The Case Against Remarriage

[Nords]

+1. It is difficult to read the smug posts of those that have a long term relationship and attribute it to their own skill. As they say, it takes two to make a marriage, but only one to end it.

"The harder we work, the luckier we get"?

I don't know about skill, but I suspect a large part of marriage is having the benefits of the status quo exceed the hassle factors and risks of seeking other options. I'm not implying self-subjugation-- rather the shared interests that are easier pursued together than apart.

But her happiness is still important to me...

 

[growing_older]

Still, I do very much envy those posters in the long-term relationships, who have no experience of ending a long-term relationship. Boy, do I wish I was still in that club.

 

[travelover]

"The harder we work, the luckier we get"? ............

Of course, it is human nature to think that the good that comes to us is from our own efforts and the no so good that comes to us is bad luck. My point is that at one time I was the smug one, but all the "work" in the world can't change some things beyond our control. I'm wiser now for it.

 

[growing_older]

My point is that at one time I was the smug one, but all the "work" in the world can't change some things beyond our control. I'm wiser now for it.

+1 Wow. That describes it exactly for my experience, too.

 

[dex]

+1. It is difficult to read the smug posts of those that have a long term relationship and attribute it to their own skill. As they say, it takes two to make a marriage, but only one to end it.

Similar to the people who posted they got out of the market at 1500.

 

[haha]

Of course, it is human nature to think that the good that comes to us is from our own efforts and the no so good that comes to us is bad luck. My point is that at one time I was the smug one, but all the "work" in the world can't change some things beyond our control. I'm wiser now for it.

Another +1 here. The more marriage was based on tradition or even tradition maitained by harsh law, the more confidence one could put into its lasting. Actual outcomes are rarely well predicted by the participants' subjective confidence.

The more marriage is based on romantic love, the riskier it is. Love by definition is impetuous and sometimes heedless- even if her love for you is no longer this way, her love for another may well be. And the same goes for husbands' feelings toward their wives.

Taking the hit of losing love and one's hopes for a shared future is bad, but not unfair. Some of the financial hits that divorced men in this thread have posted about are not fair. They are result of an out of control marriage dissolution process that is no longer attuned to the realities of marriage today.

Ha

 

[youbet]

As they say, it takes two to make a marriage, but only one to end it.

haha said: Some of the financial hits that divorced men in this thread have posted about are not fair. They are result of an out of control marriage dissolution process that is no longer attuned to the realities of marriage today

Getting back to the article OP posted about the financial risks and pitfalls involved in a mid-life remarriage.......

Given these odds, it does seem that if cultural beliefs and emotions allow, a "non-legalized" relationship might well be the way to go as an alternative to remarriage. Of course, as some have pointed out, some states have laws regarding common law arrangements that can bring the same financial perils as formalized marriage would bring.

I'd think the pain of a breakup could be the same for a non-formalized committed relationship as for a legally formalized marriage.

 

[Martha]

Of course, it is human nature to think that the good that comes to us is from our own efforts and the no so good that comes to us is bad luck. My point is that at one time I was the smug one, but all the "work" in the world can't change some things beyond our control. I'm wiser now for it.

Absoeffinglutely. I have learned more than I wanted to learn as a result of things there was no way for me to resolve or control. I had to learn that I cannot trust a number of people that I really care about. I now truly believe everyone is doing the best that they can, even the jerks. It kind of dawned on me years ago, when we bought a building to fix up and there was a tenant from hell in the building. We proceeded to evict and she proceeded to resist. She would lie, connive and do all she could to delay. We would doggedly plow forward. Somehow I knew that she was doing what she needed to do in her circumstances. Her best. But of course, that didn't mean that I wasn't going to plow forward. But it helped me to not be angry with her and the situation. It just was what it was.

But I can't be so sanguine about it though when it involves people I care about and behavior that is uncaring and seems to make no sense at all, even though I know it must.

 

[Khan]

Wow! That is shocking.

Sounds like the only safe way for a man to love a woman without getting in a situation like that, is to refrain from marrying and also to keep up separate residences. Then, you can love all you want, and enjoy your retirement alongside your sweetheart.

I may yet persuade some that there are advantages to living apart and not marrying. Not that that solution is for everyone.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Khan]

This, for me, is the aspect where my personal experience interferes. I was in a committed relationship that I could not have been more confident of. We both appeared as deeply committed as I can ever imagine. Until she decided that she wasn't. I suspect I will always be concerned that no matter how well I know someone and how committed we appear to be, I will remain vulnerable to such a change in the future. Makes defensive attitudes seem wise and difficult to imagine dropping that guard.

Well, I thought it was a "committed relationship".

 

[Martha]

Getting back to the article OP posted about the financial risks and pitfalls involved in a mid-life remarriage.......

Given these odds, it does seem that if cultural beliefs and emotions allow, a "non-legalized" relationship might well be the way to go as an alternative to remarriage. Of course, as some have pointed out, some states have laws regarding common law arrangements that can bring the same financial perils as formalized marriage would bring.

I'd think the pain of a breakup could be the same for a non-formalized committed relationship as for a legally formalized marriage.

Or maybe better yet, a contract that sets out the financial terms so you don't have a court decide for you in the future. I know a number of people who have contracts with their live in SOs to address things like division of property if they split.

 

[Khan]

+1. It is difficult to read the smug posts of those that have a long term relationship and attribute it to their own skill. As they say, it takes two to make a marriage, but only one to end it.

Interesting how that works.

 

[Khan]

Of course, it is human nature to think that the good that comes to us is from our own efforts and the no so good that comes to us is bad luck. My point is that at one time I was the smug one, but all the "work" in the world can't change some things beyond our control. I'm wiser now for it.

Define "long term".

 

[haha]

But I can't be so sanguine about it though when it involves people I care about and behavior that is uncaring and seems to make no sense at all, even though I know it must.

A spiritually enlightened post. I personally tend to be more a student of T. Soprano than of G. Bhudda.

Ha

 

[Khan]

Or maybe better yet, a contract that sets out the financial terms so you don't have a court decide for you in the future. I know a number of people who have contracts with their live in SOs to address things like division of property if they split.

If the occasion arises, I shall insist such.

 

[youbet]

I know a number of people who have contracts with their live-in SOs to address things like division of property if they split.

Would that be sort of like a pre-nup for live-togethers? Sounds like a great idea!

 

[travelover]

Define "long term".

Long term for me was 27 years.

 

[freebird5825]

Still, I do very much envy those posters in the long-term relationships, who have no experience of ending a long-term relationship. Boy, do I wish I was still in that club.

I'm actually glad my relationship with ex-dh2b is over. A good lesson learned.

He signed a 50-50 cost share agreement* the day he moved in. I wrote it.

I came out smelling like a rose because I kept my finances separate, I paid for every capital improvement on MY home with MY money (thank you Mr. Trust Attorney for that sage advice ), and never co-mingled financial assets. Heeheeheee

* I read NOLO's book for unmarried couples living together and did the appropriate CYA actions as a result.

 

[youbet]

Long term for me was 27 years.

Not to make an analogy between your marriage to a woman and my marriage to MegaCorp..... but.....

I was married to MegaCorp for 27 yrs and booted out of the relationship against my will....... It hurt my feelings at the time. I got "alimony" for a year, then was left to fend for myself. FIRE saved me after that.

Getting back to the article we've been discussing (sorry.... I know I keep doing that), it makes me wonder how much financial independence, defined as having enough so that both partners can be reasonable well set, helps with mid-life break-ups.

 

[Martha]

Would that be sort of like a pre-nup for live-togethers? Sounds like a great idea!

Not uncommon after the California palimony suits.

Sample agreement: Sample Cohabitation Agreement - Divorce & Family Law Center

 

[youbet]

I came out smelling like a rose.........Heeheeheee
.

Does this imply you simply avoided an unfair split of financial assets at the end. Or because you benefitted from a split that was in your favor?

If it was in your favor, would you mind sharing what tactics on your part, or what mistakes on his part, led to this outcome? Just asking cuz I think actual experiences such as this would be worth a zillion times more that the general advise given in the article we're discussing.

If that's too personal, completely understood.

 

[easysurfer]

My disclaimer...not married here.

But have been reading the posts on the case against remarriage. Which begs the question. Can the same case be put for against marriage in general?

 

[FinanceDude]

If DW ever died, I would not remarry. I would, however, date and maybe even consider a live-in SO............

 

[youbet]

My disclaimer...not married here.

But have been reading the posts on the case against remarriage. Which begs the question. Can the same case be put for against marriage in general?

Absolutely not. You could make some case but the same case would be far too much of a generalization. Things change over the course of a lifetime. The circumstances, needs, risks, pros-cons, etc. for a pair of youngsters is different than for a couple of mid-lifers looking at remarriage after the loss (for whatever reason)of a previous spouse.

 

[haha]

My disclaimer...not married here.

But have been reading the posts on the case against remarriage. Which begs the question. Can the same case be put for against marriage in general?

I would say it depends on how risk averse you are, and what are your opinions about people and life in general.

Form MY POV, the answer is a certain yes, it does apply. If you want children you will need a lot of help, and within the 1st world you might be just giving a call on your net worth and earning ability no matter what steps you take.

However, if you do not want children from a relationship it seems that peope are already voting with their feet, as both marriage rates and % of married adults continue to fall year after year.

Ha