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majority of people a scenario where your financial security is explicitly tied to your ability to remain monogamous is outdated, unrealistic and punitive.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

Very very few high achieving men are prepared to do an equivalent number of pick-ups and drop-offs, do all the cooking and cleaning, plan all the school-related social stuff, help with the homework, organise playdates. Some, but a small minority.

High-achievers of both sexes have realised you can outsource all of this to someone else (a housekeeper/nanny) and be left with all the good parts of parenting. It's kind of dumb to do all of this yourself when someone else can do it just as well but at a lower opportunity cost.

It already exists - a civil partnership. There is no requirement for any vows or name changing, just a legal contract for two people to be legally linked together.

As someone who has had 18 months of no child maintence & dealt with the CSA for 9 years I can tell you this wouldn't work. The enforcement of this just wouldn't work at all unfortunately.

The reason divorce is so financially punitive is because a lot of wages don’t reflect the costs of living. Fix that and people (women) are less likely to stick to unhappy marriages.

I'm far, FAR too lazy to be anything but monogamous.

I have other hobbies than just sex, and I'm not much of a people person so wouldn't be doing it for someone's character either. An affair would be so goddamn time consuming, and I don't need it for my self-esteem.

Oh, and I earn more than my husband.

I think you've got hooked on the 'removing monogamy' part, when what you actually want is some sort of stronger fiscal connection related to child-rearing.

Various post! Can I get on with sexy young lover whilst being looked after by my well off husband so I don't have to work or very minimally and enjoy the luxuries of a nice home, car, shopping trips etc...

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it!

Eurgh

**It already exists - a civil partnership. There is no requirement for any vows or name changing, just a legal contract for two people to be legally linked together.

This

Just reading through catching up on this and it becomes more and more clear from your responses that you really don't like/trust men in general. You are trying to suggest women protect themselves from men as you perceive them.

Your contract idea holds no water because you are completely ignoring the fact that the causes of difficulty when a relationship breaks down is hurt and anger at the partner not fulfilling your expectations (whether reasonable or not). Changing the type of contract will not make either party ok with the fact their partner did not do that. Your argument simply makes no sense - if it did people who choose not to marry would not expect fidelity - but they do. You are essentially suggesting people lower the bar of their expectations from their partner to the point they wouldn't be that bothered if they didn't live up to them and could walk away without any pain, that doesn't sound like an improvement to me?

Additionally you are talking about people changing over time, what is right at 30 may not be at 50, surely the same is true of this theoretical contract? Or do you feel that people should be back to the solicitor to renegotiate every time there is an inheritance/child/return to study/limiting illness? How would that leave people more secure - especially when you accept that the financially weaker party will always be in a weaker negotiating position.

The reason divorce is fought/contested etc is because it is a negotiation where everyone has a vested interest. You are right that people can additionally be very angry however divorce is designed to alot fairly regardless of who is most angry/let down etc. The divorce process has nothing to do with fidelity.

You seem to be conflating two things here. If you think fidelity should be an optional part of any contract linking two adults (of whatever form) then that is one thing. If you are feeling that divorce (or dissolution of that contract between two people) is punitive then that is a different thing. Connecting the two together massively muddies the waters.

If you marry a richer man, you have to accept that you are economically not in the driving seat and you give up a lot of power as a result of that.

My husband isn't richer than me. But we share an attitude to finances - both savers, both cautious. We're currently saving towards a pot that will ensure the two of us receive the exact same income and pensions contributions whilst I'm on maternity leave. My suggestion, but as an accountant and a gentleman who reads plenty of feminist literature, he was really happy to get on board.

If you marry a poorer man you have to accept that at best you will be carrying someone both financially and domestically and at worst you will have a cocklodger who is a drain on the whole family.

Ok, my husband is slightly less well off than me, but I don't support him financially at all. We don't always provide the same things to each other - sometimes he's helping me, sometimes I'm helping him. It evens out, and we're both better off for the partnership.

You suggest that its incumbent on the woman to choose a man who supports their career ambitions but you can't always tell. Very few men these days are going to say "I forbid you from working after we're married". But quite a lot of men will say they're in favour of it but will then get stroppy if their dinner is not on the table or if you demand that they leave work early three times a week to pick up the kids. It's not nearly as black and white as it might sound.

OP, who hurt you?

We cook 50:50, and if one of us had the fucking audacity to sulk about dinner instead of just going on Deliveroo if someone couldn't take their turn then we'd be in no doubt the other would leave.

The more this thread goes on the more it becomes evident that what you needed, a long time ago, was education in how to make good financial and emotional choices. I had that grounding, so all I had to do was pick someone that fit them.

(I know a LOT of women try and make it work, but I'm a self-confident, even arrogant so-and-so - and as a result, I have never fretted over a man in my life - we're either compatible or not, and I don't have the time to waste if it's a no.)

Very very few high achieving men are prepared to do an equivalent number of pick-ups and drop-offs, do all the cooking and cleaning, plan all the school-related social stuff, help with the homework, organise playdates. Some, but a small minority
Women who do want a good job either for the satisfaction works brings them, financial independence or both manage just fine. They marry men who treat them as equal and are prepared to do they part and discuss the details before having the kids. They stick at 2 kids max.

They don't play the 'boohoo, I would have just a great career if I hadn't had to sacrifice my amazing career so that my husband could because I'm such an devoted wife'.

Some even admit that they look for prospect good earners because it was always 5heircintention to be at home looking after the kids because let's face it, once they start their free sessions, it's quite a nice life.

@thepeopleversuswork totally got my vote ..never got the whole married to the same person for 50-plus years,urghh shudder.Maybe it was a goer when people died at 45 and women didnt work,functioning only as baby-machines and housekeepers.Its become a more and more an outdated concept throughout the last century,the advances in maternity and old age healthcare-birth control and education and employment opportunities.Its deffo not something remotely on my older dc radar-they dont see the point either&neither do most of their mates ivebeen told.Good for them.

What the fuck are you talking about.

If people want to have open marriages they can. That's not against the law.

The vast majority of people divorsed because of cheating because they love their partner and don't want them to be with another person. It's a betrale. It's nothing to do with the marriage contract. Even if cheating was allowed in the marriage contract neither me or my dh would want the other having sex with other people - and would still want to split if that was happening.

Do you think we don't allow cheating in relationships just because the marriage contract says so?

Also, divorse is damaging for children because they want their parents to both live with them. They also need (good) male and female influence. And the toxicity between warring parents is damaging. Again changing the marriage contract won't change that, because the toxicity comes from hurt feelings, somthing a contract can't control.

I also don't think its healthy for children to have a stream of
random partners in their lives, both from a stability point of view and a safeguarding point of view. A stable monogamous marriage is the best set up to protect the children.

Also, divorse is damaging for children because they want their parents to both live with them. They also need (good) male and female influence. And the toxicity between warring parents is damaging

Divorce can be damaging. Role models don’t need to be the parental figure. Relationships ending doesn’t automatically mean fights and arguments.

People staying together when they’re not happy can be equally as damaging for children.

totally got my vote ..never got the whole married to the same person for 50-plus years,urghh shudder

Why is a financial contract that you can’t leave any better? At least you can divorce in marriage leaving that contract.

It's true that lots of non sexual contracts end in bitter recriminations too. Anything where someone emotionally invests and things don't work out can get very nasty.

Rather off topic, what could be done to enforce NR fathers materially supporting their children?

AliasGrape
Those are good questions: to answer the question who the contract is meant to protect, the answer is the financially weaker partner which
in most circumstances is the woman.

You've made a very good point that a man who is not prepared to respect his marriage vows and uphold his part of the marriage bargain is just as unlikely to respect a financial contract. That is definitely a flaw in the argument.

I'm not arguing that no one should expect fidelity. I expect fidelity in my (monogamous, non-cohabiting) relationship. But if and when my current partner and I get to the stage where we no longer remain faithful we should be able to walk away from the emotional contract without incurring huge financial disruption.

I would never again put myself in a situation where my financial security was linked to the expectation of fidelity. It's too insecure.

Rather off topic, what could be done to enforce NR fathers materially supporting their children?

I don’t think that is off topic, I think it’s all part and parcel of choice surrounding relationships and whether to stay/go!

I would like to see CMS exercising more of the powers already at their disposal to recoup maintenance. I would also like to to be socially unacceptable for fathers not to support their children.

It is really sad to hear that there are a lot of women whose ambition has been stifled by marriage. Its not my experience - when we met I had nothing other than a low paid but permanent job, he had a slightly better paid job, but was sacked for taking time off (he had industrial asthma which was eventually to contribute to his death 20 years later from lung cancer) when I was pregnant. Over the years I moved up the career ladder and my pay increased, but then i took a pay cut to work for a charity for my own mental health. DH was fully supportive, by then he was earning a reasonably modest salary but working in a job he loved and understood that I needed to leave a job where I was really unhappy. A few years later I got a job that doubled my salary but meant I had to work away 3 days a week - completely different situation for us but DH picked up the slack with childcare, we got a childminder for the times he couldn't be there, and the funds for that came from our joint account - we joined finances as soon as I got pregnant, because we were a family and then when we got married it was for better or worse, and we supported each other through those times. When he had to give up work due to ill health when he was dying, it didn't occur to me that it wasn't my role to fill the void in income, but he had never kept me short, it was just a pragmatic decision between us that my earning power was much stronger than his at that time, and DS (by then grown up) took on a caring role at home.

I really feel for women who don't have that team approach in their marriage - as cherrypavlova said, sometimes there can be dark times that you have to work through and that doesn't mean the marriage itself and the love is hard work, but the circumstances are so tough that they are a risk to the stability and status quo. I understood what she meant there.

@thepeopleversuswork the thing is people who combine their finances are able to afford more. I am accustomed to my £400K property in a leafy part of north London. I wouldn't be able to afford that on my own, i would be renting. If DH and I ever split, I would be able to afford much less and I would regard it as a huge financial disruption as I feel entitled to the property i lived in for donkey years (even if I paid for maybe 1/3 of it). However, it doesn't occur to many people that they could never have afforded it in the first place. And they have enjoyed the increased living standards that comes with 2 incomes for all those years.

thecatsthecats

"The more this thread goes on the more it becomes evident that what you needed, a long time ago, was education in how to make good financial and emotional choices. I had that grounding, so all I had to do was pick someone that fit them."

That's true and quite perceptive - my mum didn't give me much practical or emotional guidance and my parents' marriage wasn't a great model as my mum had very little agency in her marriage.

But I don't think you can put all the onus on a (young) woman to have to screen a man at age 20 or 30 for suitability for a lifelong partnership. It's just not always possible to tell if a man is serious about wanting to honour the lifelong commitment or if he genuinely believes in a progressive marriage or is just paying lip service to it.
Most men will pretend to be progressive, loving, willing to do their fair share if they think it will persuade a woman they're in love with at the time. It's not always watertight. And be careful of assuming that because a man is the husband you want now that he will always remain that way. People change.

There was another thread on here recently railing at women blaming other women for failing to pick the right men and I feel very strongly about this. It's another example of victim blaming to turn round to a woman and say she failed to do proper due diligence on a man and therefore has made her own bed. We should be changing the attitude men have to marriage, rather than blaming women for their shortcomings.

Anyway this is a bit of a digression.

As I've said before, I think there are shortcomings in the "contract" model. But I do think linking so much family stability to sexual fidelity is very high risk. I am trying to imagine an alternative and maybe there isn't one but it seems very inadequate to me.

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.

My wedding was great. We had a beautiful day surrounded by our friends and family and I wouldn't change it for the world. It was toxic at all, thanks. Also my marriage is great. Sorry that you must have had such a bad one. But how lovely of you to make judgments about everyone else's marriage and weddings just because yours must have sucked.

A massive penalty clause. Like what. A firing squad??

It wasn't toxi at all* that should say