While the courts may grant Dan and Kathleen joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Kathleen, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Over night Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad"--a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every 7 days with his own children.
Once divorced, odds are at least even that Dan's ex-wife will interfere with his visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40% of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.
Kathleen will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay a substantial portion of his take-home pay to Kathleen in child support.
As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.
He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.
He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70% or 80% of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.
"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."
No it's not worth it for guys because there is nothing to gain. Let me say this. There is nothing that you can't do in a marriage that you can't do in a relationship. You can love, have children/family, live together and so on. Girls on the other hand have everything to gain if things don't work out. I remember what Chris Rock said about the O.J. case in the 90's and it goes like this.
"O.J. was paying all that alimony and he hasn't scored a "touchdown" in 20 years. O.J. should have had a pre-nup, that's right prenumptual agreement. Everybody needs a pre-nup. People think you have to be rich to get a pre-nup, oh no. If you have 20 million, and have to give up 10 million big deal you're not starving. But if you make 30 thousand, and your wife wants 15, you might have to kill her! I'm not gonna move back with my mama just because you ain't in love, you gonna have to die!"
Marriage is NOT for love and commitment because you can have that without a marriage. It's a safety net now, a "just in case". Then you have people waiting to get married to have sex, then the sex isn't good, then they are "stuck" unless they have the balls to leave. You have sex being used as a weapon in marriages or it just stops happening (by both sexes), and wonder why the other person leaves or has an affair. Many people stay married while they are not happy. Attraction leaves, people change.
It's a big risk for men mostly. When a relationship is over, it's over. Both people go their seperate ways, move on, no courts, no money. Most of the time back then, marriage was the "ideal way of life", even if you weren't happy with the marriage. I rather be alone and happy/content, then with someone and miserable.
There are certain countries that still marry more than one person at once, or in a one on one marriage they know their "roles". Once again, you don't need marriage for a happy life with someone you love, it's not necessary and not worth the risk. It's funny that a marriage licence is the only type of licence that doesn't expire. I wonder how many people would stay married if it could expire and had to be renewed every 3 or 4 years...
I really don't know. I don't know if I ever want to get married. I'm not really religious so there is no reason.
It's easier if something happens to me or him, case of illness and so on. Might be easier for kids too. But I don't think that are good reasons to get married. I saw so many marriage going to hell in my family...
So here is what I always say about that topic:
I would only marry someone for the right reason. What those reasons are? I don't know. If I knew, I would be already married ;)
Love is great but it can fade. It is possible to have a long marriage but people fall in quick love and don't know the person entirely. You have to work at it. I think because Women pull the helpless thing when clearly they aren't. Some guys need way more help .
Is it the only risk we take in life?
Life is all about taking risks. And you never know; it might be the most beautiful risk you take ;)
Opinion
6Opinion
This is a very interesting question. I have seen a lot of articles recently about this issue. Some people feel that the type of marriage we've had in recent times is becoming obsolete. After all, it isn't the only type of relationship arrangement that has ever existed. Some people are becoming creative and imagining new types of structures.
Marriage definitely IS a risk. You are trusting someone enormously and do stand to lose a lot if it goes bad. So the message is to really be careful in choosing a partner and committing to something so important. That means really testing the relationship out to see if it can withstand tough times and conflict, rather than what a lot of people do which is go into fantasy land and try to block out any problems or difficulties. They postpone the problems until later and then pay the price (and sadly often make their kids pay the price).
If you have the right partner and have that kind of trust and feel comfortable in that sort of monogamous lifelong commitment, then marriage can certainly be a risk worth taking. It does have benefits along with the risks. But it's too bad that so many people feel pressured into marriage by a fantasy like image of it, rather than doing the tough work of really making sure it's the right thing and understanding that it's perfectly acceptable not to do it if it isn't right for you.
Kathleen is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirty-something software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan Syndrome--they refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up."
However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.
"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31 year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment--wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."
The US marriage rate has dipped 40% over the past four decades, to its lowest point ever. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system which is hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."
It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Kathleen, and has two children. There is a 50% likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does the odds are two to one that it will be Kathleen, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband--studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.
(continued)
For a wealthy man... HA! Prenumptual agreement please!
Paul McCartney as a prime example. His ex-wife tried to con the public into thinking she was 'the sorry, upset, abused, unloved' wife of this 'tyranical, pension aged' man (who also happens to be well known as a caring, loving, ethical, morally sound, MEGA-RICH man) so she could get her filthy claws on his coin. McCartney, international legend, English tribute made to look like a false person simply for money? If you have money... you have enemies and more importantly enemies in the form of younger, attractive snakes with friendly faces after your coin
Marriage is dangerous when you're in the money
The problem with marriage today is that people always think, "if it doesn't work out I can always get divorced" which make marriage lose it's meaning. Marriage is meaningless, so imo it's not worth it.
Yeah, if you find a good girl and both of you are willing to WORK to make it work out in the end. Call me old-fashioned, but if both parties wait until marriage for sex and everything, the odds of divorce are much lower
It's an overall bad investment. Spend a beating on money for the wedding itself, risk losing half your stuff...just for a really expensive party and some tax breaks?
you can't let statistics scare you out of doing something
Hell no its not especially for a guy he's going to lose his ass when the marriage ends.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions