To think we would alleviate a lot of misery and some poverty if we phased out marriage in favour of a straight financial contract without a monogamy requirement?

[thepeopleversuswork]

So my view is that its unrealistic to expect people to be monogamous for life.

There will be a small number of people who genuinely remain happily monogamous for decades, yes, but for the overwhelming majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.

It pushes people to remain with someone long after the relationship has passed its sell-by date and often leaves them trapped with someone they no longer love or even like very much because they don't want to upset the children or disentangle finances.

Could we reimagine a kind of financial contract that essentially requires the financially stronger partner (usually, though not always, the man) to guarantee a certain level of financial support to the weaker partner for the duration of the time the children are at home or potentially later potentially renegotiable in the event that financial capacity changes -- but without the absurd requirement for monogamy?

Haven't thought this through in great detail so bear with me but to me the main reason why divorce is often so rancorous and damaging is because of the "cheating" and the recriminations as to how that should impact on the finances (ie you left me for your secretary, I'm going to take you to the cleaners).

If people were free to renegotiate their emotional commitment to one another without having to redraw the boundaries on the financial commitments linked to child-rearing, or vice versa, it would remove a lot of the most emotionally difficult elements of marriage breakdown, and the stigma.

Children would become more comfortable with the idea of their parents as a financial partnership who love and are committed to them but without the expectation that they have to remain together in perpetuity.

I have observed so many times that the thing that damages children in divorce is not so much the separation of their parents in itself, but the behaviour of their parents either in relation to new partners or in relation to money and the division of spoils.

If the financial element were clearer and not tied to sexual fidelity, and the stigma was removed around people dissolving relationships, would that not make it somewhat easier for children to accept this change in a non-damaging way?

Finally, getting rid of marriage would get rid of the loathsome cult of the wedding and all the toxic effect it has on generations of young women.

Anyone with me?

But most people I know aspire to be in a relationship and have children

I think that’s an important part of the discussion and really goes back to what I was saying about societal norms.

I've always financed and contributed equally myself so when I kicked my cheating ex out money was one thing I didn't have to worry about. Though I'd rather be poor as a church mouse than stay in a fake relationship.

Having a 10year re-consideration date will not solve the issue. Won’t it be as hard as in divorce to untangle the finances?

I think it’s not so much that divorce disadvantages people, as marriage and asymmetrical division of jobs etc can be advantageous because it is more efficient financially (though the downside is greater risk if a split does happen).

Ie married couples can achieve more as a team than separately.

OP surely it would be better to make sure women were financially independent, whether married or not? Then their financial security would have nothing to do with monogamy.

Marshabradyo because many people shy away from seeing that this is what it is.

ConkerGame that would go a long way, yes.

I think families and maybe schools should be teaching girls not to stop working after marriage. I think it should become taboo for either partner not to make any economic contribution to a marriage.

Happy with monogamy here too. Ok marriage did fail (after 25 years) but no affairs and my now dp is also a long term kind of man too

@thepeopleversuswork I find that in the Uk, a lot of women are encouraged not to work if the childcare costs is a signficant percentage of her salary. at £1500 for full time childcare, its going to be a significant percentage for most people. But the alternative is losing 2-3 years of paid work and more if there is more than 1 child. I applaud any woman who can do that and still have a career which can pay for herself, her DC and provide a nice home after that kind of disruption.

Desiringonlychild I certainly think we should be fully subsidising childcare. It would improve so many women’s outcomes

Child rearing and home keeping is work. I don't think it helps women to pretend that it is worthless, not worth their time, and they only have value if they are doing something else.

I agree childcare shoudl be fully subsidised but I think that includes a proper wage for women doing it for their own children.

I've gotta say, OP, while I don't think much of your solution, I think you've fantastically articulated the problem. Especially this snippet:

The whole premise of marriage is to make it as difficult as possible for people to acknowledge that these perfectly natural changes have occurred in their lives and that they have grown apart, to make them feel guilty and dysfunctional and stigmatised.

SenselessUbiquity I agree in principle that women's domestic time and investment should be valued.

The problem is that in a real marriage it is not remunerated, other than through the implicit transfer of value from the stronger partner in the marriage (usually the man) to the weaker (usually the woman) through subsidising their home and life in return for domestic labour and childcare.

That's all good and well until the stronger partner decides that the domestic labour/childcare/sex is no longer worth their subsidy, at which point the weaker partner is left high and dry. Currently there's no other mechanism in place to protect the weaker partner other than divorce.

This is at the heart of what I'm arguing for (maybe not very well). That there should be a more robust system to remunerate the person providing the domestic labour which isn't contingent on vague, changeable and subjective standards such as how much their parter is attracted to them or how well they are perceived to be doing the domestic labour or childcare.

Unless we bring in some form of government subsidy for "wifework" (which isn't going to happen), the only current protection is divorce. Which is incredibly damaging.

ThePants999 I agree that the solution is far from perfect and needs a lot of thinking through. But I do feel very strongly that there's a problem. Marriage increasingly isn't working for us as a society.

I guess it was intended to be the start of a conversation, as opposed to a proposed policy.

Just for clarity, I certainly don't think anyone should be prevented from getting married. I acknowledge that in many cases its the least worst way and it works perfectly adequately for millions of families.

But I do think over time, as women become richer and more powerful both in the public and private sphere, but with men failing to keep up on the domestic front, it will become increasingly apparent to those women who have more economic agency that its a bum deal.

yes, I agree that marriage is often a bum deal for women.

a PP poster disagreed with me that society doesn't incentivise men to behave well in marriages. I don't doubt that some men do and many women disapprove of men who don't, but honestly, as a rule, women work much, much harder. Women earn money and do everything else and, often, they hide from themselves quite how bad it is because the reality - that the person who is supposed to love and value you more than anyone else in the world is ripping you off - is just too awful.

There are statistics on this, don't take my word for it.

I agree that it is precarious that one's livelihood and wellbeing are based on transitory emotions. Everyone falls out of love - this is a separate point from the gradual realisation that one's man is selfish and lazy, as some women are intensely invested that their man, and none of the men they know are selfish and lazy - it's just a chemical, physical fact that the early stages of a relationship are swirling in romantic brain chemistry that doesn't last for ever. After that, the question of: why should I support these people, care for them, share everything I have with them and never let them down? needs a far better answer than: because I feel like it. A lot of people just won't feel like it.

So don't get married and get a lawyer to draw up a contract. Let those of us who want to be married get married.

so I guess the OP's question or proposal is: what structures could be put in place to replace "because I feel like it"? And one of the answers that we don't currently have in place is: because everyone will disapprove of me if I let my family down. Not if you are a man. no one cares.

If you go through the CSA for child support they are pathetic. Utterly toothless. If your payment doesn't arrive and you phone them up they lecture you about budgeting, Seriously. imagine your mortgage payment was late and you lectured your lender about budgeting better to do without it. It just isn't treated as a serious obligation, as money that is literally and seriously owed to the children.

@MarshaBradyo

but that's what it is, in essence. A contract.

So why change it as op suggests?

I'm not in favour of changing it as the OP suggests. I can in principle accept some model of marriage for the polyamorous where both parties could agree in advance that sex with another partner couldn't be used to apply for divorce due to adultery or dissolution of CP on unreasonable behaviour grounds (that's usually how people who are in CPs get round the no adultery provision if one of them wants out because the other cheated).

Sorry, got cut off there. But I don't think her proposal would be as useful or far reaching as she suggests, nor that it would address the major issues around partnership which I'd identify as males not doing their share with children when a relationship ends and with people who are in serious, long-term relationships but haven't involved either a registrar or solicitor.

I ask again - isn't a non-same sex civil partnership now the answer to the OPs original point about a better way for a man and a woman to have a contract :

A contract, so more protection than just cohabiting
Allows for infidelity or at least is not a grounds for end of the contract Does allow partners to share IHT
The woman and man are treated equally

"Differences from marriage
The contracts of marriage and civil partnerships are very similar though there are some technical differences: Venereal disease is a grounds for annulment of marriage, but not civil partnership; adultery is a grounds for divorce, but not dissolution of civil union; titles may not be inherited or passed to partners of a civil partnership. Where laws differ for wife and husband, both partners are generally treated like the husband would be. Otherwise, the rules for pensions, survivor benefits, annulment and dissolution are very similar."

No. Because although it isn't possible to petition for a CP to be dissolved because of adultery, you can petition based on unreasonable behaviour if the other party cheats. Or at least you can with a same sex CP, I'd be amazed if that weren't also accepted as unreasonable behaviour in a hetero one. Obviously no case law yet! But I've never heard of a case of anyone successfully defending a same sex CP petition for unreasonable behaviour based on cheating.

Marriage is working great for me thanks. I resent the idea that monogamy is seen as impossible. Just as I wouldn't judge someone for being polyamorous I dislike the idea of a blanket ban on marriage just because it's not worked for you. No one is forcing you to marry if that's not your decision.
However on a separate note I do agree that men should be held responsible financially for their children as many men (obviously not all!) do seem to shirk that responsibility after a marriage breakdown and these individuals seem to not be followed up.

I don't imagine many want to be financially tied to someone that isn't monogamous with them, and for those who would, surely they can have that arrangement between them within the current system?

The reasons you have listed for why divorces are messy are emotive, rather than a flaw in the law. People would have those feelings and behave accordingly either way.

I think not basing marriages on monogamy would benefit men. Because the more powerful person could still cheat.

Perhaps payment into a divorce insurance? To stop people cheating the system just to get money, you could specify that it would be to cover lawyer costs for the weaker party in the case of a divorce?

I dont understand this AIBU. marriage is already a financial contract. And no-one I'd stopping you having an open marriage if you want one.

*is stopping you