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majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.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

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

I don’t agree. I would say don’t have children with someone you can’t remain amicable with however your relationship grows and changes. That of course doesn’t take into consideration abuse, manipulation etc. It’s too simplistic.

Dishwashersaurous d'oh, silly me. I should have consulted my crystal ball!

Of course you can always tell from what someone's like at 28 what they will be like at 50.

Actually I think that you can decide whether someone is a decent person and for example will continue to financially support children.

We already have this. It’s called a marriage. The state recognizes a legal contract between two individuals. Love, romance, and sexual fidelity are a personal decision between the people entering into the legal contract.

What I would do is strengthen the legal requirements for financial support in the even of the dissolution of the contract. Women take a career hit even being pregnant. Then you add in the realistic patterns of child rearing that are partly dictated by biology and therefore immutable and partly dictated by society and the financial settlement need la to reflect the economic reality.

Also U.K. has one of the highest cc costs in Europe, another factor in reducing women working. Which inhibits freedom to leave.

You could also just agree to an open marriage. Those do exist, but as someone else said, since the majority want monogamy, they aren't a widespread desire.

Why would anyone willingly want to financially tie themselves to someone who is explicitly saying 'I want you for your money, but I want to shag other people too' basically?

Actually I think that you can decide whether someone is a decent person and for example will continue to financially support children

You can have a good idea, and trust they will but of course you can’t know 100% how another adult will act in any given situation.

Who would most benefit most from infidelity being expected?

I bet men. As a pp also said. It’s not the right answer to a common goal. The ability to leave a bad marriage.

If you can't trust someone to financially maintain their kids post divorce even when ordered by court/ CMS to do so, how can you trust them to stick to a financial contract of the type OP proposes?

Actually I think we really need to ensure the CMS uses the powers at their disposal to collect maintenance before anything else.

The rates of non-payment of child maintenance are astronomical. I've seen even the "nicest" of men fail to pay or stop paying for their own dc, especially if they get into a new relationship where there are other dc.

You absolutely cannot know what a man will do until it happens. Child-supporting contract at birth, I say!

If you think enforcing a marriage contract is not sufficient, why would an alternative contract be any more successful

It's got to be a no from me. As the "stronger partner" I see no reason why I should hand over a penny of my hard earned cash to my ex until my children are adults. Current divorce law allows me to (hopefully) cut him off financially with just his settlement and that's how it should be. There is already provision for child maintenance for those who need it. I'm well aware of the issues with this provision but sorting those issues and educating people about the pitfalls of marriage would be best, not getting rid of marriage for those who still want it.

Iwalkinmyclothing I think there's a lot to be said for an absent parent's family picking up the slack, though that approach would never be accepted by society as it stands.

No thanks.

I don’t really understand your point about the punishment of divorce. What you’re saying seems to boil down to you not thinking cheating is a good reason to divorce. Well ok but how’s that enforced? If my husband cheats and I want to divorce him would you want to prevent me?

Almost like a guarantee of support being signed by both families - the relationship can be ended by either at any time, but the one left "holding the baby" will be looked after if they (she) needs to be.

Well people are expected to behave monogamously because of a piece of paper.

Cart before horses, but still, the point is the same. You can't trust anyone to do anything simply because a contract legally compels them, yet it's difficult and punitive to formally end that agreement simply because one or other of the parties acted in a perfectly human way.

I do agree the child maintenance system needs enormous overhaul and people should be compelled to pay for their children until adulthood. I just don’t see how this links to open marriage particularly.

YABU purely because there is the option for this already if you want it.

Actually along with an overhaul of the child maintenance system, it needs to become societally unacceptable for men (and let’s face it, the majority is men) to not support their children whether that’s practically, emotionally or financially.

@thepeopleversuswork

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.

You can choose to see divorce as a punishment... but it isn’t.

It isn’t something just handed out because one party had sex with someone else.

Some marriages continue despite one party sleeping with someone else, or many people, some people have completely open marriages. That’s up to them.

Divorce is just not wanting to be married to someone anymore.

Tbh, seeing divorce as a financial punishment for infidelity says a lot more about you than it does about anything else....

@XDownwiththissortofthingX in the past though, people just soldiered on with their marriages even if it was utter crap. The 40% divorce rate is testimony to the fact that women have more autonomy now and also it is socially acceptable to opt out of a marriage if the man is cheating on you/a bad husband and father. In the past, you had to grin and bear it.

I don't think romantic relationships are any less happy or unhappy. Romantic love has only been the basis of marriage in Western society for the past 100 years. In the past, people did marry for the sake of finances as women couldn't work after marriage. Now people have higher aspirations for marriage- they want the other person to make them happy. We all have our individual wants and expectations to the extend that iits impossible to determine from an outsider's perspective what kind of person is going to make you happy for the next 50 years, and its even worse when you try to choose for yourself. Many people do get it right but equally many people don't. Thats life and it would always be the case in matters of the heart. I am in my 20s but I have seen so many of my peers choose guys that are totally wrong- I am only 27 but i have a friend who is my age but already divorced after 3-4 years of marriage . Doubtless in my 30s and 40s, there would be many more breakups (regardless of whether they are married or not). In fact, for cohabitating couples, breakups are far more frequent as its so much easier.

What would really help women is if there was some sort of universal childcare so that women wouldn't need to give up their careers for childcare and if men legally had to take paternity leave if their wife was taking maternity leave.

Marriage for us was never about religion, The Wedding , money or legal contracts. It was and still is a private, absolute bond.

(ie you left me for your secretary, I'm going to take you to the cleaners)

Your scenario belies your argument. In this scenario one person is hurt and angry about the infidelity - suggesting they wanted fidelity. So your solution would actually force this person into a situation where they commit to someone whilst not getting their need for fidelity fulfilled.

If fidelity were outdated etc then divorce wouldn't be triggered by it - because the partners wouldn't care. In fact divorce and breakdown of relationships after infidelity happens because one member of the team wanted fidelity.

I do get the argument of offering something else however my instinct is that people who want to be married and monogamous would end up accepting this as some sort of compromise and be unhappy with the consequences - such as "I didn't sign up to fidelity, I can do what I want and you cannot do anything about it".