means to provide for them. > It can be useful for visas if you want to move abroad. If you are in India and want to marry a US citizen for citizenship, that's a pretty big pro, however women rarely marry "down" like that so it won't apply to most men. > There are some tax benefits. Absolutely you can save a few percent on tax, in return for a fifty percent chance you lose half your assets.
CrazyStat 3y ago
Why is this advice specifically for men?
- nickpp 3y ago
  For women the 50% chance of divorce is a net win though.
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    That’s a rather bold claim. I’d like to see some reasoning behind it. The oft-quoted 50% number is also questionable at best, see NYTimes [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-...
    - nickpp 3y ago
      Is it a bold claim that women profit disproportionately off divorces? http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
      - CrazyStat 3y ago
        It’s a bold claim that getting married and divorced (vs not getting married at all) is a net win for women. Don’t move the goal posts. Also I’m not going to read a whole book to try to figure out what point you’re trying to make with your link.
        nickpp 3y ago
        In case of divorce women are usually financial and parental winners. That was my point. The book has per-state situation and examples.
        CrazyStat 3y ago
        Women on average make larger financial sacrifices in marriage, taking on unpaid labor in the home rather than paid work outside the home at a much higher rate than men. In this sense they may be financial “winners” in case of divorce, to the extent that courts award them a portion of the accrued assets earned by their partner outside the home. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the unpaid labor women disproportionately do generally does not accumulate anything that can be taken with them in case of separation. Most men don’t fight for custody of their children in divorce. When they do they are almost always successful at getting at least joint custody. See e.g. WaPo [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-litigation/2017/12/15/61951bc4-e0e6-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-...
matrix87 3y ago
> you can't find the benefit to you, reconsider, don't just do it beacuse you are "supposed to". Because they want to? I really don't get this attitude of rationalizing everything in terms of pros vs cons. It just teaches people to disregard how they feel Also interesting that when you give examples of pros and cons, you only give examples of them for you as an individual. If you were to take them for society at large, marriage would be a net positive
- nickpp 3y ago
  > Because they want to? I also want to do tons of drugs every night. The reason I don't? A pros vs cops debate happening automatically in my brain. Even if you don't rationalize it, it still happens. And since it's there you may as well use it, even if sometimes ignoring it in the end.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    > A pros vs cops debate Typo, or deliberate? Either way, it's beautifully apt.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  "Baby this is so good, we gotta get the government involved" That's a weird way to feel. Think about why you feel that way. Perhaps, like women who historically were shamed for going outside of a prescribed gender role, you too are falling victim to gender roles that no longer really exist.
  - matrix87 3y ago
    Where in my comment did I mention government or gender roles?
  - staticman2 3y ago
    If your goal is to make sure your girlfriend has no economic stake in your assets if you split up, framing this as being against marriage because "that would be getting the government involved" would be disingenuous.
cafard 3y ago
What proportion of divorces include alimony? My impression was that it was pretty small.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  About 10% as of 2015[1]: > Unlike child support, which is common when divorcing couple has kids, alimony awards have always been very rare, going from about 25 percent of cases in the 1960s to about 10 percent today, said Judith McMullen, a professor of law at Marquette University. In one study of Wisconsin cases, she found it was only 8.6 percent. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T61O8/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T61O8/
- bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
  My guess would be that this would depend on income bracket. My worry if divorced would be splitting up my retirement savings. Alimony would probably be comparatively cheap. Still, most people who get divorced probably have nothing to divide and no income to divert to the poorer spouse. If you look at mid-to-high-income homes, I bet alimony goes up.
  - cafard 3y ago
    Yes, in community property states, money and property acquired during the term of a marriage get split--but this is not restricted to money and property acquired by the husband.
Dave_TRS 3y ago
Charles Darwin's writings in 1838 include an amusing list of pros and cons: CONS OF MARRIAGE — "Conversation of clever men at clubs — Not forced to visit relatives, & to bend in every trifle. — to have the expense & anxiety of children — perhaps quarelling — Loss of time. — cannot read in the Evenings — fatness & idleness — Anxiety & responsibility — less money for books PROS OF MARRIAGE — "Children — (if it Please God) — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, — object to be beloved & played with. — better than a dog anyhow. – Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. My God, it is intolerable to think of spending one’s whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working, & nothing after all. […] Imagine living all one’s day solitarily in smoky dirty London House. — Only picture to yourself a nice soft wife on a sofa with good fire, & books & music perhaps" https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-and-cons-of-marriage/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-a...
staticman2 3y ago
I've seen people recommend prenups but I've never seen somebody claim men will suffer "lifetime alimony payments" if they get married as if a) that's a likely outcome and b) prenups don't exist.
twobitshifter 3y ago
Potential Citizenship Social security Inheritance of Assets Health Care Improved Credit Score Tax Benefits I thought there was no need for marriage, then I got married and it has totally been worth it, but not for any of the paper reasons above. Is it possible to have a relationship like mine without being married? I would say it would have to be, because how can a legal contract really improve your relationship that much? However, there’s something in the form of clarity, trust, and bonding that happens when you are married to your husband or wife that won’t be there before and doesn’t show up in pros and cons.
logicchains 3y ago
The benefit of marriage is the strength of committing to work together for a lifetime towards your shared goals. Especially wrt raising children, most things are much easier with two people than with one (or with two people who can't rely on the other not to suddenly disappear at any moment). It's sad that getting the government involved in marriage has led to all those adverse incentives, but it's perfectly possible to get married without being married on paper to reduce those risks (although beware of common-law marriage). Since if someone really wants to spend their life with you and is committed to that, what they care about is you making that commitment to them, not ensuring the state will take your stuff and give it to them if you separate.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  Ensuring the state will take your stuff and give it to them if you separate is a core part of marriage. It’s skin in the game. “I’m committed to you but not committed enough to let the government force me to support you if we split up” is a different level of commitment. People with skin in the game behave differently. It’s not an adverse incentive. It’s incentive alignment, it’s the core value proposition of marriage. If you care enough about someone to tell them you’re committed but not enough to let society actually enforce that commitment then by all means don’t get married.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    You do understand if your wife runs off with the pool boy, she still gets half right? It's only really the breadwinner commitment that gets enforced, the supported spouse suffers little consequence if they fail to maintain their end of the commitment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - CrazyStat 3y ago
      > You do understand if your wife runs off with the pool boy, she still gets half right? Yep! And I still get half if I run off with the pool boy, so that seems fair. > It's only really the breadwinner commitment that gets enforced, the supported spouse suffers little consequence if they fail to maintain their end of the commitment. The “supported” spouse in most cases (especially if there are children) is performing significant amounts of unpaid labor. The fruits of that labor are generally intangible and do not accumulate, so the spouse can’t take them with them in the case of separation. This does not make that labor any less important than the labor of the “breadwinner.” It would be profoundly unjust to allow the “breadwinner” to accumulate and retain all the fruits of their labor, leaving the “supported” spouse with nothing for all their labor.
michaelt 3y ago
> the men I talk to struggle to articulate a benefit, let alone a benefit that would warrant the risk I'm always confused when I see people saying things like this, given what I've seen among my peers. The benefit to marriage is having children. You've decided to have children, an irreversible decision that will bind you and your partner together forever, cost a six-figure sum, and have a huge impact on your lifestyle and finances. You may have to deal with substantial adversity - perhaps your child will be born with a severe disability - and you'll literally have to wipe someone else's ass. It may cost (you or) your partner her career, or even her life if things go wrong. Given that, the decision to get married - which is very much reversible, and only costs a four- or low-five-figure sum - is trivial in comparison.

CalRobert 3y ago

It can make getting shared custody of a child easier. It can be useful for visas if you want to move abroad. There are some tax benefits. It really depends on your country though as best I can tell. This advice is good for both men and women though!

konschubert 3y ago
It also provides a form of economic guarantee for your wife, who may, if you have kids, accept a huge loss of lifetime income by postponing career advancement.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Sure, though you can have kids and be unmarried, or be married to one person and have kids with another, for that matter.
willcipriano 3y ago
> It can make getting shared custody of a child easier Not in PA. I've never seen a law that gives preferential treatment to married fathers vs unmarried fathers. On the other hand, keeping hold of your assets and not assuming your partners debt puts you in a way better position to hire a lawyer and prove to the court that you have the means to provide for them. > It can be useful for visas if you want to move abroad. If you are in India and want to marry a US citizen for citizenship, that's a pretty big pro, however women rarely marry "down" like that so it won't apply to most men. > There are some tax benefits. Absolutely you can save a few percent on tax, in return for a fifty percent chance you lose half your assets.

CrazyStat 3y ago

Why is this advice specifically for men?

nickpp 3y ago
For women the 50% chance of divorce is a net win though.
- CrazyStat 3y ago
  That’s a rather bold claim. I’d like to see some reasoning behind it. The oft-quoted 50% number is also questionable at best, see NYTimes [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-...
  - nickpp 3y ago
    Is it a bold claim that women profit disproportionately off divorces? http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ http://www.realworlddivorce.com/
    - CrazyStat 3y ago
      It’s a bold claim that getting married and divorced (vs not getting married at all) is a net win for women. Don’t move the goal posts. Also I’m not going to read a whole book to try to figure out what point you’re trying to make with your link.
      - nickpp 3y ago
        In case of divorce women are usually financial and parental winners. That was my point. The book has per-state situation and examples.
        CrazyStat 3y ago
        Women on average make larger financial sacrifices in marriage, taking on unpaid labor in the home rather than paid work outside the home at a much higher rate than men. In this sense they may be financial “winners” in case of divorce, to the extent that courts award them a portion of the accrued assets earned by their partner outside the home. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the unpaid labor women disproportionately do generally does not accumulate anything that can be taken with them in case of separation. Most men don’t fight for custody of their children in divorce. When they do they are almost always successful at getting at least joint custody. See e.g. WaPo [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-litigation/2017/12/15/61951bc4-e0e6-11e7-b2e9-8c636f076c76_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/myths-about-custody-...

matrix87 3y ago

> you can't find the benefit to you, reconsider, don't just do it beacuse you are "supposed to". Because they want to? I really don't get this attitude of rationalizing everything in terms of pros vs cons. It just teaches people to disregard how they feel Also interesting that when you give examples of pros and cons, you only give examples of them for you as an individual. If you were to take them for society at large, marriage would be a net positive

nickpp 3y ago
> Because they want to? I also want to do tons of drugs every night. The reason I don't? A pros vs cops debate happening automatically in my brain. Even if you don't rationalize it, it still happens. And since it's there you may as well use it, even if sometimes ignoring it in the end.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > A pros vs cops debate Typo, or deliberate? Either way, it's beautifully apt.
willcipriano 3y ago
"Baby this is so good, we gotta get the government involved" That's a weird way to feel. Think about why you feel that way. Perhaps, like women who historically were shamed for going outside of a prescribed gender role, you too are falling victim to gender roles that no longer really exist.
- matrix87 3y ago
  Where in my comment did I mention government or gender roles?
- staticman2 3y ago
  If your goal is to make sure your girlfriend has no economic stake in your assets if you split up, framing this as being against marriage because "that would be getting the government involved" would be disingenuous.

cafard 3y ago

What proportion of divorces include alimony? My impression was that it was pretty small.

CrazyStat 3y ago
About 10% as of 2015[1]: > Unlike child support, which is common when divorcing couple has kids, alimony awards have always been very rare, going from about 25 percent of cases in the 1960s to about 10 percent today, said Judith McMullen, a professor of law at Marquette University. In one study of Wisconsin cases, she found it was only 8.6 percent. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T61O8/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T61O8/
bill_joy_fanboy 3y ago
My guess would be that this would depend on income bracket. My worry if divorced would be splitting up my retirement savings. Alimony would probably be comparatively cheap. Still, most people who get divorced probably have nothing to divide and no income to divert to the poorer spouse. If you look at mid-to-high-income homes, I bet alimony goes up.
- cafard 3y ago
  Yes, in community property states, money and property acquired during the term of a marriage get split--but this is not restricted to money and property acquired by the husband.

Dave_TRS 3y ago

Charles Darwin's writings in 1838 include an amusing list of pros and cons: CONS OF MARRIAGE — "Conversation of clever men at clubs — Not forced to visit relatives, & to bend in every trifle. — to have the expense & anxiety of children — perhaps quarelling — Loss of time. — cannot read in the Evenings — fatness & idleness — Anxiety & responsibility — less money for books PROS OF MARRIAGE — "Children — (if it Please God) — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, — object to be beloved & played with. — better than a dog anyhow. – Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. My God, it is intolerable to think of spending one’s whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working, & nothing after all. […] Imagine living all one’s day solitarily in smoky dirty London House. — Only picture to yourself a nice soft wife on a sofa with good fire, & books & music perhaps" https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-and-cons-of-marriage/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-a...

staticman2 3y ago

I've seen people recommend prenups but I've never seen somebody claim men will suffer "lifetime alimony payments" if they get married as if a) that's a likely outcome and b) prenups don't exist.

twobitshifter 3y ago

Potential Citizenship Social security Inheritance of Assets Health Care Improved Credit Score Tax Benefits I thought there was no need for marriage, then I got married and it has totally been worth it, but not for any of the paper reasons above. Is it possible to have a relationship like mine without being married? I would say it would have to be, because how can a legal contract really improve your relationship that much? However, there’s something in the form of clarity, trust, and bonding that happens when you are married to your husband or wife that won’t be there before and doesn’t show up in pros and cons.

logicchains 3y ago

The benefit of marriage is the strength of committing to work together for a lifetime towards your shared goals. Especially wrt raising children, most things are much easier with two people than with one (or with two people who can't rely on the other not to suddenly disappear at any moment). It's sad that getting the government involved in marriage has led to all those adverse incentives, but it's perfectly possible to get married without being married on paper to reduce those risks (although beware of common-law marriage). Since if someone really wants to spend their life with you and is committed to that, what they care about is you making that commitment to them, not ensuring the state will take your stuff and give it to them if you separate.

CrazyStat 3y ago
Ensuring the state will take your stuff and give it to them if you separate is a core part of marriage. It’s skin in the game. “I’m committed to you but not committed enough to let the government force me to support you if we split up” is a different level of commitment. People with skin in the game behave differently. It’s not an adverse incentive. It’s incentive alignment, it’s the core value proposition of marriage. If you care enough about someone to tell them you’re committed but not enough to let society actually enforce that commitment then by all means don’t get married.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  You do understand if your wife runs off with the pool boy, she still gets half right? It's only really the breadwinner commitment that gets enforced, the supported spouse suffers little consequence if they fail to maintain their end of the commitment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    > You do understand if your wife runs off with the pool boy, she still gets half right? Yep! And I still get half if I run off with the pool boy, so that seems fair. > It's only really the breadwinner commitment that gets enforced, the supported spouse suffers little consequence if they fail to maintain their end of the commitment. The “supported” spouse in most cases (especially if there are children) is performing significant amounts of unpaid labor. The fruits of that labor are generally intangible and do not accumulate, so the spouse can’t take them with them in the case of separation. This does not make that labor any less important than the labor of the “breadwinner.” It would be profoundly unjust to allow the “breadwinner” to accumulate and retain all the fruits of their labor, leaving the “supported” spouse with nothing for all their labor.

michaelt 3y ago

> the men I talk to struggle to articulate a benefit, let alone a benefit that would warrant the risk I'm always confused when I see people saying things like this, given what I've seen among my peers. The benefit to marriage is having children. You've decided to have children, an irreversible decision that will bind you and your partner together forever, cost a six-figure sum, and have a huge impact on your lifestyle and finances. You may have to deal with substantial adversity - perhaps your child will be born with a severe disability - and you'll literally have to wipe someone else's ass. It may cost (you or) your partner her career, or even her life if things go wrong. Given that, the decision to get married - which is very much reversible, and only costs a four- or low-five-figure sum - is trivial in comparison.