Jump to content

Menu

Not wanting to risk it


Scarlett
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Right, but I'm just saying that financial and legal issues are going to be a concern either way, maybe slightly less so than if someone doesn't get legally married, but for me the reasons of not being in a long-term-live-in relationship (having another adult in my kids' lives is the HUGE one) are the same practically and emotionally and in all other ways if we get married or not. So I understand the question of, "If you're going to have this long term relationship with someone you love, why would you consider marriage to be the point where you draw the line?" For me, 99% of the issues that are present in a marriage are present in a long-term relationship. I don't care if someone wants to get married or not, I just think it's a little bit of denial to think that not getting married is some kind of protection against being burned again.

 

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I have been thinking about this, and I think the reason we seem to be disagreeing might be because we are looking at the same conversation from two different angles. I’m picturing the guy and his girlfriend agreeing to be in a relationship without getting married, whereas I think maybe you are looking at it as the guy stringing the girlfriend along without telling her he never plans to marry her.

If that’s what the guy is doing, I would agree that he is wrong. If he never wants to get married again and he thinks she might want to marry at some point, he owes to to her to tell her the truth. If he tells her and she goes along with it, while secretly assuming she will get him to change his mind, it’s her own fault if she ends up disappointed.

No I am not looking at it like he is stringing her along.  I don't know either way.  My wondering and thought process is like what EmseB said above, especially the bolded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

 

No I am not looking at it like he is stringing her along.  I don't know either way.  My wondering and thought process is like what EmseB said above, especially the bolded. 

 

Okay, thanks. Sorry to have put words into your mouth!  🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Correct...as well as those IN marriages.  

Scarlett,

You've said before that your religion doesn't value dating for the sake of dating, that it is really intended to lead to marriage. In that case, the end game is always marriage (I'm not sure how 2nd marriages are viewed by JW religion - I think not well?) In the lives of people who are not religious, or are less conservatively religious, the end game is love...the marriage piece can be much less important to BOTH partners. Many people simply don't care to get married. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Scarlett,

You've said before that your religion doesn't value dating for the sake of dating, that it is really intended to lead to marriage. In that case, the end game is always marriage (I'm not sure how 2nd marriages are viewed by JW religion - I think not well?) In the lives of people who are not religious, or are less conservatively religious, the end game is love...the marriage piece can be much less important to BOTH partners. Many people simply don't care to get married. 

The end game of dating is love? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

Scarlett,

You've said before that your religion doesn't value dating for the sake of dating, that it is really intended to lead to marriage. In that case, the end game is always marriage (I'm not sure how 2nd marriages are viewed by JW religion - I think not well?) In the lives of people who are not religious, or are less conservatively religious, the end game is love...the marriage piece can be much less important to BOTH partners. Many people simply don't care to get married. 

It isn't as if love is not valued as part of marriage, but nonetheless this man did not seem like he just didn't value marriage.  Not AT ALL.  He sounded like he had tried that and he just couldn't 'risk' it again.  And after he left the clerk confirmed that the man was just too afraid to get married again (would be number 3).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

The end game of dating is love? 

 

If you are involved in a relationship like the guy in OP was with "a keeper" - yes. Maybe dating multiple people, the end game is fun. But if you want a long term relationship but not marriage, being in love is enough, or maybe companionship is enough. I'm sure it's different for everyone. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Yes, I get that, but this man was talking about this woman AS IF he loved her and all that...but he wont marry her.  

Maybe the question should be why would you allow yourself to be that woman. 

I have a number of friends who have not only allowed themselves to be that woman, but have CHOSEN to be that woman.  One did not want to lose rights to her ex-husband's pension benefits.  Another did not want to lose access to some benefits she received from her deceased husband that she would lose if she remarried.  One wanted to maintain the right to have the man leave her home immediately should the relationship sour and felt this was important to protect her children.  One did not want to open herself up to having to provide information (in particular tax returns that contained her salary) to the man's ex-wife in child support determination for children from a previous marriage.  Another had no interest in the contemporary institution of legal marriage.  One knew her parents would not approve of the marriage because of the race of the man and she just didn't want to deal with that.  Another would not be able to marry the man in her religion because he was divorced; she saw no reason for a state marriage if she could not marry within her faith.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

 

If you are involved in a relationship like the guy in OP was with "a keeper" - yes. Maybe dating multiple people, the end game is fun. But if you want a long term relationship but not marriage, being in love is enough, or maybe companionship is enough. I'm sure it's different for everyone. 

Again though this man didn't come across as if he is thrilled with the situation. He seemed a little sad even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It isn't as if love is not valued as part of marriage, but nonetheless this man did not seem like he just didn't value marriage.  Not AT ALL.  He sounded like he had tried that and he just couldn't 'risk' it again.  And after he left the clerk confirmed that the man was just too afraid to get married again (would be number 3).  

 

Maybe he’s just being sensible.

Let’s face it, at some point he probably thought his first wife was a keeper, and I’m sure he felt the same way about his second wife, as well... but he was wrong about them, so he's probably justifiably concerned that he might be in the same situation with this girlfriend in the future. Maybe he realizes he has a history of picking the wrong women, or maybe he picks wonderful women and he’s the one who’s the problem, but either way, remaining single may be a wise choice for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

One other thing to consider.....perhaps an ex is CRAZY and the risk is not to the guy not wanting to get married, but perhaps to the person he is in a LTR with.  Someone who has been involved in domestic violence or in other complicated things.......may not want to have a spouse wrapped up in the craziness of an ex or crazy family members, etc etc.  

To which I would refer back to the post below

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Right, but I'm just saying that financial and legal issues are going to be a concern either way, maybe slightly less so than if someone doesn't get legally married, but for me the reasons of not being in a long-term-live-in relationship (having another adult in my kids' lives is the HUGE one) are the same practically and emotionally and in all other ways if we get married or not. So I understand the question of, "If you're going to have this long term relationship with someone you love, why would you consider marriage to be the point where you draw the line?" For me, 99% of the issues that are present in a marriage are present in a long-term relationship. I don't care if someone wants to get married or not, I just think it's a little bit of denial to think that not getting married is some kind of protection against being burned again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

Right, but I'm just saying that financial and legal issues are going to be a concern either way, maybe slightly less so than if someone doesn't get legally married, but for me the reasons of not being in a long-term-live-in relationship (having another adult in my kids' lives is the HUGE one) are the same practically and emotionally and in all other ways if we get married or not. So I understand the question of, "If you're going to have this long term relationship with someone you love, why would you consider marriage to be the point where you draw the line?" For me, 99% of the issues that are present in a marriage are present in a long-term relationship. I don't care if someone wants to get married or not, I just think it's a little bit of denial to think that not getting married is some kind of protection against being burned again.

See above.  One isn't 'single' just because one is not married.

2 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Maybe he’s just being sensible.

Let’s face it, at some point he probably thought his first wife was a keeper, and I’m sure he felt the same way about his second wife, as well... but he was wrong about them, so he's probably justifiably concerned that he might be in the same situation with this girlfriend in the future. Maybe he realizes he has a history of picking the wrong women, or maybe he picks wonderful women and he’s the one who’s the problem, but either way, remaining single may be a wise choice for him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Again though this man didn't come across as if he is thrilled with the situation. He seemed a little sad even.

 

If that’s the case, he will probably change his mind at some point. Maybe his divorce was recent and he’s still feeling very raw about it, so his knee-jerk reaction is that he will never let himself get hurt that way again, or that he will never let anyone take financial advantage of him again, or he may have any number of other reasons for being wary of marriage. But who knows how he will feel in the future? He may have said the exact same thing after his divorce from his first wife... but then he married wife #2... so there could very well eventually be a wife #3, as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have a number of friends who have not only allowed themselves to be that woman, but have CHOSEN to be that woman.  One did not want to lose rights to her ex-husband's pension benefits.  Another did not want to lose access to some benefits she received from her deceased husband that she would lose if she remarried.  One wanted to maintain the right to have the man leave her home immediately should the relationship sour and felt this was important to protect her children.  One did not want to open herself up to having to provide information (in particular tax returns that contained her salary) to the man's ex-wife in child support determination for children from a previous marriage.  Another had no interest in the contemporary institution of legal marriage.  One knew her parents would not approve of the marriage because of the race of the man and she just didn't want to deal with that.  Another would not be able to marry the man in her religion because he was divorced; she saw no reason for a state marriage if she could not marry within her faith.  

Except for rare exceptions I do not think this is a concern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

To which I would refer back to the post below

 

 

Well, I disagree with that statement. When you own a CPA firm like we do, you see a lot of evidence that there are far more significant issues between married couples who are divorcing than between couples who break up after dating but living separately. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Well, I disagree with that statement. When you own a CPA firm like we do, you see a lot of evidence that there are far more significant issues between married couples who are divorcing than between couples who break up after dating but living separately. 

You handle accounting issues for people who are dating and living separately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Again though this man didn't come across as if he is thrilled with the situation. He seemed a little sad even.

I get that. There are a lot of sad reasons for this. One can be quite saddened about the possibility that something will not ever happen for them again, sense of loss, of grief even. He may have some extenuating circumstances that dictate he not legally entangle himself with his girlfriend, and feel very down about that.

My niece in law went through something similar. In her case it was children. She reached a place where she realized she simply should not have children. She did something permanent, and doesn't regret it, yet felt some grief for a while about the loss of choice. Her health was the deciding factor so it is what it is, however, we all like having the choice and when that is stripped away, some melancholy feelings are natural.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Except for rare exceptions I do not think this is a concern. 

I do not know how common it is, but I know it was a concern of my friend (and at least one reason why she preferred not to marry a man she was dating with children from a previous marriage)  For her it didn't matter how common it was, but it was her reason.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I do not know how common it is, but I know it was a concern of my friend (and at least one reason why she preferred not to marry a man she was dating with children from a previous marriage)  For her it didn't matter how common it was, but it was her reason.  

Right my dh's XW's new husband has always made such a big deal out of that....he says he will NEVER file taxes with his wife for fear of his income being used in some way.  He is an idiot though.  The state we live in would never go after him for his wife's kids support.  He just likes to feel important.  Not sure about your friend.

Edited to add---I am almost POSITIVE he doesn't know that she is paying dh child support.  

Edited by Scarlett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Except for rare exceptions I do not think this is a concern. 

Actually it is. There are states in which marital income, ie that of a step, is considered in child support determinations. If the child is perceived to have a higher level of living at one home, the other home can be ordered to pay up even though most people would not consider a step parent to be financially responsible in the matter. Courts don't always see it that way. My brother had to provide his second wife's tax returns to the courts when they married. Michigan courts though don't really look at live in income though because they consider these folks likely somewhat transient with household incomes not combined. However, they do consider household income including domestic partners for SNAP/BRIDGE. So it is very inconsistent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Actually it is. There are states in which marital income, ie that of a step, is considered in child support determinations. If the child is perceived to have a higher level of living at one home, the other home can be ordered to pay up even though most people would not consider a step parent to be financially responsible in the matter. Courts don't always see it that way. My brother had to provide his second wife's tax returns to the courts when they married. Michigan courts though don't really look at live in income though because they consider these folks likely somewhat transient with household incomes not combined. However, they do consider household income including domestic partners for SNAP/BRIDGE. So it is very inconsistent.

My understanding is it is considered in some cases only to determine the ability of the actual parent to pay. Step parent won't be responsible for the child support though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Right my dh's XW's new husband has always made such a big deal out of that....he says he will NEVER file taxes with his wife for fear of his income being used in some way.  He is an idiot though.  The state we live in would never go after him for his wife's kids support.  He just likes to feel important.  Not sure about your friend.

For my friend it was not so much that she was afraid that she would be financially responsible for the child support, it was that she did not want what she thought was her private information appearing on a joint tax form (her own salary, her own investment income, her social security number, her children's social security numbers, her business income and expenses, etc.) in the hands of the man's ex-spouse.  That made her feel extremely vulnerable.  The state would require the man to provide his tax forms in any case of child support change requests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bootsie said:

For my friend it was not so much that she was afraid that she would be financially responsible for the child support, it was that she did not want what she thought was her private information appearing on a joint tax form (her own salary, her own investment income, her social security number, her children's social security numbers, her business income and expenses, etc.) in the hands of the man's ex-spouse.  That made her feel extremely vulnerable.  The state would require the man to provide his tax forms in any case of child support change requests. 

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

 

Different jurisdictions, different rules and all, but presumably anything in an affidavit will be seen by both parties as there is a right of reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

The judge might look at that information but it would not be given into the hands of an ex wife.

In my state it is part o the discovery process that the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse's attorney would have in order to prepare documents to provide a request to the judge for an increase in child support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

Different jurisdictions, different rules and all, but presumably anything in an affidavit will be seen by both parties as there is a right of reply.

 

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In my state it is part o the discovery process that the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse's attorney would have in order to prepare documents to provide a request to the judge for an increase in child support. 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

 

I know people who have managed to quote confidential documents in their affidavits that the other party wasn't allowed to see because they are confidential documents. 
Experience teaches people not to have faith in justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I know people who have managed to quote confidential documents in their affidavits that the other party wasn't allowed to see because they are confidential documents. 
Experience teaches people not to have faith in justice.

Well that I can agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

There could be a lot of reasons that marriage would be the point of drawing the line.  If there are kids in the mix, perhaps issues of custody and child support and such are involved.  Or, issues of inheritance.  

 

Also from a financial standpoint, divorce can have have a bigger impact than just "simply" breaking off a long term relationship again.  Yes, breaking off a LTR can be quite a financial mess too, but I suspect that in cases like that, divorce would be an even bigger cluster mess.  

 

Plus, lawyers cost money and in most cases, divorce requires one whereas breaking up a LTR does not.

 

Not getting married may not protect a person against being burned again.....but it may be a protection against a specific kind of being burned that comes with a divorce.

 

And, emotionally, I mentioned before how marriage is IMO one of the most serious promises ever.....It may just be that a person doesn't feel that they could EVER make that promise again, even if their feeling of protection from not making it again is false.

 

Also......it could be that a person SAYS they couldn't risk marriage again, but what they are actually saying is they actually don't want to marry that particular person, but don't quite know how to say that politely.

 

 

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

It's not though. That is what we are saying. States are so desperate to extract child support from whatever source they can, they don't give two hoots for the privacy of the third party. Seriously. My brother's ex wife saw all the financial documents without redaction during the process of her requests for more child support. Shouldn't happen, but it absolutely does and in my area, it is not rare. Our courts are entirely screwed up and are run by the Marx Brothers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know, maybe I have just personally witnessed too many situations where the above situations were not avoided because the couple didn't get married. For example divorce requiring a lawyer...okay, there's a difference there, but I've seen a share of  breakups of non-marriage relationships where lawyers end up being involved. So, again, I think it's kind of wishful thinking to "avoid" something like that by not marrying a person, or that you are being risk averse by "only" being in a long term relationship with them (over the course of years).

The last thing you mention is just someone being dishonest with their partner, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I was assuming that the person involved was telling the truth that they didn't want to "risk" getting married with their long term partner.

I get that there are situations where if you remarry you lose some sort of funds (alimony, pension, whatever...), which is why I said 99%. I might be willing to revise that figure down to 95%, maybe. 😄 And, again, I have no problem with people who don't want to get married, I just think it's sort of delusional to say that staying in a LTR without marriage is avoiding the risks that would otherwise be involved with a marriage. I say this as someone who had a close family member break up a LTR before the holidays and tried to pretend that because they weren't married it was just like any other breakup. It just doesn't work that way after 5 or 6 or 10 years.

Also, I've heard guys say stuff like this but it's because they don't want their stuff on the line in a divorce, meanwhile their girlfriend has quit a job to move to be near them, given up their own place to move in with him, etc., and so sure HE doesn't want to risk marriage and she says, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love," and then guess who is left unprotected and out on their butt when the breakup happens?

I think 95% is too high. This is from the office of Social Security. There are numerous individuals who intend on drawing off their ex spouse's social security because the pay out would be higher than drawing their own. This is often the case for women that left the work force to care for children and then divorce. Their life time earnings are lower so drawing off their ex spouse make sense. If they remarry, they can't do that.

The benefits do not include any delayed retirement credits your ex-spouse may receive. If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your formerspouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce, or annulment).
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

It's not though. That is what we are saying. States are so desperate to extract child support from whatever source they can, they don't give two hoots for the privacy of the third party. Seriously. My brother's ex wife saw all the financial documents without redaction during the process of her requests for more child support. Shouldn't happen, but it absolutely does and in my area, it is not rare. Our courts are entirely screwed up and are run by the Marx Brothers.

 

 

Whoa.

Hold on now.

Let’s not insult the Marx Brothers. 😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

I agree she should not leave herself unprotected.  But that doesn't change the fact that SOME men are saying one reason for why they don't get married when really they just don't want to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

I think 95% is too high. This is from the office of Social Security. There are numerous individuals who intend on drawing off their ex spouse's social security because the pay out would be higher than drawing their own. This is often the case for women that left the work force to care for children and then divorce. Their life time earnings are lower so drawing off their ex spouse make sense. If they remarry, they can't do that.

The benefits do not include any delayed retirement credits your ex-spouse may receive. If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your formerspouse's record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce, or annulment).

But she can draw it off of her current or new husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scarlett said:

I agree she should not leave herself unprotected.  But that doesn't change the fact that SOME men are saying one reason for why they don't get married when really they just don't want to.

 

 

But don't some women say the exact same thing? And really, the end result is still, “I don’t want to get married,” no matter what reason the person gives. I think the real problem is when a girlfriend or boyfriend doesn’t want to accept that statement, and keeps thinking they will change the person’s mind and make them want to get married. And then, when things don’t work out, they forget that the person told them right from the start that marriage wasn’t in the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Catwoman said:

 

But don't some women say the exact same thing? And really, the end result is still, “I don’t want to get married,” no matter what reason the person gives. I think the real problem is when a girlfriend or boyfriend doesn’t want to accept that statement, and keeps thinking they will change the person’s mind and make them want to get married. And then, when things don’t work out, they forget that the person told them right from the start that marriage wasn’t in the cards.

Yes I do see a lot of people do that.  I also see a lot of women who are fine with not being married when in years past that was not the case with a majority of people--men and women.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scarlett said:

But she can draw it off of her current or new husband.

If his income isn't as high as her ex's, it is a loss. People see it this way. Seriously. If dh passes, I won't remarry unless said person has had the same income level. The bottom line is I have to provide for myself and years out of the work force means that though I am employed again, my own social security draw is going to be FAR lower. It gets really complicated when you get older. There isn't time to recover from financial disaster like there is when you are in your twenties and thirties so it makes some people a lot more cautious with good reason.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Yes I do see a lot of people do that.  I also see a lot of women who are fine with not being married when in years past that was not the case with a majority of people--men and women.

 

I agree. I basically figure that as long as people are honest with each other and they’re on the same page about things like marriage, it’s all good. I just feel badly when I see situations where one person is obviously lying and stringing the other along. That’s awful.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

I agree. I basically figure that as long as people are honest with each other and they’re on the same page about things like marriage, it’s all good. I just feel badly when I see situations where one person is obviously lying and stringing the other along. That’s awful.

Absolutely agreed. I have seen that too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

I suppose, but I don't think it's as simple as blaming oneself. After 5 or 10 years how do you say that she is to blame for making choices for the sake of the relationship both of them are in? Maybe he did ask her, or maybe it was the only real practical choice to make in order to continue the relationship. Maybe it was a mutual decision. And maybe promises are made in all honesty but feelings change. Sussing out blame of who gives up what after the fact is messy because relationships are messy. My point is that marriage has an aspect of legal protection that mitigates a certain amount of risk rather than increasing risk. And it is rare, at least IME, that both parties are coming into a relationship on completely equal footing. Plenty of people are delaying marriage these days in favor of LTRs with and without cohabitation. Relationships that last a long time and involve compromise from one partner or another aren't going to be avoiding a ton of complications by not marrying. If a friend comes to me in that situation I probably wouldn't even think, "Well, she has only herself to blame for being stuck here," because I really think that's not true in most relationships. I rarely think one person is to blame for issues leading to a breakup, minus the obvious caveats of abusive situations.

In a relationship there is going to be vulnerability. There just is. That's part of the point. If someone thinks they are avoiding vulnerability and risk by avoiding marriage, I think they are kidding themselves. There may be some risks that are avoided, but I think they are just trade-offs for different risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

 

Not an attorney but surely private info of third parties would be redacted at least. 

But the issue is that once marriage takes place, information that was private for one person can become the spouse's information also.  A joint tax return is not simply "his" tax return and "'her" tax return stapled together.  This is the reason why some people, in some situations want to remain unmarried, to keep individual private information individual and private.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

My ss's step date is so super secretive about his info that he won't even let us have an insurance card for dss.  Over the years I have gathered any and all information about him that I have happened to hear or see and now I can easily get medical care for ds because I know enough details.  The step dad would die if he knew what I know.  It is so silly.

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a lot more reasons to NOT get married than I can to get married.  I think that 99%/95% is WAY too high.   I think it's more like 60% of the entanglements of marriage happen in a non-marriage relationship, especially if you don't live or have children together.  

And, yes no redaction of spouses information when court papers are filed.  BTDT and in NJ they don't even use a step-parents information in determining child support. 

If something happens to dh, I have no intention of ever remarrying.  He had to work pretty hard to convince me to marry him, and by any measure I got the better deal.  🤣

I do agree that living together can bring on some of the same issues as marriage, but I have no intention of living with anyone else either.  Nope, I want my own space, to make my own decisions, to protect my children and make sure they are provided for, and many of the other reasons that have been mentioned here.  

I could see wanting to date for companionship, but honestly at my age, I'm not sure I'd even do much of that.  

I think more people, especially women, are uninterested in getting married these days because they are more likely to have income and assets of their own so don't need the financial protection the way it was needed in the past.  Plus, when marriages go south, women are often the ones that get the shaft.  If you don't have a religious decree to marry, I can see why more people are giving it a pass.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Devil advocate here:

Why is it silly to not want other people to have his info? 

I mean. Ideally, I wouldn’t want anything to do with a man who behaved that way about my own children. I sure as hell wouldn’t marry him.  BUT I have to admit I think most of the mixed families I know are more like that than not.  I find it baffling and disheartening but I know many women who say things like, “well he isn’t their dad so it’s not his problem”.

But we don’t live in an ideal world. This isn’t his kid and it appears he doesn’t want a parental role and has no legal obligation to provide one - so given that reality - why should he give you any information he deems private?

It's a problem if the child is on his insurance and he won't give that insurance information to the primary custodial parent.

He doesn't care whether or not the child has access to medical care when needed? That is entirely unreasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

 

But in that kind of situation, the only person the woman has to blame is herself, right? 

If a woman quits her job and moves to be near a boyfriend, and says she is perfectly fine with not getting married, she will be left unprotected and out on her butt if she and the boyfriend break up. If he never promised her that he would marry her or support her, yet she still gave up everything to be near him, unfortunately she has to suffer the consequences if things don’t work out. It’s not the guy’s fault if she makes a lot of sacrifices he didn’t ask her to make. (And even if he lied to her and made promises he didn’t intend to keep, that makes him a real weasel, but she is still responsible for protecting her own interests.)

 

Is it a person's fault if they are less mature than they need to be?
I know a woman who thinks all men are abusive if you hang around them long enough. Needless to say, she doesn't make any effort to avoid abusive men. She doesn't believe they exist, and would rather one who is abusive right up so she knows what she's dealing with, instead of having to wait for the other shoe to drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...