they weren't married
1 Big problem in relationship
- Thread starter dal
- Start date
they weren't married
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,632
I agree, and that is totally fine.
That is true you should support your spouse if she/he is raising the child, however recently the actor Matt Le Blanc from friends was ordered to pay 15k a month in child support I do not know any child that costs 15k a month to raise that is just ludicrous. Edit: He also has a prenup, he was married to this woman for only 4 years too.
That is precisely why you cannot gamble with emotions, human beings are irrational and unpredictable and our emotions are pretty much governed by our limbic system and not our prefrontal cortex which is responsible for logic and rationality.
Human beings are not naturally monogamous. If we were people wouldn't be cheating all the time and the temptation to cheat wouldn't be constant imo. Relationships would just work if that was the case.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,632
Yeah I glossed over post quickly, that is also a point you can get screwed even if you are not married another point to be aware of. It is still better than signing a contact for marriage though.
A serious relationship doesn't need to involve marriage.
You can have a relationship which is identical in every single way to being married, without being married.
This works both ways, you cant get together with someone who is doesn't want marriage and then complain when things go south because you want to get married.
The OP is also investing time and effort, along with his £70k...
I don't see where he's using it as a bargaining chip?
He's protecting his assets, which IMO is perfectly reasonable.
In the case of marriage, yes it is an either/or equation. Marriage is binary, you're either married or not married, there isn't a third option in the middle (unless you want to count some of the "alternatives" e.g. a handfasting?
)I really don't see the fuss about marriage, it doesn't achieve anything...
So your ex keeps the house - you have to move out and find somewhere new to live. Except you can't afford it because you're still having to pay the mortgage on your house, maintenance to your ex, legal costs and child support, so you end up digging into your savings. You finally get on top of everything after 5-6 years, but have no savings left. Boom, there goes your nice retirement fund...
I take it you've never been in that kind of situation then?
You don't have kids do you
Not everyone brings up kids well either, it takes a lot of hard work, dedication and sacrifice, and unlike building a company, if it gets too much for you, you can't just turn round and decide you've had enough.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
Why would the ex keep the house and I pay the mortgage (short term maybe)? the house gets put on the market and once sold any proceeds left after legal fees get divided out, personal possessions and furnishings are neither here nor there and as for child support that affects people that are not married so not really a good point in this case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
Totally agree. But usually not with someone who has a fundamentally different outlook to marriage as you do.
Again, totally agree. But if a person is sending mixed signals over the subject the waters definitely become more cloudy
Yes he is. By choice. Nobody forced him.
Because he is saying the only reason he is not getting married is because he does not want to lose 50% of the house if it does not work out. His entire argument is based on the house. If he didnt have that house, or that money to worry about he has clearly said he would marry her.
Ergo he places higher importance on his house/money than he does on her.
Yup, I agree. But it does not work that way in a relationship with two people with fundamentally different goals. Something has to give.
In the case of marriage, yes it is an either/or equation. Marriage is binary, you're either married or not married, there isn't a third option in the middle (unless you want to count some of the "alternatives" e.g. a handfasting?
I was talking in general relationship terms. Generally they are not either/or equations. They have middle ground and compromise. Yes, of course marriage is either/or and often a persons outlook on marriage is the same. This goes back to what I said about having fundamentally different life goals. Marriage, kids, emigration etc etc, are usually the subjects where a person will not compromise.
It does not mean people on either side of that fence cannot be happy - they just have to find happyness with the right person. The OP seems to be with the wrong person (based on the limited information we have).
It is not for everyone, that is true.
Because if you have kids and the ex isn't working, the alternative is to lose the house and your kids end up homeless... and yes, short term... depending how long it takes to sell the house, which could be 6+ months.
Not on it's own, however when it's on top of everything else, it doesn't really help...
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
Even if you were renting a place with your wife, you would still need to move out and find another place to live so the cost of divorce isnt really the issue here.
The point i am trying to make is: if your sole reason for not wanting to get married is to protect your personal wealth then you are a fool.
sometimes people are ****... but what can you do?
You don't expect loyalty or integrity from strangers - you don't know them, they don't know you, there are no ties other than basic decency which is all too lacking these days, so nothing lost and nothing gained.
However, we generally expect these values of loyalty and integrity to count with those we are close to, be they significant others or friends too. Sadly no matter how good a judge of character you are now, it counts for relatively little when your happiness or security (be it emotional or financial) is, to a greater or lesser extent, in the hands of another.
When push comes to shove, quite simply - people change and to pretend otherwise is opening yourself to all that another is prepared to do to you, deliberately or by omission.
Should this mean you never trust anyone again? Of course not.
But you do become more aware of how far people can and often do go when their interest changes. Naturally this alters your view somewhat.
Some people never experience the darker side to people like this; more power to them, they are lucky. It is a shame that there's not more like them in the world. It would be an indication of people treating each other better and with more respect.
I cannot blame the OP for thinking like he does - invariably people are diminished by the ill treatment they receive from others in the past. This does not make the OP a bad person, as some of you seem to suggest.
Many people successfully move on from failed relationships and all that this entails, but they will never forget what their trust cost them (I say 'cost' with a dual meaning; emotional and/or financial).
Your personal integrity and loyalty are all well and good until someone else decides they are no longer of any value to them.
It sounds like the OP learned a hard lesson in this in his previous marriage.
Anyone sympathetic to that should understand and not throw their toys out of the pram. Everyone has been banging on about trust this and trust that and trust issues, but few have included understanding in their judgement of the OP's relationship - part of a relationship which is just as important as trust. Perhaps this is something his other half needs to look at, instead of running back to her mother when she doesn't get what she wants.
Best of luck to you OP, whatever you decide.
You don't expect loyalty or integrity from strangers - you don't know them, they don't know you, there are no ties other than basic decency which is all too lacking these days, so nothing lost and nothing gained.
However, we generally expect these values of loyalty and integrity to count with those we are close to, be they significant others or friends too. Sadly no matter how good a judge of character you are now, it counts for relatively little when your happiness or security (be it emotional or financial) is, to a greater or lesser extent, in the hands of another.
When push comes to shove, quite simply - people change and to pretend otherwise is opening yourself to all that another is prepared to do to you, deliberately or by omission.
Should this mean you never trust anyone again? Of course not.
But you do become more aware of how far people can and often do go when their interest changes. Naturally this alters your view somewhat.
Some people never experience the darker side to people like this; more power to them, they are lucky. It is a shame that there's not more like them in the world. It would be an indication of people treating each other better and with more respect.
I cannot blame the OP for thinking like he does - invariably people are diminished by the ill treatment they receive from others in the past. This does not make the OP a bad person, as some of you seem to suggest.
Many people successfully move on from failed relationships and all that this entails, but they will never forget what their trust cost them (I say 'cost' with a dual meaning; emotional and/or financial).
Your personal integrity and loyalty are all well and good until someone else decides they are no longer of any value to them.
It sounds like the OP learned a hard lesson in this in his previous marriage.
Anyone sympathetic to that should understand and not throw their toys out of the pram. Everyone has been banging on about trust this and trust that and trust issues, but few have included understanding in their judgement of the OP's relationship - part of a relationship which is just as important as trust. Perhaps this is something his other half needs to look at, instead of running back to her mother when she doesn't get what she wants.
Best of luck to you OP, whatever you decide.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You can, and that's a big problem nowadays with people rushing to have kids, finding out it's very hard work (as you've eluded to) and then bailing out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
That's hardly the norm though is it?
Indeed not, I was just pointing out that lifetime mating (and thus monogamy) exists in nature and is therefore more natural than business that does not.
However there would be no obligation to continue paying for it, and you wouldn't be at risk of losing a huge amount of money if you didn't
Why?
It's a logical, and justifiable reason against getting married, which has tangible and measurable benefits.
Can you provide a logical, and justifiable reason for getting married, which has tangible and measurable benefits?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
This is Earth not Vulcan, logic has nothing to do with it, if we was to be logical about everything the world would be a sad place. Im not discussing this any further as i wont change my mind just as others wont change theirs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,477
What?
Absolute bull.
Even if the mortgage is in joint names she isn't entitled to anything unless the other side is on the deeds. A mortgage is a loan not entitlement to a property.
Doesn't matter how long you live with someone you don't get ANY entitlement to anything other than what YOU own.
Thats why you get married. Its a contract. Without that contract nothing is shared
I'm not suggesting we should be logical about everything, however basing extremely serious decisions purely on emotion, without considering and allowing for the potential implications is in my opinion verging on insanity, and is exactly why the same people always seem to end up in bad situations, and then wonder "why is it always me?"
I thought there was a court case in the last few years where some woman got half of her partners house because she had been paying towards the mortage indirectly because they split all the bills
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Men are equally illogical at times too, you know?
Then that would be case law. And Everybody would have heard about it.
Plus then there would be no reason to get married