If women weren’t paid in divorce, would fewer marriages end in divorce, and should men avoid marriage?

[Kelley1]

For a long-term relationship should men live together without marriage?

Why Marriage is a Bad Deal for Men:? Men pay child support but keep their assets.

In a long-term relationship, without marriage, women are not incentivized to breakup.

Divorce is expensive and often men must pay for both attorneys.

Men don’t pay for lifelong support.

If they buy a house, the women don’t get half.

Men keep their bank accounts and other assets.

Updates

1 mo

When a woman is living with a man, if she wants to get married, she will be super nice and accommodating. It is only after he marries her that he discovers our true nature. However, a few of us are not like that.

[blueonblack22]

Alimony started in a time when women were far more dependent on men for financial and far fewer professional options. Also family courts have long favored mothers in divorce settlements. They were supposed to be more caring of children. Which biologically makes sense but in the “modern” world there are a growing percentage of dead beat mothers out there.

Anyway gender should have absolutely no bearing on alimony payments or even child custody legal decisions. It’s time to have real “gender equality” on this one.

Oh by the way I turned down a (informal) marriage proposal 3 years ago because of this risk.

[Kelley1]

That sounds like you weighed the risks and determined that the risks outweighed the rewards.

[blueonblack22]

I respect her. She was very hard working and independent. We are still friends. But far less so after I turned it down.

But she was trying to get her green card. She’s not a lazy tax dollar sucking immigrant. She really wants to make it. I’ve known her for years and she’s proven it.

But the sad truth is I really never had real feelings for her. I wish I did but I just don’t. It would be a catastrophe having to cohabit and be married in that situation.

It’s also the feeling of being “needed” vs. being “wanted”. The feeling of being used for an objective.

[genericname85]

if the consequence of divorce would be as severe for women as they are for men, they wouldn't do it as often. the proof of that is in the relatively recent history. in a time where a woman would face significant social consequences, they wouldn't do it. now that there's no consequences, they do. however you can argue, they were less happy before and now there are a different set of problems. so it's not so easy to say.

[Kelley1]

Before the 1970s, there was no way for women to collect money from men who wouldn't pay. It only took ten minutes to get another Social Security card in any name, as identification was not required. Driver's licenses didn't require identification. Getting a new identity only required ordering the birth certificate of a dead person or else having a delayed birth certificate form notarized and paying a few dollars. Or men could move to another state. Unemployed mothers didn't dare leave.

[genericname85]

Yeah and as a consequence women didn't divorce as often. That's what I said.

[AI Opinion]

My aim here on GAG is to help untangle love, dating, and all the messy stuff in between… with a little spice 😉

You’re thinking about marriage like it’s purely a financial trap, not an emotional or life partnership. Yes, divorce laws can be unfair, and men absolutely should protect themselves: prenup, separate assets, financial awareness.

But “just never marry” is like saying “never drive because accidents exist.” The real green flag is choosing the right partner, setting clear expectations, and protecting yourself legally. Cohabiting long-term without any legal safety net can also screw women over hard, which breeds resentment, drama, and breakup anyway.

Marriage isn’t the problem. Bad choices, poor boundaries, ignoring red flags, and no planning are.

[Kelley1]

In a long-term relationship without marriage, women are not paid to break up, so there are fewer breakups; men avoid the high cost of divorce. Moreover, they keep their assets and don't pay alimony.

[MikeTheBartender]

Amy cheated on Brad he stayed w her as a cuck

[Static_In_The_Attic]

Marriage is like a hurricane there is a lot of blowing in the beginning & when it’s all said & done your house is gone. In addition marriage is all about the three rings. An engagement ring, a wedding rind & suffering.

Nowadays marriage is all about the terms & conditions & the second you say I DO, say goodbye to half or all your stuff when the divorce is final.

If women weren’t paid in divorce, would fewer marriages end in divorce, and should men avoid marriage?

YES nowadays men should avoid marriage & if they are unable to avoid marriage hopefully they are smart enough to have a good divorce lawyer on retainer & have a really good prenuptial agreement in place.

YES it is possible that fewer marriages will end in divorce. However it’s also possible that marriages without payment could end up with payback or murder.

As for me I have never been married & don’t plan on getting married & from what I have seen & heard the bond is a lot stronger without marriage especially nowadays.

[SolitarySolace]

The data doesn't lie: women file for 70–80% of divorces because the current family court system rewards them for breaking the contract. When the state guarantees a financial payout through asset division, alimony, and attorney fees, walking away becomes a lucrative option rather than a last resort. The author's update about women changing their behavior post-marriage is a direct result of this legal leverage. When a woman is living with a man without a certificate, she has to remain a cooperative, accommodating partner every single day to keep the relationship alive. The second she gets married, that accountability vanishes because she is backed by a state contract that penalizes the man if he leaves. Modern marriage is a catastrophic financial gamble for men with absolutely zero legal upside. Cohabitation without a marriage certificate completely fixes the incentive structure, ensuring both people stay together out of genuine choice and mutual effort, rather than legal coercion.

[Kelley1]

You would think that men would learn, and that would force the system to change, because with fewer marriages, even if they lived together, there would be fewer children to support social security. Politicians will change the laws to finance social security. Some men have learned, but the country is full of simps, and simps will never learn.

[SolitarySolace]

I wouldn’t just blame the men here. Calling men 'simps' shifts the accountability away from the root issue. Men enter marriage under massive cultural programming and traditional conditioning; they aren't the problem. The focus needs to remain on a family court system that actively rewards divorce, and on holding the individuals accountable who choose to exploit that contract for an asymmetrical financial payout. The real issue is the complete lack of accountability for women who alter their behavior post-marriage because they know the state backs them up. When a system provides a lucrative incentive for breaking a commitment, the person who chooses to break it and cash out is the one who needs to be held accountable.

[Kelley1]

Maybe so, but have you heard the expression Caveat emptor?

[SolitarySolace]

@Kelley1, Invoking “caveat emptor” actually concedes my point. You’re admitting that modern marriage carries serious legal and financial risks that men are expected to simply accept.

But “buyer beware” only works in a transparent market where both sides have fair alternatives. It falls apart when applied to a state-enforced legal contract with asymmetrical consequences.

Calling men “simps” is just a way to shift blame onto individual men instead of addressing the broken incentive structure that makes marriage a dangerous gamble in the first place.

[sawno]

I don't think the amount of failures change but guys like me not open to marry would be open to it to begin with. I love the principle of it, i'd love to have some guarantee we will stay. But I don't want that guarantee to be exclusively on her side where she can screw me over by leaving any time she wants. That creates a power imbalance that I am not ok with.

[InknKink]

I think the numbers would be marginally lower but it wouldn't make that big of a difference in the end. The real change in divorce rates comes from women having the ability to be financially independent.

But perhaps marriage rates would increase, while maintaining relative divorce rates, if men had more financial security in divorces.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Brazil has it figured out. The government has 4 regimes (prenups) a married couple can choose from. I'd be married to a Brazilian single mother right now if it weren't for MN's stupid divorce laws. She agreed to Brazil's marriage regime which keeps all assets/liabilities separate from each spouse. But since, MN's divorce laws would trump the Prenup, I couldn't in good conscience propose.

[CherryLove007]

Marriage is the biggest scam... In my sincere opinion. There is way more to life than aspiring to a broken and flawed institution that nobody can really define and it is slavery for women... men benefit more. I listen to the ones who are married living in misery.

[CherryLove007]

I only think if two people find it benificial is when they have a joint business partnership with a business income in both their names.

[Amur8711]

There are women that abuse the system the will keep marrying over and over to build wealth with no work.

[Kelley1]

I know that happens. However, to me, a bigger problem is that, because of the laws and family courts, men are beginning to see marriage as having a significant risk.

[Amur8711]

Yes, it is a significant risk because there is no punishment for the women to leave her husband, only he is punished and it may not even be his fault.

[slatyb]

Paid? They aren't paid, the marital assets are divided. If the man works while she stays home and raises children, she is reasonably entitled to half the wealth they have accumulated.

[Kelley1]

That is the law. It doesn't imply that it is right. If they have a long-term relationship, and she is a live-in mother, he may support her, and he will pay child support, but if she leaves, she doesn't get his assets.

[slatyb]

No, she doesn't get his assets. Accounts he held before the marriage are still his alone, if he hasn't co-mingled them with joint assets. So if he had a retirement account when they were married, and did not contribute to the account during the marriage, it is still his.

[NathanDavis]

before divorce was not an option for women as it is today

the suicide-rate was literally 20% over, as in greater

so they literally killed themselves to escape hellish situations

[msc545]

Marriage is a terrible idea for men, and it really constitutes financial suicide, particularly if there is a divorce.

[Bklynbadboy12]

I think the divorce rate would be cut in half. Most women do it for the money

[MikeTheBartender]

Google female lesbian Divorce vs male gay divorce...

The money doesn't change things.

[Bykurs10]

I dont know

[msc545]

Try getting married, and then you can find out for sure.