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majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.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

Surely a Civil Partnership would fulfil these functions - it's available to anyone in the UK now.

@PinkyBrain

Why would anyone sign that?!

Agreed. I wouldn’t sign that.

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?

Why would the "financially stronger partner" sign a contract like that? Contracts generally benefit both parties somehow...

@FatalSecrets

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.

I think a lot of the issue is that people who have proposals for alternative institutions firstly often want them to replace the existing ones, rather than provide another choice. As the OP did here. Obviously people who are happy with them will object, and that's totally legitimate. People are going to have something to say if you want to take away choice.

Then people proposing something new often wildly overestimate the likely benefits: again, the case here. If OP simply said she would like a new institution where couples could agree beforehand that it couldn't be ended purely because one party had slept with someone else, and that would be good for non monogamous people, she might've had a more positive response.

tabulahrasa divorce can be a huge punishment for some people. Women can be left homeless, men can be left with a huge financial burden or unable to see their children.

Usually because the two parties have been unable to put aside their differences and behave like adults. And very often at the heart of this because of an emotional reaction to infidelity.

And very often at the heart of this because of an emotional reaction to infidelity.

Is your solution for everyone to expect infidelity from the outset? Honestly sounds worse to me.

What a load of old bollocks, I am happy being married and as its lasted for 48 years I must be doing something right and that's true of 1000s of couples. My wedding day was glorious thank you very much

Seems impossible to have a theoretical discussion on here when everyone's either too smug or defensive.

I think laws should be changed to make absent parents pay for their kids. Taken out of wages at source, given a bill for child costs and they have to pay or imprisonment.
Then it doesn't matter if they are married or not. If you try and hide funds, cut down hours etc, then you still have the same bill to pay, and the same consequences if you don't.
Absent parents have nothing to fear if they don't provide, that's the problem not whether they were married or not.

@lightenupsummer. Well said. People seem to take any objective review as a criticism of their own marriage. It’s like people are unable to see things in the abstract without stating the “well I’m happily married for eleventy million years and have never looked at another man” trope. Like it adds much to the discussion..

Bartlet what would your ideal approach be?

The whole thing about financially weaker/ financially stronger is not straightforward- when we got married I think me and my H were about even, there have been times he significantly out earned me, these days I significantly out earn him. Who has the duty to who?

I must be doing something right and that's true of 1000s of couples

I suppose this is the crux of my point around society. And marriage being “doing something right”

Be real though it will be the men who get the freedom to sleep around as the woman will still be stuck at home looking after the kids.

And now do you enforce this contract when the man decides to have a new younger model? He could still hide his income, piss off abroad, give up his job. A written contact is no more enforceable than a csa order.

Cheating has no bearing on the eventual financial settlement. It will generally be in favour of the more vulnerable party. Yanbu about marriage though. It's unrealistic to expect anyone to stay with th same partner for life.

@MarshaBradyo. I’d come at it from another angle and find ways so that women are not financially dependent on men and society was organised in a way that meant that both parents stepped up with children both financially and logistically. That tying yourself to a man’s financial coat tails was no longer deemed to be a credible option. I’d want people to be together because they choose to be and not because they’re financially tied to someone.

You’ll argue it’s naive and it is in some ways but our current setup isn’t helping anyone.

Only if the agreement says clearly that there will be 100% support for, and only for, the children originating from the initial non-monogamy arrangement.

In fact, if you threw that into the current marriage vow that might stop a few bolters too.

I don't see how the financial contract would really work. DH and I earn the same. If we divorced it would still be a financial hit as we'd need to support two households rather than one. There couldn't be a financial contract which would protect either of us unless someone lost pretty much all their salary to the other. It's the living together that benefits us financially, not the marriage. I doubt we'd like to live together if one or both of us reneged on our commitment to monogomy.

Just don’t have children with someone that you don’t want to spend your life with. Problem solved

I'd rather reform the divorce system than reform marriage. I think that most people want monogamy. The minority who don't can choose to have a civil partnership which has no monogamy requirement if they want financial protection but don't want monogamy.

@Devlesko
Absolutely agree

Ellmau you're right that a vanishingly small number of women give up work when they get married.

But a large number of women, upon being married and having children, find that their career is less important than that of their husband's. The implicit assumption is that, after having children, the wife's career will take a back seat as her primary role is to look after the children and the home.

Almost invariably, men don't pull their weight in the home, so the overwhelming majority of women after marriage either stop work and lose their financial security OR they continue to work but do most of the childcare, housework and mental load. Someone will pop up shortly to tell me their OH shares the load and they are equal partners. But this is how it goes in the majority of marriages.

It's just not a good outcome for most women. You may win short-term by having some additional financial support. Over the lifetime of a marriage you will unless your husband is both unusually wealthy and unusually progressive, which is very rare lose out.

Absolutely bizarre that people take this as a personal attack on their personal choice/circumstance when 40+ percent of marriages end in divorce.

It works for you, great. Clearly it doesn't work in a huge number of cases. Society still persists though with something that 'fails' to an inordinate degree. Why?

If 40+ percent of houses fell down, 40+ percent of cars broke down constantly, 40+ percent of food was inedible or poisonous, people would rightly question the viability and wonder if their wasn't a better alternative.

Bartlett I don’t disagree with you at all. Especially
‘I’d want people to be together because they choose to be and not because they’re financially tied to someone.’

I want that too. There’s other ways to help that than what op says which is to make infidelity ok.

Perhaps making paternity leave compulsory as some Scandinavian countries have (iirc) is a start. Strive for greater equality after dc and freedom to leave will come from that.