3 ms·

For most men, marriage is one of the most unwise actions they can legally take in their life. This is due to it being co-opted by the state for its own purposes

For most men, marriage is one of the most unwise actions they can legally take in their life. This is due to it being co-opted by the state for its own purposes. Society needs a new word and a new social status for the element of marriage, but without its legal standing, e.g. "maritage" (signifying the heritage of marriage).

potato3732842 1y ago
It's always been co-opted. It's just now it's a way worse deal than it used to be.
TrnsltLife 1y ago
In a non common law marriage state you can probably have a wedding, say your vows, and live as man and bride. Consult a lawyer for local gotchas. France has the legal status of living in concubinage, so man and concubine. Pretty much the same as live-in girlfriend. Some terms that could work: Man and bride Concubine Wedded/conjugal/nuptial state/union This is my wedded bride. This is my wedded man. etc.
em-bee 1y ago
in germany, living together already forces you into most of the obligations you'd have when married. especially when you have children. but worse, you have less rights. unlike a divorce, shared custody is not automatically assumed, and you are less likely to get it. (it used to be that the mother could simply deny it but that changed 15 years ago)
- bayareapsycho 1y ago
  What's the source on this? I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it I looked up for Germany and found nothing
  - em-bee 1y ago
    i could have sworn that this would be the case in germany too. but it turns out that there are practically no rights or obligations on separation except child support. property division only happens if both partners made a significant contribution, eg to a house. so if you pay for half of the house you can assume shared ownership of that house, but you may have to fight for it in court. you have to pay child support because it is the right of the child, which exists regardless of the relationship of the parents. another exception is financial support from the government. for that the income of your unmarried partner will be considered if you live in the same household, but that is obviously not relevant on separation. the keyword to look up is "Eheähnliche Gemeinschaft".
bayareapsycho 1y ago
I agree with the sentiment of this but I don't think the root issue is state involvement The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized. But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better

potato3732842 1y ago

It's always been co-opted. It's just now it's a way worse deal than it used to be.

TrnsltLife 1y ago

In a non common law marriage state you can probably have a wedding, say your vows, and live as man and bride. Consult a lawyer for local gotchas. France has the legal status of living in concubinage, so man and concubine. Pretty much the same as live-in girlfriend. Some terms that could work: Man and bride Concubine Wedded/conjugal/nuptial state/union This is my wedded bride. This is my wedded man. etc.

em-bee 1y ago

in germany, living together already forces you into most of the obligations you'd have when married. especially when you have children. but worse, you have less rights. unlike a divorce, shared custody is not automatically assumed, and you are less likely to get it. (it used to be that the mother could simply deny it but that changed 15 years ago)

bayareapsycho 1y ago
What's the source on this? I know it's a thing in Canada, Australia, and Washington state (if you cohabitate for some number of years, they can claim that it's a "de-facto relationship" and get property division). Apparently the current UK government is trying to push it I looked up for Germany and found nothing
- em-bee 1y ago
  i could have sworn that this would be the case in germany too. but it turns out that there are practically no rights or obligations on separation except child support. property division only happens if both partners made a significant contribution, eg to a house. so if you pay for half of the house you can assume shared ownership of that house, but you may have to fight for it in court. you have to pay child support because it is the right of the child, which exists regardless of the relationship of the parents. another exception is financial support from the government. for that the income of your unmarried partner will be considered if you live in the same household, but that is obviously not relevant on separation. the keyword to look up is "Eheähnliche Gemeinschaft".

bayareapsycho 1y ago

I agree with the sentiment of this but I don't think the root issue is state involvement The root issue is that the state is involved in the wrong way. It refuses to fund childcare, so marriage is economically incentivized. But then it makes divorce super financially one-sided and easy to get, so now high earners will try to avoid marriage. But high earners are the ones who make marriage worthwhile, per the above point Then it has LGBT acceptance in urban centers now, so there's an easy, convenient, and legally protected way for people to avoid the whole marriage pipeline The only real fix we have for this is to just import more people, who knows whether that will pan out In general though, I agree with the sentiment that for high earning men it's the shittiest deal imaginable and even the extreme option of dying alone is better