5 ms·

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 com

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.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    > The “supported” spouse in most cases (especially if there are children) is performing significant amounts of unpaid labor. What if they don't? That isn't actually part of the deal legally speaking, they can just refuse to lift a finger to no consequence. It's a lot easier to get rid of a layabout when you aren't married. If you get married you probably increase the probability they get lazy beacuse now you've limited your options and they know it.
    - caeril 3y ago
      I have no idea why you're downvoted, as this is a proper response. Many of us are living this hell. It's too expensive to leave the lazy partner, and they know it. So you earn all the money, do 80% of the housework, and raise the children nearly yourself. They watch TikTok and Instagram all day, and your lawyer gives you an estimated price tag of well over a million dollars to escape. So you make the rational choice to remain in hell until you die, being her personal pack mule forever.
      - CrazyStat 3y ago
        I don’t want to be glib, but a million dollars to get out of hell seems cheap.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

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.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > The “supported” spouse in most cases (especially if there are children) is performing significant amounts of unpaid labor. What if they don't? That isn't actually part of the deal legally speaking, they can just refuse to lift a finger to no consequence. It's a lot easier to get rid of a layabout when you aren't married. If you get married you probably increase the probability they get lazy beacuse now you've limited your options and they know it.
  - caeril 3y ago
    I have no idea why you're downvoted, as this is a proper response. Many of us are living this hell. It's too expensive to leave the lazy partner, and they know it. So you earn all the money, do 80% of the housework, and raise the children nearly yourself. They watch TikTok and Instagram all day, and your lawyer gives you an estimated price tag of well over a million dollars to escape. So you make the rational choice to remain in hell until you die, being her personal pack mule forever.
    - CrazyStat 3y ago
      I don’t want to be glib, but a million dollars to get out of hell seems cheap.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]