General Relationship DiscussionAlthough anyone can post anywhere on Talk About Marriage, this section is for people interested in general relationship and marriage advice.
I could be wrong, but can't common law marriages result in splitting all assets?
Only 12 states in the United States even recognize common law marriage anymore. Even in those, it's insufficient to just live together or even have kids. You have to purport to others to actually be husband and wife.
What advantages are there for a man to be married as opposed to living with a committed, faithful woman? Are these advantages great enough to warrant an immediate loss of half of his present and future assets?
What advantages are there for a man to be married as opposed to living with a committed, faithful woman? Are these advantages great enough to warrant an immediate loss of half of his present and future assets?
Hmmm lets not forget that these days men are not the main breadwinners they once were and us gals have started doing quite well for ourselves and (shock) taking care of ourselves!
Hmmm lets not forget that these days men are not the main breadwinners they once were and us gals have started doing quite well for ourselves and (shock) taking care of ourselves!
Just sayin'
I've heard of these female primary breadwinners of which you speak. Like unicorns, they have never existed in my reality. Still, my question remains....what are the advantages for guy? If I could actually find a higher earning female willing to merge finances, there's no law requiring us to marry in order to do so.
I know Hubs couldn't have the house we have if he was single.
I pay for all the household things while he pays mortgage and car insurance. It's equal. And we now make equal pay.
Incentive for marriage? I don't know. I was financially stable as a single woman. I was even raising my child as a single mom. Didn't need any help with that. Hubs had a roommate and liked how stable I was. Although, he is a great provider.
In fact, there's really no tax incentive! If we were single, i would have gotten back over 4,000!! But as a married couple, we ended up owing.
American wives statistically make 80% of all discretionary spending decisions, so I'd have to find one that makes 400% of my salary even to reach economic parity. A ring and a ceremony instantly relieves me of 50% of all I have or will have. In my state, it instantly makes me financially liable for any child she produces, regardless of who fathers the child. It makes me responsible for any credit obligation she enters into. If I married some ridiculously wealthy woman, I suppose there is a chance I might actually gain something. For the rest of us, it's pretty much a lopsided proposition.
My wife and I moved in together in '88, had a rip-roar life till we settled down in 97 and got married, bought a house, had a child. now at age 40+ for both of us, we have date nights, we get away for the weekends (just the two of us). Sex life of about 3X a week. When I asked her to marry me, she said yes, we both knew and accepted each others flaws... there was no "She changed" or "He changed". no bait n switch... most if not all out classmate/friends are in their second marriage or divorced. guess we see this topic different.
I know Hubs couldn't have the house we have if he was single.
I pay for all the household things while he pays mortgage and car insurance. It's equal. And we now make equal pay.
Incentive for marriage? I don't know. I was financially stable as a single woman. I was even raising my child as a single mom. Didn't need any help with that. Hubs had a roommate and liked how stable I was. Although, he is a great provider.
In fact, there's really no tax incentive! If we were single, i would have gotten back over 4,000!! But as a married couple, we ended up owing.
I have read lots of statistics on this subject and I keep running into things like this;
“The study found those who were engaged and living together before the wedding were about as likely to have marriages that lasted 15 years as couples who hadn't lived together.”
And this;
“But what about the couples who were living together but weren't engaged? The new study found marriage was less likely to survive to the 10- and 15-year mark among couples who weren't engaged when they lived together – findings similar to earlier research.”
And this;
“The study also discovered that nearly half of all first marriages end in divorce within 20 years. Regardless of cohabitation”
Since when is the success of a marriage measured in years? I have never heard a vow that states “till the 15 or 20 year mark”.
If the statistics listed are anything to go by then IMO all of these marriages failed, cohabitates and non-cohabitates alike. Just because you choose not to live together before marriage doesn’t guarantee that you won’t get divorced. You may not get divorced as soon as those who did live together before marriage according to studies, but you may still get divorced.
I personally believe that it is each person’s personal values on marriage, their values as a couple with regard to marriage, their family marital history and other intrinsic/systematic differences that influences the likelihood of divorce.
I personally have seen successful marriages from both sides of the cohabitation fence and failed marriages from both sides.
Communication is the key. Open, honest communication, not only with yourself but with your partner as well. Plus the flexibility to change along with your partner as time goes by and the ability to adjust to changes within the marriage, ie; children, job loss, relocation, etc.
American wives statistically make 80% of all discretionary spending decisions, so I'd have to find one that makes 400% of my salary even to reach economic parity. A ring and a ceremony instantly relieves me of 50% of all I have or will have. In my state, it instantly makes me financially liable for any child she produces, regardless of who fathers the child. It makes me responsible for any credit obligation she enters into. If I married some ridiculously wealthy woman, I suppose there is a chance I might actually gain something. For the rest of us, it's pretty much a lopsided proposition.
This is one of the reasons I am never getting married. It actually boils down to simple math. You might even remember doing this exact calculation in grade 10 or 11.
If the chance of A failing is 10% and the chance of B failing is 10%, what is the probability of both failing at the same time?
0.1^2 = 0.01
That's a 1% failure rate.
Now suppose you merge the two together and the two must work as a team. If either A or B fails, the entire system fails. What is the probability of failure?
1 - (0.9^2) = 0.19
That's a 19% failure rate.
Joining two systems together like that immediately makes it 19x more likely to fail. This is why you as an individual get 90% in all of your class assignments, but group projects involving 4 or 5 people always end with crap results. This is loosely related to the term "design by commitee" where a project going in multiple directions at one time ends up going nowhere.
My gf and I get around this by staying as separate as possible. My money is mine, hers is hers. I pay some bills, she pays some bills. She can use my second car, but the car still has my name on the title and it's registered to me. If either of us goes insane and starts spending everything, we can make a clean break with minimal damage.
This is one of the reasons I am never getting married. It actually boils down to simple math.
It would be interesting to know what the statistic of failed relationships are compared to the statistic of failed marriages. Statistically speaking you'd probably be more likely to stay in a marriage then in a relationship.
It would be interesting to know what the statistic of failed relationships are compared to the statistic of failed marriages. Statistically speaking you'd probably be more likely to stay in a marriage then in a relationship.
I guess that's true. Statistically >99% of relationships fail. Out of all the people I've dated, only 1 is still around.
The only sure bet is to not rely on anyone. This forum is filled with people saying "my husband is a retard" or "my wife wants us to die homeless and bankrupt."
Standing alone seems to work pretty good. At least bankruptcy would be my own fault and the only retard to worry about is me.
I guess that's true. Statistically >99% of relationships fail. Out of all the people I've dated, only 1 is still around.
The only sure bet is to not rely on anyone. This forum is filled with people saying "my husband is a retard" or "my wife wants us to die homeless and bankrupt."
Standing alone seems to work pretty good. At least bankruptcy would be my own fault and the only retard to worry about is me.
Sure but you can achieve that same result with good boundaries. If you have good boundaries then you can stand alone but still have the comfort of a partner.
13Likes
Re: Living together before marriage; good? 
If we were single, i would have gotten back over 4,000!! But as a married couple, we ended up owing.
