I cannot find the statistic, but I am sure I read once that statistically marriages started between 23-27 have the lowest rates of divorce (if you only count first marriages, then I think the lowest rates come at a bit older age). Anyway, it's marrying before 23 that has the much, much higher rates of divorce. After that, I wouldn't worry about statistics.
Ask HN: Marriage
91–100 of 108 posts
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting perspective. What you're saying is that marriage is a mode of communication for that one sentiment. Are there other modes of communicating the same sentiment? (an epic poem, breaking into heartfelt song, getting tattoos,...) Are they all equivalent? Does choosing to not express it by marriage necessarily imply that one is not willing to express it at all?
It doesn't just communicate it to your partner, but to society. Getting married is a ritualized promise that is done before one's community of family and friends. I think saying the vows to your partner, in front of your family and friends, is markedly different than, say, writing a poem and getting tattoos. I suppose marriage is what you make of it. I consider being married to be a different state than not being mar…
I can dig that. I've been through the process myself. In the beginning, my thoughts on the matter were perfectly in line with yours.
Now that I'm on the other side, I've seen that neither the church, nor the state, nor the social network of community witnesses (nor the legal commitment of having adopted her two sons for that matter) could stand in the way of her caprice-driven dalliances.
And, living in a "No Fault Divorce" state meant that her violation of the terms of the marriage provided me no benefit or protection when it came time to kick her to the curb out of self-preservation.
Society, with all its witnessing, was nowhere to be found. Everybody wants to come to the wedding. Nobody wants to come to the divorce.
Next time I'll opt for the tattoo. ;-)
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-nup. Problem solved.
If only it were that easy. Pre-nuptial agreements are routinely invalidated by judges at the precise moment one needs them to be enforced.
Usually because they either poorly written and/or one party was coerced (or claims they were coerced). As with all contracts, you should get a decent lawyer. And your partner needs his/her own lawyer.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-nup. Problem solved.
If only it were that easy. Pre-nuptial agreements are routinely invalidated by judges at the precise moment one needs them to be enforced.
That's because you need two more things besides just a pre-nup: A POST-nup and $15k to the woman to go find her own lawyer to work through the paperwork so she can't claim ignorance. With that you are pretty safe.
As an aside, I know a guy who had his father own the deed to his house and paid "rent" to him. When the wife cheated on him and left/was kicked out she couldn't get much because most of his assets were in his dad's name.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Seems more like a contract between you and your spouse that has been approved of by the state.
Last friday I had to stand in front of a judge and say that two people where not living together for the last year so they could get a divorce in the state of Virginia. After 6 months of marriage it took a year, a judge, an attorney, and a witness, plus some cash to finally separate them. If they had been married for 10 years then there would be Social Security implications etc. Plus I think they still force you to t…
I still think these are problems that are easily solved with a good pre-nup.
And there's no blood test in VA anymore (nor DC for that matter).
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, you are aware of the concept of a pre-nup, right? I'm pretty sure a marriage + a solid pre-nuptial agreement would put you on much better legal/financial ground than a "committed non-martial relationship" without a written contract.
apparently prenups are pretty much worthless in this day and age. Even if its air tight, the other lawyer can just say that they were forced to sign the prenup(i.e. no prenup = no marriage) and poof, your air tight prenup is null and void
It's pretty simple: both you and your spouse-to-be need a lawyer to review the document before signing it. Then nobody can claim they were forced or didn't understand.
And, really, this is pretty basic legal advice. You should always have an independent, disinterested lawyer review contracts before you sign them.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
rational for divorce proceedings through state courts has little to do with Church. The courts are mostly dealing with issues of property.
Then why should the state care if they lived together? It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced. Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plent…
I would be very surprised if the rule, in some states, of being apart for a year to finalize a divorce, has anything to do with religion/church. Most likely, it is a relic of legislation attempting to define "litmus tests" on which the judiciary can make decisions.
Keep in mind that with things like divorce and child custody/support, couples change their minds (sometimes a lot). Our court systems can't handle this (certainly not the costs). Over the years, our societies have required legislatures to define rules and processes for lumping everyone into a process. I don't think the state really wants to be involved in divorce cases, but there are reasons they are (property, debts, retirement benefits, child custody/support, etc).
Like it or not, state courts have to be involved in divorces. For some couples that can handle it without the courts, well, like education, they get dragged down into the mean.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, but I think it's a fascinating read. This is particularly powerful, I think: We shouldn't be scared of trying things that aren't best, and if something is genuinely good, it shouldn't fear criticism and rivals. If it's good, it will beat those rivals. There's something so true in that. There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks…
> There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks to another guy. It's the confident ones that know they are the best that aren't afraid of competition. There's nothing weaker than a startup founder who gets furiously jealous if his employee aids and abets another company. It's the confident ones that know they're the best that aren't afraid of competition. No reason to get…
> I value deviation from the norm as much as the next free spirit, but deviation from this basic principle I will not allow myself ever.
I think it's bad to be a 'free spirit' in the sense of wanting to deviate from the norm. I do appreciate variety, but I'd prefer if there was less need to deviate. Radical and counter-intuitive ideas are harder to implement, and it's harder to find associates with those shared values. The point of deviating from the norm is that some normal ideas hurt people or cause problems. At least that's what I think. There is a genuine disagreement about the wisdom of some normal ideas, not just deviation for the sake of being a free spirit.
> If one partner decides that they're liable to "chat someone up and accidentally have sex" they should divorce/separate and carry on.
That's one option but there are lots of others. Richard Feynman made a game out of not cheating on Arline with tempting girls. He enjoyed the challenge. If you don't want to cheat, there are rational ways to accomplish that.
> I'm just appalled at an apparent justification of betrayal.
I think it's bad to betray people. I also think it's generally wise not to make promises that are hard to keep in the first place. One reason is this reduces the number of betrayals that take place. Another reason is that it's hard to predict the future and predict what you will want in the future.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks to another guy. It's the confident ones that know they are the best that aren't afraid of competition. There's nothing weaker than a startup founder who gets furiously jealous if his employee aids and abets another company. It's the confident ones that know they're the best that aren't afraid of competition. No reason to get…
> I value deviation from the norm as much as the next free spirit, but deviation from this basic principle I will not allow myself ever. I think it's bad to be a 'free spirit' in the sense of wanting to deviate from the norm. I do appreciate variety, but I'd prefer if there was less need to deviate. Radical and counter-intuitive ideas are harder to implement, and it's harder to find associates with those shared value…
Free spirit, free thinker, thoughtful, radical are some descriptions of the same idea. I guess it depends on the vantage point. A radical opposition to an oppression that catalyses a positive outcome, is viewed as a positive deviation by some, and of course viewed as a negative deviation by the oppressors. I basically try as I can to evaluate most "big ideas" on their merits, to the extent of my ability. I don't have neither the time nor energy to evaluate everything so some things I take at face value. So in my view, the more people who choose to think outside of the boundaries of a given established "norm", the more healthy the society in general. This is an enormous topic, so what I said is not even a splinter of it.
> That's one option but there are lots of others. Richard Feynman made a game out of not cheating on Arline with tempting girls. He enjoyed the challenge. If you don't want to cheat, there are rational ways to accomplish that.
Basically I view change of heart as a normal occurrence. It happens, there are far worse things in life. But I also view betrayal in some of the most negative light possible. Divorce/separate and off you go. I just don't see a solution to suppressing one's urge. If one is convinced they've "finally found the right person" then what next? I don't know, but I do know that to exercise that urge while feigning ignorance is pathetic example of a human malice and weakness. At least hold it until you can separate and inform your former "loved one" of your intentions. Otherwise, if it's a fleeting "crush". Drop it like a hot potato and move on. Why betray? Because it feels good? I don't know. Why make your loved one jealous? Some do it out of spite -- it becomes an endless game of getting back at each other.
> I think it's bad to betray people. I also think it's generally wise not to make promises that are hard to keep in the first place.
There are civil and fruitful means of dissolving a contract. It's just my view that conniving and lying and otherwise being unfaithful is an anathema to reason, trust and a healthy society. That's my view of course, and I don't plan to impose it on others in any way, but I will go to the utmost of my ability to abide by it.
It's just so happens that jealousy is the central emotion that runs through the veins of the aforementioned beast. Human interaction is built on jealousy and it can be either good or bad. I think few other emotions, except perhaps fear, have more influence over our lives, or are as central. I remain suspect when people claim immunity to it.
Re: Ask HN: Marriage
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner. Neither a wedding nor a state-enforced contract is required for a committed, long-term, loving relationship. There is an increasing phenomenon of women choosing to give birth out of wedlock. It's not yet clear if they are having children without a cohabitant partner. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-tren...
>I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner. I really think you're being unrealistic if you think women don't care about getting married before having children with someone. You can place whatever value judgments you like on the reasons for that, but to say it isn't the case isn't realistic.
Please don't generalise women - some of us really don't care.
(I'm 15 weeks pregnant, I have no intentions of getting married.)