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majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.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?

Could have been an interesting discussion if people weren't determined to take it as personal condemnation of their individual life.

Agreed. I'm religious and married (and monogamous!) but I'm happy to consider OP's idea without bringing 'my marriage is just fine thanks' into it

FatalSecrets I think that’s a sensible approach. But again the participants are so heavily punished finiancially and emotionally when the point is reached that it doesn’t work.

But again the participants are so heavily punished finiancially and emotionally when the point is reached that it doesn’t work

Not necessarily if you work that in, however that ties in more with your original concept.

I certainly don’t see any issue with having another option for people who don’t want a traditional marriage.

It’s unfortunate that people get defensive over their own relationships, always makes me wonder why they’re protesting so much.

What would your ideal situation be op?

Scanning thread quickly, lots of elements in your posts

In existing divorce settlements, monogamy (as far as I'm aware) isn't deemed a reason to give one party further advantage financially. Divorces are no fault in terms of finances - whether you split and use unreasonable behaviour, adultery or a 2 year + separation as the reason - it'll be the same financial outcome. It's just that cheating generally means that the other party no longer wishes to be in the relationship and therefore triggers the finances to be split.

Even if you have the "financial contract" option instead of marriage, many (most?) people would want to end a relationship if there was infidelity which would trigger a separation of assets and the higher earner having to support the lower earner till the children left home. Just as happens with marriage. I don't really see a way to avoid that. It's always going to be a more costly way to live to have 2 homes rather than 1 and the higher earner, especially if they don't wish to split, is often going to resent that.

But marriage never has been solely about finances, it primarily a commitment to each other to support each other throughout life...not just financially but in every other way too. If all one partner was getting out of it was to pay for the others lifestyle who would sign up!

Maybe rather than another option make it easier to dissolve a marriage and consider ways to remove the stigma from divorce.

Why would anyone sign that?!

There is discussion around not having to cite a reason for divorce atm which would help.

I think where you stand on this will depend a bit on your life experience.

I'd certainly support a financial contract on the birth of a baby that the costs up to adulthood should be shared fairly, no matter what happens between the parents.

Having gone through divorce, once the dust's settled, what remains is a poorer woman and a richer man. In money, time and freedom.

Yeah. Mumsnet is definitely first (and mostly only) wives club. They’ve hitched their wagon to the marriage, fidelity, children, financial dependency circus so much that they can’t untether without their existence falling apart.

Not married and never want to be. I also don’t rely on my man financially. I make my own money and I am proud of what I have.

Same for me. I don't require a financial contract with anyone, thanks.

There is discussion around not having to cite a reason for divorce atm which would help

Absolutely. We ended up waiting two years which is foolish really when it could have been done in weeks.

Surely you do it the other way around and make a commitment to monogamy and lifelong partnership in order to raise children or whatever life goals people have but you remove the financial implications of marriage and support women to retain their financial independence and autonomy after marriage/children.

@thepeopleversuswork

Vettiyalruken: but isn’t the solution not to tie finances to someone?

In reality, if there are children involved very few couples would be capable of funding their own home plus 50% of all child costs including childcare. So people tie their finances. Even if you go 50/50, separate everything, a couple have to be pretty rich not to end up at all financially reliant on each other. Men too, since so many of them rely on a female partner to provide childcare. And if you want joint property or even joint tenancy, which again most people need for security, that ties partners together too.

Same for me. I don't require a financial contract with anyone, thanks

I don’t believe the OP intends it to be compulsory...

Isn't there a saying that you never really know someone until you divorce them? You can't know at point of joining finances how things will look down the line. There might be illness, disability, inheritance, disabled children, caring for elders, no promotion, gambling problems. You can't create a contract long enough. Hence marriage is a covenant not as often asserted on here, a contract.

It’s harder to discuss it as the op wants when posters such as below make digs. Take the jibes out of it and easier to debate. There’s nothing wrong in thinking fidelity is a good idea within a marriage and finding someone who feels the same (Or trying time from outset things can change).

More interestingly - Does the law favour men or women in divorce in U.K. in general? This can be changed if it’s not as fair as it could be.

I thought 'adultery' was not a deal-breaker within the terms of breaking / divorcing a Civil Partnership?

Personally I think people should be able to contract into family structures of their choice and need - for example, why should not a combination of best friends and lovers, say a gay man bio-dad and two lesbians in a relationship, enter a family 'marriage' to live together and support children?

Or a couple of gay men and the bio Mum and maybe her female partner?

The 'two people' model, even in same sex marriage, is still a version of the Big Religions het childbearing couples.

However, or many people sexual and emotional fidelity is the basis of a relationship, so they would still want to separate if the relationship was non-monogamous. And they can.

In the majority of cases getting married is a life limiting step for girls.

But surely no one now gives up work when they get married. They just go on as they did before if they don't have children.

Realistically, it's the choice to have children that restricts many women's options subsequently. Whether they are married, in a monogamous relationship, or neither.

In my experience the law around divorce seemed fair, what couldn't be more unfair is the state of child maintenance!

“I can’t help thinking, though, that the “punishment” of divorce is hugely disproportionate to the “crime” of cheating which is an entirely biological and natural urge.”

Is divorce a punishment though?... I wouldn’t have described it as a crime and punishment.

It’s not wanting to be married to someone anymore...