Flutterby™! : Divorce - British Style 2006-05-25 15:12:10.535651+00

Divorce - British Style

2006-05-25 15:12:10.535651+00 by ziffle 8 comments

Having tried it more than once I can say emotionally it seems wonderful, but legally its a minefield. A recent ruling in England says it all: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2196058,00.html

"The ruling will serve as a deterrent to marriage. But prenuptial agreements will provide a good degree of protection — and I predict it will not be long before they are made binding. It's not if, it's when."

"...said he would advise wealthy young men not to marry"

Alienation of affection and adultry is not longer a factor in a divorce, there or here.

What happens is one party wakes up and says to :) herself: 'I can have all that and not have to deal with him and I get the children to raise the way I want to boot'. And a few weeks later your life is shattered.

I have looked at apartment houses (to purchase) and gone through all the units and you get a sad, scary view of the truth; divorced guys paying 43 percent of their after tax income in child support so the ex can carry on with the live in boyfriend, in the house the husband bought, and the divorced guy is trying to live on the remainder, deal with the pain of the divorce, trying to overcome the hatred of him taught to his children by the ex, fighting depression about some guy living in his old house, screwing his ex while the children are there, and living on the child support he is sending under penalty of jail. And trying to put gas in his car and pay his rent on the left overs. His life is basically over emotionally.

I advised my sons not to marry. If they want children thats scary enough but definetly don't marry her - it's too dangerous. This took me a long time to come to; I want to think there is a world where men are appreciated and the wives are grateful; I wonder if that is just a wish for a world long ago and far away...

Notwithstanding some here who are married here and perfectly happy, does this bother anyone?

Disclosure: I get an F in relationships it appears; of course finding female free market nudist polyamorous atheists is not that easy; maybe its easier for Christian-Christian, etc. but upon reflection they divorce at high rates too don't they? (We used to call it Petite Atheist Intellectual Nudists or PAIN for short in the Mens group but we have outgrown that now. :) )

Ziffle in a whole new world.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-25 15:41:46.057704+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

It seems to me that marriage is a contract entered into by two people, but where the terms of the contract are created, often somewhat arbitrarily, by the larger culture and are subject to change at the whims of the society.

It's one of the problems I have with the whole "gay marriage" controversy, I want to support my friends in their quest for equality, but what I really want to see is to have the state get out of the marriage business altogether. So I have trouble supporting organizations like the Human Rights Campaign because... well... they're going the wrong direction.

Of course being unmarried in a long-term relationship has side benefits. Charlene's brother speaks of me as his brother-in-law, I referr to him as my brother-outlaw.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-25 15:42:38.316491+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

ziffle, different religous groups divorce at different rates. IIRC, protestants have a higher than average divorce rate (and higher than average marriage rate) while Catholics are lower on both. I can find you the studies if you're interested.

You might want to actually quote correctly from the article you've asked us to read. What it says is:

Anyone with substantial wealth, male or female, is vulnerable to scam artists of all sorts, including romantic. Perhaps the early blush wears off sometimes and only the money is attractive anymore. Having a child is a serious, life-long commitment, and should not be undertaken without far more thought and evaluation than most couples give it. Once a child is part of a relationship, some of the dynamics change. If the couple agrees that one partner, typically the woman, will leave the workforce to do childcare and housework, they've taken the partnership to an entirely different level. I guess since I don't agree that this is a good choice, I have little sympathy either for partners who agree to let their spouses leave the workforce and later complain about having to be sole support of the family, or for partners who leave the workforce and then later complain that they didn't get a salary for that period of time. It's entirely possible to work out childrearing and house management while both parties work. It's not EASY and it's not always the ideal situation, but it's possible. For couples who choose other arrangements, it just doesn't annoy me if they want to go at each other in court later. I don't feel sympathy for either party.

It's not having children, nor getting married, that causes any of these problems. It's the responsibility of the individuals involved in any partnership to be aware and honest and open and cooperative, in addition to loving and horny and productive. If those characteristics aren't all in place, the parties are left open to the sort of mistreatment you cite. Early love sometimes masks the truth about some of these characteristics, or people change over time. Just write the darned pre-nup and be done with it.

Note that I am married for almost 20 years to a man whose first wife took his daughter and left him for religious and lifestyle reasons (she was evangelical and anti-nudist) and am not at all sympathetic to partners who try to enrich themselves on the backs of their former spouses, usually in the name of "child support". My husband lost connection with his daughter over such an attempt. (I am also a petite intellectual atheist nudist, although that has little bearing on this discussion since I'm neither available nor interested.) In our partnership, we made what I consider far better choices.

"I want to think there is a world where men are appreciated and the wives are grateful..."

Oh please.

How about a world where all partners love, respect, and appreciate each other for their talents and contributions? Let's get off this "man/wife" kick, shall we? It's so last century.

#Comment Re: made: 2006-05-25 16:10:23.871365+00 by: ziffle [edit history]

Dan: I agree; American law is following along the same lines a English law generally speaking..

Diane: Thanks for the lesson in attribution, but I was quoting precisly: "Jeremy Levison, Mr McFarlane's lawyer, said he would advise wealthy young men not to marry" from the article.

and, I am glad you are (paraphrasing) 'not sympathetic for those enrich themselves' ... as its the norm not the exception, as I have seen many times.

and if you are a petite intellectual atheist nudist I retract everything I said. :)

How about a world where all partners love, respect, and appreciate each other for their talents and contributions? Let's get off this "man/wife" kick, shall we? It's so last century.

#Comment Re: diane reese made: 2006-05-25 19:22:03.811101+00 by: donovanpax [edit history]

Damn, Diane, are you sure you're not available nor interested? Because I think I'm in love! (Not that I'm available either, but I don't believe that precludes my interest level!)