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majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.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

@Desiringonlychild

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I also think that something that is often overlooked is the fundamental difference between the sexes in why men and women choose to get married.

Ok, this is generalisations,veering into amateur sociology/psychology, and I would never attempt to claim that it's true in most or even the majority of cases, but there are men who simply aren't all that bothered about marriage and having children, but do so because their romantic partner desires it. They unthinkingly get married because they don't see that it will change anything about their intimate relationship, father children ambivalently thinking that the mother will be primary carer in any case, get fed up with the fact that they're no longer the #1 priority in their partner's lives, dislike the fact that their sex lives are not the same as they were prior to marriage and kids, then gradually become more and more disillusioned and disengaged.

Is it any wonder that post-divorce they don't really bother about kids that they weren't all that invested in to begin with? Again, it's not true in all cases, but there are men who just fall into marriage to keep the peace, father kids to keep the peace, yet they're portrayed as the villainous party once the marriage is dissolved and they just continue to display the same ambivalence.

Honestly I think marriage is past it's sell by date. I have strongly encouraged my children not to marry if they are the stronger financial party

And I just want to shout at them and say “it’s not about the Disney wedding. It’s about your right and you children’s rights to some agency in your lives.”

But the kind of men that refuse to propose would also likely not sign the contract you’ve suggested. Probably more likely as it’s explicitly saying they’ll be tied to paying out an amount.

As others have said people are free to have open marriages if they choose now.

I don’t think having a contract rather than a marriage would make people less upset about their partner cheating.

Honestly I think marriage is past it's sell by date. I have strongly encouraged my children not to marry if they are the stronger financial party

Do you have sons? Do you expect that would mitigate against the financial insecurity for the woman if they have children together?

Totally agree with you OP and also agree with XDownwiththissortofthingX

The difficulty is that (as is my story), you start off as romantic partners and then the romance goes. I couldn’t have said from the start that I wanted the arrangement you speak of, and neither do I now feel I can suggest it. Though I haven’t ruled out broaching it in the not too distant future .

I do think the institution of marriage is rather a notion that flagrantly denies the reality of what human beings are about. We're fickle, prone to changing our opinions and attitudes, our tastes change over time, our interests also

I actually see our marriage as something we both strive for - something that we both think a positive endeavour which improves us both. At times I feel stretched and challenged by our marriage, in a good way, which I wouldn't feel if I sought a new relationship every time my tastes or opinions changed. It's hard to explain without sounding too earnest, and I'm generally not an earnest person, but I do think that a good lifelong marriage is an achievement that I really value.

so I think a piece of paper that legally binds you to someone in perpetuity, and actively punishes people, who, by simple dint of the fact they are human, change over time and wish to be freed of their marriage
Does divorce punish people who don't want to be married anymore, any more than what the OP is proposing, e.g. continued financial support after separating for the lower earner for a while? The people I know well who have got divorced have had a fairly agreeable and fair split, much as what the OP is proposing for separating couples. The people I know who have had very acrimonious divorces, it was actually the cheating person who tried to screw their ex financially - I think it was just their personality to want to come out on top financially, they hadn't been wronged. I think they would have tried the same under the scheme the OP proposed. They were hiding money, falsely reducing their salary if self employed, pressurising their ex to take an unfair settlement. I think whatever system you have, some people will unfortunately try to take advantage.

I do know somebody who is happily in an open marriage - they have married as they have children together, hope to have a lifelong relationship and want to signal that this is their primary relationship, but they are both open about having other relationships alongside the marriage, including serious ones. They didn't have any qualms about getting married rather than having the kind of arrangement the OP is proposing.

"Maybe even have the government pays out a minumim amount when non resident parent can't then recoperates it from non resident across their lifetime and final estate."
And what happens if there is no money in their estate?

Yabu.

To me the part I wanted was the emotional commitment. I'm financially pretty independent and most of my friends are too. The emotional commitment is also something I think does matter to our children - DS knows Daddy and I love each other and that it means we all take care of each other etc

This isn't the only way for things to be, of course, when divorce happens we can reconfigure the relationships & find different ways. Nonetheless, both parents of a child being happily married is still a good way to raise a well adjusted child.

In my experience it's the financial arrangements that cause more bitterness than the sexual ones.

If people don't want to be monogomous then don't get married. It's not rocket science. I like weddings. It is sad when it doesn't work out but I don't see why that means they should be abolished.

I couldn’t disagree more.
It’s a pity a few more people don’t think more carefully before starting a family without an equal commitment to raise them together in family.
I think marriage is good if viewed as something that requires commitment and effort to work, if it’s about giving as much as taking.

I think that casual sex and hedonism has created far more misery than marriage.

I think marriage is good if viewed as something that requires commitment and effort to work, if it’s about giving as much as taking

Whereas I think the opposite. I can’t think of anything worse than having to work at my home life!

That would work brilliantly - if we could somehow find a way to remove emotion from human beings

And your financial well-being doesn't need to be on the condition of monogamy, people have the option of remaining financially independent even within marriages, but many choose not to

@MrFaceyRomford

In my experience it's the financial arrangements that cause more bitterness than the sexual ones.

I agree!

tabulahrasa I'm not sure what it is you think you can deduce about me from my post. For the record, I wasn't unfaithful in my marriage and to my knowledge my husband didn't cheat on me, but it wouldn't really be relevant if I had. It's perfectly possible for people to come to an informed perspective on something without having had direct experience of it.

I understand that divorce isn't intended to be a punishment but it is very often punitive in practice, to either or both partners or to the children -- ask anyone who's been through it.

My observation is that while people should be free to leave a marriage for any reason if they want do, devising a system which was designed to minimise the blame and recrimination element of the breakdown of marriages would be a good thing as in my experience a large amount of the problem comes not from the marriage breakdown in itself as the financial and emotional fallout.

In theory there are "no fault" divorces, yes, but quite often the couple acts out various grievances in the way the parties progress the divorce which often have a detrimental affect on the children so I'm not sure we've really nailed that yet.

I do see the downsides of having a financial contract only -- particularly, as someone pointed out, that it would make it easier for people to cheat. But I stand by my comment that a system which builds the financial health of an entire family around the ability of the partners not to cheat is kind of designed to fail. And I can't help thinking there must be a more progressive way to do it.

CherryPavlova

"It’s a pity a few more people don’t think more carefully before starting a family without an equal commitment to raise them together in family."

Almost no-one goes into a marriage thinking "what the hell, this will be a laugh for a bit"... Very few people don't think they've sized the other partner up properly. People promise to cherish each other and remain faithful for life. Men promise to do half the night feeds and all the washing up. People don't always keep their promises.

People change. Their needs change. Their sex drive changes. Their priorities change. They start earning more money or less money. They meet other people. There are an infinite number of reasons why a marriage which had every promise in the world at the age of 30 might be a millstone round your neck at 50. Why should you both labour away at something which makes you both miserable when your kids will blatantly know you're miserable when you could respectfully and cleanly go your separate ways.

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.

There must be a way of doing this which allows for people to grow and develop and change and respectfully going their separate ways without wrenching the rug out from underneath the whole family.

Op why is expecting infidelity the solution rather than other ways to resolve the issues you state?

By working at it I mean honouring the vows made on the wedding day.
In sickness and in health
For richer for poorer
Forsaking all others.

Just changing isn’t a sufficient reason to end a marriage in my book. You work together to manage the changes. It’s about committing to growing together through whatever life throws at you. It should be a pleasure but nothing is entirely pleasure. Life throws spanner’s at you. A commitment means you fend off those spanner’s together.

Expecting nothing but roses and rampant sex is a sure recipe for unhappiness and a dissolution, leaving children as the victims.

By working at it I mean honouring the vows made on the wedding day

And we did until we decided it wasn’t for us.

It’s lazy rhetoric to paint children as the “victims“ of a marital split. Children can be victims of poor parenting, that isn’t the sole bastion of divorced parents.

Marriage doesn’t legally require monogamy: if both parties are fine with ‘infidelity’ they can just stay married, and have other partners.

It’s the religious ceremony that includes it in the vows.

Maybe if people stopped viewing marriage as a vehicle for moral superiority it would be a start. It’s a fairly prevalent view on MN 🤷‍♀️

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

A lot of these comments on here, like those in favour of the proposed different type of contract are so much more rational and logical and everyone else has silly misguided notions about marriage and monogamy that they must blindly defend because they can’t allow themselves to see ‘the truth’ in case it blows their world apart.

It’s pretty patronising and maybe that’s why people are taking it personally?

The OP didn’t read to me like it was suggesting another option, so I, sorry if I got that wrong. It read like ‘hey, what about if instead of this stupid marriage thing where people are expected to be faithful which we all know is an impossibility, why don’t we have a financial contract instead which says that everyone can shag around as much as they like.

So people have replied saying actually, marriage is working for them and they like the monogamy/ fidelity aspect.

To me the proposal in the OP doesn’t make sense because:

• married people aren’t the only ones who expect fidelity. Even if I wasn’t married I’d want to be in a monogamous relationship and I’d expect my partner to be faithful. I think most (I get not everyone though) people do want that. If someone wanted me to have children with them and sign a contract that tied me to them financially but made it explicit that they could shag who they liked then I’d refuse on the grounds that that’s not the kind of relationship I want so there’s nothing really in it for me. A great many people will continue to want and expect fidelity whatever you call the contract they choose to sign to formalise their relationship. Many of them will be disappointed. Many will continue to argue that they don’t need any kind of contract, that ‘it’s just a bit of paper’ and of these, there will be quite a few who end up screwed over financially when the relationship ends because they didn’t have any protection. The same men who don’t want to commit to marriage will equally not commit to this new type of contract. The same women who get screwed when they are left without the protections of marriage will be screwed under this system too.

-The same people who go into marriage expecting lifetime commitment and fidelity will, in their heart of hearts, hope the same from this arrangement and be just as devastated if it doesn’t work out that way.

-Some people will accept the ‘no guarantees of fidelity financial arrangement’ thinking it’s the best that’s on offer, thinking they’re being realistic and they are pragmatic about the fact their other half might meet someone else. Feelings change. Having children changes things. They could end up just as bitter and angry and heartbroken as they would if they’d signed a traditional marriage contract. If they have the means, they could then choose to hire the same shit hot lawyers they’d hire if they were going through a standard divorce, and exploit every possible clause and loophole they could.

• the same people (and I want to say men because that’s every example I’ve ever heard, but let’s say people for now) who either go into marriage with the best of intentions and then somehow lose their way, or who go into marriage disingenuously will find the same thing happens to them in this arrangement. I know of quite a few people (men) who suddenly realised they were going to be held accountable for supporting their children for the next however many years and actually they’d rather not, or who decided that supporting their children actually meant ‘funding the ex’s lifestyle’ and fuck it they weren’t giving that bitch a penny, so instead made everything ten times more complicated through the divorce, stalled, hid assets, fudged their ‘self employed’ earnings, blew through money before it could be accounted for in the divorce etc etc. Why would they do anything different just because the contract had a different name?

• I’m not totally clear who the new type of contract you’re suggested is designed to protect? In the case where there’s no children I can see how a fair and straightforward split could be achieved easily - although again I’m pretty sure this is already the case with traditional marriage. In the case of couples with children - are we trying to protect the financially weaker party - the one whose career has taken a hit for childcare reasons? Because unless you’re in exceptionally privileged circumstances one of you is going to end up worse off somewhere along the line. So is the contract to make sure that party and the children get sufficient financial support in the event of a split? But then your assertion that divorce shouldn’t be a financial punishment for adultery and your example of the ‘revenge’ for shagging the secretary implies that those who want to leave the relationship and go off with their secretary/whoever shouldn’t have demands placed on them to continue to support their existing family - because that’s just punishingly them for ‘being human’.

• I absolutely reject the idea that infidelity is inevitable and just a human urge and anyone who strives to be monogamous is kidding themselves. I promised my husband fidelity and I meant it. I believed him when he promised the same. If either of us finds we can’t or no longer want to live up to that then I’d expect us to have the discussion first, and possibly to renegotiate the terms of our marriage or more likely to end it. Those options are just as available to us under traditional marriage as they would be under any other proposed system. But the fact that we chose to make those promises in our (secular) marriage ceremony has tremendous meaning to both of us and I wouldn’t be having a child with him without that.

• Divorce is expensive because splitting a family is expensive. Childcare is expensive. Running two households instead of one is expensive. Further children with other partners increases the expense. None of that goes away just because you call it a financial arrangement instead of a marriage.

I understand that divorce isn't intended to be a punishment but it is very often punitive in practice, to either or both partners or to the children

Punitive to both partners surely only because it is more costly to run two households rather than one? I'm not sure how calling it something other than marriage and having some sort of contract will make any difference to that

Nor do I. This is what I meant when I said OP was overestimating the potential benefits of her idea.

Sorry OP, but preachy polyamory people are really boring.