# Why Marriage?



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

I had a deep conversation with my FWB last night about marriage. She's on the heels of feels, but anyhow, she's a pro marriage 1xD idealist and I am anti marriage 1xD realist.

Her argument is that marriage offers a deeper commitment where both halves must be committed, putting everything on the table to show they are serious, proving their devotion.

My argument is that a relationship minus the contract shows more commitment because either party could leave at any time without any punitive damages, yet they choose to stay, proving their devotion.

What are your thoughts?

Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

I lean in agreement with you. I recently broke off my engagement, but having been engaged, there was something beautiful about wanting to bring our love together in a union that was more sacred than just mere words we would exchange with each other, if that makes sense. But, from reading threads on here where people are reconciling with cheating spouses as to not lose houses, and child custody, seems like the definition of ''marriage'' means different things to different people. To me, if the love is gone, I wouldn't want to 'save' such a ''marriage.''

FWB, those usually never stay that way...someone always catches feels.


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> FWB, those usually never stay that way...someone always catches feels.


I've noticed she has been defining our relationship in more exclusive terms every time we talk. It doesn't bother me much, I don't really care anymore what we are, she smoke screened me for months so now I'm accustomed to being fwb. 


Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

I think it's different strokes for different folks. I honestly think there is merit to both positions.

Having been married once before for 20 years, I will NEVER remarry. I am in a very happy LTR of 5+ years and we are completely committed for the long haul. I will admit though, I do sometimes miss being able to use the words "my husband".. (but not enough to get married again! )

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## camerashy (May 29, 2016)

I got M mostly because it was important to my H. I would have been equally as happy (or unhappy as it turns out) remaining in a LTR. 

Love is love no matter what label is put on it. And I don't think being in a LTR makes it any easier to walk away than being in a M.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

camerashy said:


> I got M mostly because it was important to my H. I would have been equally as happy (or unhappy as it turns out) remaining in a LTR.
> 
> Love is love no matter what label is put on it. And I don't think being in a LTR makes it any easier to walk away than being in a M.


Except legally, of course.


----------



## camerashy (May 29, 2016)

tech-novelist said:


> Except legally, of course.


True. But if kids are involved, you're gonna have to go through legal channels anyway (if the break up is a nasty one).

In terms of emotional hurt, though, I don't think it's any different.


----------



## knobcreek (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm all for marriage and i think it's a great thing to bring two people together and commit to one another. But not until they even out the bias in the courts against men. The world is a different place than it was in the 1950's yet for some reason men go into court like their wife is this uneducated homemaker incapable of supporting herself.

To a man, marriage today is effectively just a contract that says "if you get tired of me and want a new boyfriend, or just feel like f&*(ing around, or get bored, or simply just want to start a new life for no reason, you get to take half of everything I own and have worked for even if you didn't work a day in your life while married to me".

That isn't a good deal for men at all.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

foolscotton3 said:


> I've noticed she has been defining our relationship in more exclusive terms every time we talk. It doesn't bother me much, I don't really care anymore what we are, she smoke screened me for months so now I'm accustomed to being fwb.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


I see. What does 'smokescreened' mean in this context? lol


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I would never marry someone who insists on getting married. I would (and did) marry someone who was as leery of marriage as I was. We continue to be skeptical of marriage except for the practical benefits provided by law and custom - and our marriage works far better than most. If not for the practical benefits, we wouldn't have bothered marrying.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

foolscotton3 said:


> I had a deep conversation with my FWB last night about marriage. She's on the heels of feels, but anyhow, she's a pro marriage 1xD idealist and I am anti marriage 1xD realist.
> 
> Her argument is that marriage offers a deeper commitment where both halves must be committed, putting everything on the table to show they are serious, proving their devotion.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree w/ both of you.

Yeah, I'm that guy.

Vote Clump!


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

I contend that you should marry someone only because you want to give yourself to them. To do FOR THEM, too many people get married because it does something FOR ME. The saying "this person completes me", means there is something missing in you, don't get married it won't fix it. When you commit for something the marriage gives to you there is a good possibility of eventual problems, because there may come a time when the marriage doesn't DO that thing anymore and then what do you do? 

When I met my wife I was quite content to be alone. I enjoyed dating and was having success, I like meeting new people. I also got married later in my life, late 20's so that helped. I decided to marry her because at that point I was in love with her and it was my honor to be her partner, to help her in life. This was what she gave to me, the right to do that for her. We have discussed this and she basically has said the same thing. She is slightly older early 30's and had her own home at that point. I asked her one time did you marry me just because I came alone at the right time and she said, no I had a house and a good life and I was quite content. To me that statement also proves that she married me because she wanted to do for me. 

If you see it like that then it's the ultimate act of giving, and it isn't so scary because if it doesn't work even though you will be crushed you can still feel that you were successful because you were able to give yourself to anther person, they just didn't want it anymore. Pre-nup for a second marriage makes sense when you look at the statistics though and I would never be against that. 

Anyway my 2 cents.


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

Even my pastor admitted to me when I met with him to discuss my divorce.

"The sacrament is beautiful, the bride is beautiful, the party, the gathering, exchanging vows, the wedding it's all beautiful.
But the contract, and the agreement, is a horrendously bad deal."

If it wasn't for the vanity, nobody in their right mind would agree to be scammed, the theater distracts the couple from the horrible contract they are about to sign.

Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Having been married for 24 years only to see it all go up in flames, I would tend to agree with you. The "commitment" is often obscured by legalities, assumptions and expectations in the contract of marriage. Whereas outside of a marriage contract the commitment must be fostered by both sides in order to keep it going for the long haul. I see way too many people get caught up in all the rigmarole of marriage that they forget what it is supposed to be about. In that case it typically ends badly. That isn't to say a LTR won't or can't.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

The biggest fear seems to be losing half of everything, for men at least. What about the LTR or fwb being faithful? Does that not matter after your divorces? Doesn't it still hurt the same? And, why be with someone, man or woman, who is going to sleep with others? Doesn't that raise the likelihood of sti's, just as is proclaimed in infidelity cases? I mean, whose to say what is going on, no matter if there is a marriage contract or not? 

I think marriage is the ultimate. Anything else is less important and temporary, even a LTR. I'm sure there are those that last, but in my mind, it's temporary. No need to meet families. No need to go to any functions. And, no need to make excuses. It may be the ultimate relationship.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> The biggest fear seems to be losing half of everything, for men at least. What about the LTR or fwb being faithful? Does that not matter after your divorces? Doesn't it still hurt the same? And, why be with someone, man or woman, who is going to sleep with others? Doesn't that raise the likelihood of sti's, just as is proclaimed in infidelity cases? I mean, whose to say what is going on, no matter if there is a marriage contract or not?
> 
> I think marriage is the ultimate. Anything else is less important and temporary, even a LTR. I'm sure there are those that last, but in my mind, it's temporary. No need to meet families. No need to go to any functions. And, no need to make excuses. *It may be the ultimate relationship*.


Or the ultimate insanity!

Marriage obviously does not guarantee being faithful, but the expectation can blind-side you to the possibility that your partner isn't. FWB- and even some LTR - often don't have the innate expectation of exclusivity, unless it's negotiated, and I'd trust that open, honest, non-coercive negotiation more than a marriage vow.

And so the risk of sti's isn't necessarily any different - and perhaps it's less, because if you agree to be non-exclusive FWB or LTR, you KNOW that you need to be more careful.

I prefer the idea of non-marital LTRs. There is greater motivation to keep working on the relationship to keep it going, because nothing can be taken for granted. If it truly isn't working, it's easier to break it off, often without all the legal wrangling which is both expensive and emotionally even more hurtful.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> I prefer the idea of non-marital LTRs. There is greater motivation to keep working on the relationship to keep it going, because nothing can be taken for granted. If it truly isn't working, it's easier to break it off, often without all the legal wrangling which is both expensive and emotionally even more hurtful.


Yep. Expecting the "contract" to keep you safe is a fools errand.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Assuming there is no cheating I don't get the problem of losing half of everything, do you feel your spouse didn't have anything to do with the monetary success of the relationship? Splitting up half way seems reasonable to me. I get it if they cheat but even then the did bring something monetary to the situation, they shouldn't lose everything. I wish you could split everything and then sue for emotional distress, that would be fair to me. Child support should be a no brainier, if you don't want to support you child there is something wrong with you. Now Alimony in today's day and age makes absolutely no sense and should be grandfathered away for anyone under 60 years old.

I also think in extreme cases where the guy finds out the child isn't his, he shouldn't have to help pay for the child if the real father can be proven. If not he should have to pay because the child needs support and is innocent. However after the child turns 18 the WW should have to pay back all the money with interest. To me this is the fairest way to deal with it.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Or the ultimate insanity!
> 
> Marriage obviously does not guarantee being faithful, but the expectation can blind-side you to the possibility that your partner isn't. FWB- and even some LTR - often don't have the innate expectation of exclusivity, unless it's negotiated, and I'd trust that open, honest, non-coercive negotiation more than a marriage vow.
> 
> ...


I think we're on the same page, Mbh. I mean, I understand what you're saying.

Although, I'd say the risk of sti's within marriage is higher. As you said, you can figure that, even in a LTR, there probably isn't going to be any reason to believe in exclusivity. Therefore, condoms would be mandatory and there wouldn't be any oral unless there was a good hot bath beforehand. I wouldn't expect any oral for myself. 

I couldn't do the known open thing. I just get grossed out. In fact, it's a reason I don't date. Not the only one, but one of them. Probably something I've had an issue about for a long time, but was magnified and brought to the surface with the gross things I know about with my second marriage, but didn't then, so was an unwilling or unaware participant.

I wouldn't work on a LTR like I would a marriage. I don't believe I'd cheat, since I've never done it, but I just don't know myself anymore. So, I can't say for certain. It's just highly unlikely.

It sure would be pretty carefree, since I wouldn't give a shyt what she did, unless she promised to do something and didn't let me know she couldn't, in time for me to get it done myself. 

Like I said, I would not be at family functions unless they were important to me. Don't care if those things are important to her. We aren't married, and I would not hold her to going to something with my family, which will never happen again, since this last divorce. 

If, by chance, there was something or I changed my mind about my family, which is also highly unlikely, I'd ask her if she wanted to go and would not hold it against her if she said no. I'd go on my own and after a while, never ask, but tell her where I would be that day. 

That's it. I think she deserves that much.

Edit to Add: I wouldn't be watching anyone's grandkids or buying presents for anyone, but that woman in the LTR, possibly. I wouldn't ask for or offer advice either. 

Once, I was in what I thought was going to be a LTR(it lasted six months) many years ago, and when she tried to correct my children, I broke it off right in front of them. No one who isn't my wife and dedicated to me, is going to tell my children or grandchildren what to do. Period. Just the way I am. 

Chances of me seeing my children or grandchildren is slim and none, so there isn't much worry there.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

sokillme said:


> Assuming there is no cheating I don't get the problem of losing half of everything, do you feel your spouse didn't have anything to do with the monetary success of the relationship? *Splitting up half way seems reasonable to me*. I get it if they cheat but even then the did bring something monetary to the situation, they shouldn't lose everything. I wish you could split everything and then sue for emotional distress, that would be fair to me. *Child support should be a no brainier, if you don't want to support you child there is something wrong with you*. Now Alimony in today's day and age makes absolutely no sense and should be grandfathered away for anyone under 60 years old.
> 
> I also think in extreme cases where the guy finds out the child isn't his, he shouldn't have to help pay for the child if the real father can be proven. If not he should have to pay because the child needs support and is innocent. However after the child turns 18 the WW should have to pay back all the money with interest. To me this is the fairest way to deal with it.


Agree with the bold. Always did, even when there is infidelity. Many times, the two would not have gotten as far as they did without the other. 

Child support is a given. I think it's laws and rules need to be revised and updated. 

As far as a child that is not his, well, doesn't that statement say something about who is more likely to get custody? That needs changed.

Also, there should be mandatory dna tests to determine paternity at birth and/or in the case of separation of the couple. If it is found that the person acting as father is not the biological father, then there should be some counseling and an offer of being the child's father with a new legal document determining absolute fatherhood with all the responsibilities and the original birth certificate with his name should be shredded and a new one issued with the correct wording of an unknown father and replacing all previously filed legal documents so the issue is corrected. 

I don't think the mother should have to pay back anything. I could change my mind on that. I have to think about it. It would be a huge deterrent. 

Usually, the mother knows who the other father probably is. She just doesn't want to say, nor does she need to according to the current laws. 

thinking...


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> Usually, the mother knows who the other father probably is. She just doesn't want to say, nor does she need to according to the current laws.
> 
> thinking...


To me putting the emphasis on her paying it back kind of forces her hand, if she wants to not say and protect herself and her AP then she can pay when the time comes, or at least deal with the fallout. Bankruptcy stuff like that, though it should work like Alimony I am not sure how that works if someone files for Bankruptcy. 

I agree with mandatory DNA testing unless the man decides he doesn't want it.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

sokillme said:


> To me putting the emphasis on her paying it back kind of forces her hand, if she wants to not say and protect herself and her AP then she can pay when the time comes, or at least deal with the fallout. Bankruptcy stuff like that, though it should work like Alimony I am not sure how that works if someone files for Bankruptcy.
> 
> I agree with mandatory DNA testing unless the man decides he doesn't want it.


You know what just pisses me off, man? I work with a woman who is in love with some guy that has a few children to different women and doesn't pay a cent in support. She's so in love with him, or maybe it's something else, that she decided she would have a baby with him. So, she now has one.

She isn't living with the guy, cause they caught up with him and he's in jail. Good, I say.

She's got another guy living with her and he's taking on the responsibilities of being a father to a child that isn't his. I don't have a clue if there is any sex involved. I wouldn't think so, since she had the baby not too long ago. I think he just didn't have a place to stay and doesn't make enough on his own. He is a good worker and deserves more. So is she.

So, what in hell is wrong with this situation? Sheesh. This is just one example of something that happens quite often.

I even heard that the only reason the other mothers of his children pursued support and therefore incarceration, was because he was having a baby with this new woman. I guess there was some jealousy or something? 

I guess it shows that it's all about revenge? The infidelities, the reason they "need" support? I just don't believe they don't need support. 

What is wrong with this country and the folks living in it? I like those two. They are, in my opinion, good kids. 

That's messed up.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Worrying about people like that is like worrying today about the weather a year from now. Don't try to figure out or fix brokenness just get out of there before you are hurt by it People like that are like a fire, they burn everyone who gets to close to them.


----------



## Almost-Done (Mar 5, 2016)

NEVER AGAIN!!! I was leary about marrying in the first place. I said why ruin a good thing. Wife drove me nuts for marrying. When are we going to get married. When are we going to get married. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET MARRIED. I was in a happy time in my life, and I thought I had everything I needed, so I did. I wanted to make her happy, so I did. It was great at first, then it got worse. We're now getting divorced. Only one in my family that's getting divorced. Great. Lawyer said it will cost me anywhere from 10k - 20k for her to go away probably, plus another 7.5k for his fees (one of the best in NY, Not taking chances). Will have to borrow from family to pay it off. Even though, she's always said she doesn't want anything from me financially. I guess we'll see. I am hoping for things to come to closure by end of year. A x-mas gift to myself I guess. It will be a bittersweet x-mas nonetheless. I do often wonder, if it fell apart this fast, did she really love me in the first place? I guess I will never know... But, NO. Never again. Once bitten, twice shy. The marriages these days are not like our parents and before. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. The wedding itself is a complete waste of money. Yea, I'm a bit bitter on the whole industry.


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

That's it, I'm more bitter about the legal institution than I am about the reasons I'm getting divorced.

After going through the family court system, I feel like I got conned by the system not my ex-wife.

Knowing what I know now, I would never have entered into marriage, even if it were a successful one.

The legal contract is nothing but a list of consequences should you end the contract, there is not a single benefit to maintaining the contract, other than maintaining it negates the consequences of ending it.

I'm sorry I don't know the definition of foolishness, but I think it has something to do with knowingly making bad choices.

I know not all divorces are contentiously fought, but the fact that family courts encourage and support contention is disgraceful.

Courts even promote child arbitrators that purposely fuel lengthy custody battles because it maximizes profits and liquidates community assets. Courts support lawyers that rob the children they are hired to protect of college savings and life insurance accounts.

It happens every day in almost every divorce, to hundreds of thousands of children every year.

Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Part of the problem is that the "legal contract' is really anything but a contract. Much of it is implied or otherwise determined (ie made up) out of case law and court precedence. And even much of that deals with the dissolution of the "contract" and not the actual workings of it. There are no actual terms specified aside from generic things like "to have and to hold", "love honor and obey" etc. Yet so many, myself included, take the leap of faith. Then once we get burned we are left dazed and confused. In many ways we are not that far removed from the "faithful" at Jonestown.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

I got married primarily because I wanted to have a child. At the time, I believed that marriage would provide necessary stability for my child.

I was already committed to my wife, I didn't need government involvement to increase or prove my commitment. As stated earlier, a true commitment is one that endures in the absence of consequence. 

I no longer believe that marriage provides any real stability or structure for children. Many marriages are entered into under bad circumstances, as if getting married will magically solve fundamental problems. Divorce is rampant enough that no child today can feel secure that his/her parents will always remain together.

As far as the split of assets in a divorce, the problem is the often rigid and formulaic division imposed by the courts. There is an assumption that because two people were married, they automatically worked together to build the financial position they now have. This may be true in some cases, but certainly not all. Some women/men really don't contribute much to their marriage, financially or otherwise. 

If I were no longer married, I would absolutely, positively never marry again. I would enthusiastically enter a committed, long-term relationship with a wonderful woman. Any woman who expressed a strong desire to marry would be nexted. For her well being as well as my own.

I'm not down on marriage, per se. I'm down on the idea that a relationship is not real or significant enough unless they sign a legal contract and have a big party. Marriage is not the only path to a happy long-term relationship. For some it does more harm than good.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Whether you are married or not, if you have children together or own property together, you will have to go through legal channels to figure things out if you split up.... Unless you both come to a complete agreement! 

The whole "she took half of my savings in the divorce" and blaming it on marriage doesn't make complete sense to me. If you had been living your life with that partner exactly the same way, for the same as amount of time, except for being married, would you not have split those savings upon breaking up? Why would you feel you were entitled to it all?


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

I think that the commitment really only benefits the one who brings the least to marriage financially since they would have the least to lose if things didn't work out. That makes this person not really committed and not inclined to work as hard to keep the relationship going. If both parties have equal amounts to lose you have a more likely situation where both parties would want to work hard to keep the relationship going. Like I've been saying, if you level the playing field and don't have a divorce to contend with where one always gets more than they bring in, you have a better situation all around.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

zookeeper said:


> I got married primarily because I wanted to have a child. At the time, I believed that marriage would provide necessary stability for my child.
> 
> I was already committed to my wife, I didn't need government involvement to increase or prove my commitment. *As stated earlier, a true commitment is one that endures in the absence of consequence.
> *
> ...


For the one who has nothing and therefore nothing to lose, if they are in it to the end, do they fit your definition of absence of consequences? 

I'm not sure I understand that, unless what you mean is financial consequences. There are always emotional and familial consequences, if there is love.

As for the second bold statement, are you saying you trust someone who has no consequences to be more faithful than someone who has consequences?

What is the definition of a relationship? I'm thinking it is as different as marriage for each of us. If that is so, those consequences seem important, don't they? 

The only way to not get hurt is to not fall in love. Those are the same consequences whether married or not. I don't care about money. I had none going in and have the same, well a little less, coming out. The money meant and means nothing to me. 

I lost the love of a woman I loved deeply. I lost a companion I enjoyed spending time with. I lost a friend. I lost a confidant. I lost a lover. I lost many things that were very important, but those do not include money or property. Money and property didn't mean as much to me as they did to her. 

In fact, you could say she left me in part because I didn't have money like she did/does. She would not give me a second look in part, because I don't have the money to hang with her. Who really finds money most important? Not me. I can assure you.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

It amazes me on here, how quite a few people it seems, want to ''save'' a really bad marriage. Like why do you want to stay married to an absolute a-hole? Is it money? Is it the kids? Is that enough to stay in a toxic, horrible marriage that is going to cost you possibly your sanity and health?


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

Do you think you are more likely to be betrayed (infidelity) in a marriage or non-marriage LTR?

In non-marriage they would be much more likely to just leave you. In marriage they would be much more likely to not leave you if they cheated.

But that doesn't answer the question. Does having a legal contract deter more people from cheating, than the absence of a contract allow them to walk away before cheating.
Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

I think more married people cheat than non-married people. A contract isn't a deterrent. Look at all the threads on here where cheating is the married couples #1 problem. That's just a small sampling, but cheating in marriage is pervasive, and more so than non-married people. Not to say non-married people don't cheat, they do. But, they tend to be more willing to say 'hey, let's see other people,' because they can. Married people can't exactly say that. lol


----------



## foolscotton3 (Nov 13, 2014)

There are many I assume that won't cheat because they are married, that being the only reason.

I'll admit that was the only reason I didn't cheat. But had we not been married I probably would have just broken up, so it wouldn't have been cheating, but I don't know for sure because that wasn't my situation. 

Sent from my Z936L using Tapatalk


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> It amazes me on here, how quite a few people it seems, want to ''save'' a really bad marriage. Like why do you want to stay married to an absolute a-hole? Is it money? Is it the kids? Is that enough to stay in a toxic, horrible marriage that is going to cost you possibly your sanity and health?


Fear is why they stay. Plain and simple fear


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I like the idea of marriage. I am a traditionalist type person and like the vows, commitments, ceremony of it all. However the reality is I'm not good at it, or picking a spouse, so it's not for me.

Unfortunately all I see with marriage now is exposure and risk, just because I take my vows and commitments seriously doesn't mean my wife does. all the good parts of marriage I can and do get with a LTC I have. Why expose myself to more risk? I mean if my GF leaves then she leaves with the stuff she brought into it. No legal battles, no lawyers, no nothing


----------



## knobcreek (Nov 18, 2015)

Wolf1974 said:


> Fear is why they stay. Plain and simple fear


My marriage is doing a bit better but at the lowest point in it, it was soul draining. And I stayed in a marriage that caused me depression and anxiety going back a decade or more. I did it for:

1. My son, worried about him
2. Financially scared about the courts and child support, I was young and it was very intimidating
3. Scared of being alone


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Where I live there is no legal difference between defacto and married so if it ends the financial fall out is the same. That is why we have a Binding Financial Agreement in place, we are currently defacto but plan to marry.

I have no debilitating regrets from being married and divorced and look forward to being married again. I'm not a religious person but I like being married and take the commitment very seriously.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

knobcreek said:


> My marriage is doing a bit better but at the lowest point in it, it was soul draining. And I stayed in a marriage that caused me depression and anxiety going back a decade or more. I did it for:
> 
> 1. My son, worried about him
> 2. Financially scared about the courts and child support, I was young and it was very intimidating
> 3. Scared of being alone


I don't think you are alone. I think the unknown cause a lot of people to stay. Only reason I was able to make a clean break is because I knew I would never forgive her infidelity. Once that was done we were over because I no longer respected her. Any other offense and I may have stayed married and unhappy


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Holland said:


> Where I live there is no legal difference between defacto and married so if it ends the financial fall out is the same. That is why we have a Binding Financial Agreement in place, we are currently defacto but plan to marry.
> 
> I have no debilitating regrets from being married and divorced and look forward to being married again. I'm not a religious person but I like being married and take the commitment very seriously.


I wish people here did !


----------



## 225985 (Dec 29, 2015)

*Deidre* said:


> I think more married people cheat than non-married people. A contract isn't a deterrent. *Look at all the threads on here where cheating is the married couples #1 problem. *That's just a small sampling, but cheating in marriage is pervasive, and more so than non-married people. Not to say non-married people don't cheat, they do. But, they tend to be more willing to say 'hey, let's see other people,' because they can. Married people can't exactly say that. lol


Don't draw any conclusions from that (bold). I came to TAM specifically because of marital infidelity. I would not have been here otherwise, although I wish I found this site years ago. 

A study would have to be done comparing infidelity in married vs non-married relationships OF EQUAL TIME DURATION (ie years together) to statistically show non-married people cheat less.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

blueinbr said:


> Don't draw any conclusions from that (bold). I came to TAM specifically because of marital infidelity. I would not have been here otherwise, although I wish I found this site years ago.
> 
> A study would have to be done comparing infidelity in married vs non-married relationships OF EQUAL TIME DURATION (ie years together) to statistically show non-married people cheat less.


I don't think there is much expectation of fidelity in anything, but marriage, and that expectation is only if the two are together. In many cases, as soon as there is a separation, there is infidelity through at least dating and you can't make me believe there is no sex of some kind in most instances. Many talk as if it's a free pass to see if they are right for each other. How would they know unless they dated around? 

I don't think you could get a decent pole because most will not want anyone to know. They don't have the guts to bring their lack of commitment or love or whatever in the open and divorce first. That would take all the "fun" out of sneaking around and getting over on someone. I do believe it's a revenge type thing, in part, as well. The rest is the excitement of the new and feeling like they have some control of their lives and a new sense of importance(self-worth). 

Even when it's an anonymous pole done by some university or something, there would be some angst about the truth and it's consequences with such an important agency. It's easier to get the truth when you are on their perceived level and are not someone they want to impress, but can understand them. Even then, you won't get the full truth, only the big picture. Details will be blurred and some, outright lies to keep from degrading themselves to others.


----------

