Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Never Married, a New Normal

psychologytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 450 posts

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#271

Post by saghm »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #142
throwaway1492 wrote: post #49

I’ll risk it and defend marriage to this crowd. To me getting married was about getting out of myself. As someone who got married later in life, I’d spent decades living only for myself, doing what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it. Relationships were shallow and lasted only so long as convenient. By choosing to get married and intentional build a family, I knew I was sacrificing a lot of ego and choosing to give…

[flagged]

I'm not sure if you're implying that every single husband and wife pair is comprised of a man with more financial resources or if you're somehow convinced that divorce will always screw over a husband and benefit a wife regardless of their incomes, but either way, it sounds like whoever you think you would have married otherwise is the one who's dodging a bullet.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#272

Post by flangola7 »

sidlls wrote: post #113
flangola7 wrote: post #104

The current legal institution of marriage is also not a great option for anyone who is polyamorous, which is gradually becoming more widely accepted and acknowledged. The law only recognizes one pairing, meaning you have to decide which one of your partners gets very literal special extra rights. Picking which of your partners gets guaranteed visitation rights and immunity to compelled testimony against you is incred…

Polyamory is at best a rounding error in all relationships of any sort. The vast majority of people are monogamous, serially or otherwise. I've seen quite a few poly relationships: when they weren't shallow excuses for openly having multiple concurrent sex partners (which I found amusing: just call yourselves single/casually dating--that's what that is, not a poly-relationship, and there's nothing wrong with it), the…

Ok? I don't see what being a "rounding error" (assuming that it is even accurate, which I don't believe it is) or your tangent has to do with my point.

If we're going for personal experiences, I've known and been in multiple polycules and I can't say there's been any more drama than in mono land. Having multiple concurrent sex partners doesn't mean they're not relationships; I sleep with a lot of people ranging from my partner who I've lived with for 7 years to someone who is a hiking friend I met last spring, but they're still relationships. With full respect, your comment sounds like someone who has only external observation with the poly community/experience - i.e. the IT department phenomenon, you only get noticed the few times something is going wrong and are invisible when the ship is sailing smoothly the rest of the time.

But again this is all beside the point, being part of a "rounding error" is not comforting at all to me or providing equal human rights.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#273

Post by emodendroket »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #238
emodendroket wrote: post #127

> Cohabitation has become a popular alternative; living together is a less complicated relationship model that comes with an easy escape hatch (compared with marriage) if the relationship fails This seems like a bit of a false promise... Once you commingle finances, own a house together, have children, and so on, there's no "easy escape hatch." Plus thinking of having an "easy escape hatch" probably does not do wonde…

The easy escape hatch is that you're less likely (in the USA but not Ontario) to face prison if you try to leave the relationship. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/...

Unfortunately for the world’s deadbeat dads, you can still owe child support without being married. Even in the United States.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#274

Post by pcthrowaway »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #13
jitl wrote: post #10

My partner and I have been together for 7 years, we bought a house together, haven’t found a compelling reason to get married. Marriage is a complex and binding contract that for two high earners is a tax disadvantage. The most prominent benefits I’ve learned are some situations around visitation rights, and avoiding being compelled to testify against your spouse. It comes from a very dubious history of the husband e…

Married people report significantly higher levels of happiness/life satisfaction in the middle and later stages of life than non married people. This is a durable finding across many studies.

Wet roads have also been found to have a much higher chance of being somewhere rain has recently occurred than dry roads.

But the wet roads didn't cause the rain.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#275

Post by pcthrowaway »

e-brake wrote: post #141
dleslie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In BC, Canada, there is no practical legal difference between marriage and long term cohabitation. Not getting married and living together is rather normal, and comes with the same risk of financial segmentation and alimony or child support.

I can attest that this. There is no advantage to being married in BC (and many other places) It's not because we are afraid of commitment, like this flimsy article suggests. We simply don't care about the symbolic ritual.

My friend who got permanent residency in BC after getting married might argue otherwise

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#276

Post by realjhol »

Dalewyn wrote: post #198
emodendroket wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this creates an uncomfortable/unequal situation for the non working partner as you’ve essentially set yourself up as an authority figure over them rather than an equal.

Freedom is equivalent to responsibility. If you offload your responsibility of paying your expenses upon another, you surrender that freedom to them. If a couple wants equality, have separate finances and incomes and make agreements as to how any financial matters that must be handled together should be handled.

But the members of a married couple are never "equal" - whatever that even means.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#277

Post by pcthrowaway »

jdrbc wrote: post #269
noirbot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious question - does this take effect for all couples/groups? I've been roommates with people for 3+ years before with no sexual/romantic interest. Would I be considered married to them in BC? Is this different for same-sex pairings? What if three people cohabitate for an extended period? Are they all married to each other?

The law accounts for roommates by defining the nature of the relationship. Cohabitation for a certain period isn't the full definition. The definition does not allow for more than 2 people in the relationship.

Actually I think the laws in BC are becoming more progressive with nonmonogamous arrangements. I think there was a case recently where a judge split custody of a child between three people who were romantically involved, cohabitating, and raising the child.

But generally you would only be considered common law in BC if you're in a conjugal relationship.

In practice, if that becomes a point of contention (and I don't think this has been a frequent occurrence), it comes down to how you are publicly perceived. If one person denies the relationship being more than a platonic roommate arrangement, but all acquaintances interviewed claim they were under the impression you were romantically or intimately involved, the court would find that to be a conjugal arrangement.

The law does define conjugal arrangement, and sex is sufficient for it to be considered conjugal, but not required.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#278

Post by pcthrowaway »

gregytuq wrote: post #258
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Responsibilities as a wife”—sorry, what are these supposed to be? Pretty sure there’s such a thing as “responsibilities as parents” and that one is ungendered and that’s why they are enshrined in laws, but what are “responsibilities as a wife”? Though, of course, if you’re still thinking about gender norms, then either find someone who agrees with your expectations, or don’t be in a relationship at all because gende…

[flagged]

My own suspicion is that when both men and women participate equally in the work force, the economy adjusts so that it's impractical for just one to work.

I think equality is a good thing; it's just that we haven't learn how to structure society to not squeeze as much productivity as possible out of working-age people.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#279

Post by cmcaleer »

emodendroket wrote: post #127

> Cohabitation has become a popular alternative; living together is a less complicated relationship model that comes with an easy escape hatch (compared with marriage) if the relationship fails This seems like a bit of a false promise... Once you commingle finances, own a house together, have children, and so on, there's no "easy escape hatch." Plus thinking of having an "easy escape hatch" probably does not do wonde…

> thinking of having an "easy escape hatch" probably does not do wonders for the relationship

I actually totally disagree with this. The difference between “I’m in this relationship because I love this person but also I have to be for my visa/finances/friendships” and “I’m in this relationship because I love this person and I can leave tomorrow if I want to” for me has been night and day.

Neither my partner nor I is reliant on our relationship for good quality of life. There’s nothing stopping one of us from leaving, and I feel that this actually raises the stakes in a healthy way. It doesn’t mean that when challenges come up we bail on the other, if anything it makes them less stressful because we know the other clearly has a vested interest in sorting the problem since they could just bail. Of course children would change this dynamic.

Think of it this way: would you be more comfortable in a good job but one which you could be laid off and lose your visa sponsorship and have to upend your life suddenly or scramble for any job, or one in a country where you have the right to live and could find a similar job if you get laid off but take the time to find the right role? If compensation and conditions are similar, I imagine most would prefer the latter.

Re: The Never Married, a New Normal

#280

Post by za3faran »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #174
cultofmetatron wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Marriage itself is not really more of a risk to a man than a woman. Shared property from the marriage will get divided up, but that affects women the same as men. Having children is a slight risk because custody is a bit more likely to be given to women than men, so men are a bit more likely to have to pay child support. Having a spouse who stops working to take care of children is a large risk for both partners. One…

> Shared property from the marriage will get divided up, but that affects women the same as men.

That mainly seems to be an issue in the west and those who follow their way.

Post reply on HN