Dissolving My Marriage

[Money & Muscle]

I was LUCKY

And you really don't see where I've 0 protections in this, and that I'd also be relying on being LUCKY to not get ruined in divorce...

 

[RickTheToad]

I agree. I don't see marriage as something that benefits me.



That's terrible. Did you have to pay some settlement to your ex as a part of the childless divorce?

No. She delayed the divorce for nearly 2 years just to ring up my legal bills. She just did it to hurt me. Since my attorney couldn't get any where with the judge or court to grant the divorce, I had to call up the judge's clerk and ask what the hold up was. After her song and dance, I said, that's fine, however, I will going to the paper next Monday should my divorce not be granted stating that the court is allowing my ex-wife's counsel to drain me financially for legal fees and continuances. I did not feel the court was treating me fair and the public should know the shenanigans that the judge is allowing in his court.

The court order was granted a week later. I would never go through that song and dance again. If, in NYC, it was that hard to get divorced for a short 2 year marriage, I could only fathom how bad a long term marriage with assets and kids would be. No thank you.

The kicker is, I offered to file an uncontested divorce and I'd cover the $400 fee. She initially agreed, but her mom talked her out of it. I offered her an additional $10k and all of the wedding crap that she wanted; she still wouldn't agree.

I equate marriage these days to jail. The rings are the handcuffs. I've let other females walk, and I'd also let this one walk too. I don't care. It's a kangaroo court where the only party which wins are the attorneys. It's bullsh!t; and I will not play again.

 

[RickTheToad]

Rick thats because it was a contested divorce right? Uncontested would have been a lot less correct?

Correct. I wanted it, she did not. She actually did a bait and switch and said she no longer wants kids and wanted an open marriage. That was what lead me to file for divorce. My attorney, after a while, suggested to switch to annulment due to fraud. As I posted above, it was a sh!t storm when it didn't have to be.

 

[RickTheToad]

And you really don't see where I've 0 protections in this, and that I'd also be relying on being LUCKY to not get ruined in divorce...

Move to a more male friendly state. Say for work, sell the house prior (if you have one), rent for a while in the new place, then file for divorce. Either way, it's going to be bad. The only thing you can do is lessen the impact. You can try to reason with her; but it's going to be a pointless endeavour. Logic doesn't rule a female's mind in terms to emotion; emotion does.

 

[RickTheToad]

You don’t want a nuclear family?

Marriage, in what we experienced as children, is dead.

 

[Slowhandluke]

The kicker is, I offered to file an uncontested divorce and I'd cover the $400 fee. She initially agreed, but her mom talked her out of it. I offered her an additional $10k and all of the wedding crap that she wanted; she still wouldn't agree.

As a generalization, women are fickle and are easily influenced by people who may not have your best interest in mind or the relationships best interest in mind. They are unreliable. Men in general are more loyal and less inclined to be illogical. Yes, we do have bad men.. but usually, men will keep there words while women will not.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I equate marriage these days to jail. The rings are the handcuffs. I've let other females walk, and I'd also let this one walk too. I don't care. It's a kangaroo court where the only party which wins are the attorneys. It's bullsh!t; and I will not play again.

Marriage, in what we experienced as children, is dead.

Sorry that happened to you. But that is your experience, and your opinion on the matter is jaded towards only the worst case scenario. If the consensus is marriage is that terrible, there would be a precipitous decline in new marriages, and an uptick in divorces.

 

[SW15]

Did you have to pay some settlement to your ex as a part of the childless divorce?

No.

You are fortunate in that regard but not fortunate with your overall divorce.

One of my cousins had a childless marriage. He ended up having to pay her an upfront cash settlement + some recurring spousal support type payments for a short period (over a year though). I thought that was quite unfair for a shorter marriage with 0 children.

I equate marriage these days to jail. The rings are the handcuffs. I've let other females walk, and I'd also let this one walk too. I don't care. It's a kangaroo court where the only party which wins are the attorneys. It's bullsh!t; and I will not play again.

I agree with this.

Divorce attorneys can do well. I considered becoming one as a career path.

She delayed the divorce for nearly 2 years just to ring up my legal bills. She just did it to hurt me. Since my attorney couldn't get any where with the judge or court to grant the divorce, I had to call up the judge's clerk and ask what the hold up was. After her song and dance, I said, that's fine, however, I will going to the paper next Monday should my divorce not be granted stating that the court is allowing my ex-wife's counsel to drain me financially for legal fees and continuances. I did not feel the court was treating me fair and the public should know the shenanigans that the judge is allowing in his court.

The court order was granted a week later. I would never go through that song and dance again. If, in NYC, it was that hard to get divorced for a short 2 year marriage, I could only fathom how bad a long term marriage with assets and kids would be. No thank you.

The kicker is, I offered to file an uncontested divorce and I'd cover the $400 fee. She initially agreed, but her mom talked her out of it. I offered her an additional $10k and all of the wedding crap that she wanted; she still wouldn't agree.

Everything I read here was ridiculous and I would want no part of it.

Marriage, in what we experienced as children, is dead.

Marriage has been officially dead since the end of Second Wave Feminism at the end of the 1980s. Any marriages that have started after the end of Second Wave Feminism are not marriages that resemble the more traditional marriages of the 1700s through mid 1900s.

The era of Second Wave Feminism (1960s-1980s) was a transitional era. Most US states enacted no fault divorce laws in the 1970s. No fault divorce laws changed marriages, divorces, and the overall sexual marketplace for the worse.

In my opinion, marriages started in the 1960s-1980s had a better foundation to them than marriages started in the 1990s or later. By the era of the 1960s-1980s, marriages were not what they once were. A lot of those 1960s-1980s era marriages failed.

 

[member162951]

OPs problem is he wants both the relationship with his wife AND he wants a financial divorce. Those two desires CANNOT co-exist.

I agree with this^ but @Be you must realize that most divorces are not as amicable as yours was; your lawyer even admitted about your ex at the time "before he comes to his senses."

Your experience is virtually unheard of and YES you were very lucky. Especially with no prenuptial.

The courts don't care about female versus male. The courts care about who earned more and who was out of the workforce taking care of children.

What state are you in @Be? Not refuting this^ necessarily, just curious.

Courts in CA focus on what's in the best interests of the child. If the stay at home parent is an alcoholic, unstable, has mental issues (for example), if the other parent has evidence of this, the Court will award sole custody to that parent.

They may award alimony for a certain period of time, not always forever. It depends.

There are many different factors at play it's not always so black and white.

Not in CA anyway.

 

[BeExcellent]

I agree with this^ but @Be you must realize that most divorces are not as amicable as yours was; your lawyer even admitted about your ex at the time "before he comes to his senses."

Your experience is virtually unheard of and YES you were very lucky. Especially with no prenuptial.



What state are you in @Be? Not refuting this^ necessarily, just curious.

Courts in CA focus on what's in the best interests of the child. If the stay at home parent is an alcoholic, unstable, has mental issues (for example), if the other parent has evidence of this, the Court will award sole custody to that parent.

They may award alimony for a certain period of time, not always forever. It depends.

There are many different factors at play it's not always so black and white.

Not in CA anyway.

@JoyDivision1990 I was in a red state. I KNOW I was extremely lucky but I also held up my end of the bargain. My first husband knew my character; knew my father had practiced family law for 20 years, knew I had a strong sense of fairness.

My first husband never hired a lawyer. I got very lucky. The courts care about the children. However they are too busy to deal with any but the worst most obvious cases when it comes to abuse and neglect, those cases can be very hard to prove. The offending parent will deny everything. A friend of mine deals with this now. Her children come home with fractures and bruises and have been coached to lie or not reveal what really is going on. Kids fear loss of contact with a parent they love, even if abusive. Kids don't wish to tattle on the parent and they may face serious repercussions at home if they do.

My father stopped practicing family law because of the ugliness and how the kids were often pawns in the war between the parents. It disgusted him.

The fact is this: Problems stem from choosing the wrong partner. And many people marry the wrong partner. My first husband had his faults, but he was interested in best outcome for the kids, as was I. So we were amicable and equitable in divorce (mature) but most people are not.

The courts strive for financial equity in order to best serve the children. In a one income household that means the sole wage earner is penalized in the divorce relative to the no or low income spouse. The no or low income spouse stands to gain, but was also contributing to the team of the marriage & therefore will not be left desitute.

That is because in the eyes of the court the divorce is a short term crisis for the high income earning partner (who will still earn a high income post finalization of the divorce) but potentially a long term crisis for the low or no income partner who may not be able to afford the children's lifestyle and who may never be able to do that.

You have to take the emotion out. You have to look at it the way the court will see it. I got lessons in this from my dad (who was fond of my first husband) and from my divorce lawyer (who was a judge on the bench herself for 25 years arbitrating such cases.) I knew my only shot at not getting financially gutted would come from avoiding court. I also knew my ex husband was unmotivated to bother with hiring (and paying) his own counsel. I also knew it would be the most important negotiation of my life and that I would have to make a deal that served my ex husband's interests. So I came to the table with an idea how to satisfy his interests, do the best thing for the children etc.

My divorce lawyer, who I ran into not long ago, told me she had never seen another case like mine in all her years in the law. And she also knew I executed my plan after the divorce (I kept my word) and made good.

I was lucky, yes. But lucky by design. Had I gone the normal route and not tried things my way? I'd have ended up gutted too. I instead proposed a long game situation that ultimately will transfer the wealth I was able to preserve and grow to my children's families. My ex husband wanted that same long range goal. We found a creative way to get there that worked for all involved.

Do OP and his wife have the maturity and long range view to negotiate between themselves like my first husband and I did? I doubt it. I mean we had a divorce decree we never looked at in 10 years. We have never needed it because we are both very fair minded and we do what works best in consultation with the other parent. If my current husband doesn't like it? Oh well. It's not my kid's fault the parents split up; in some things the kids come first, ahead of me; ahead of my current marriage.

But that attitude arises out of who someone IS. It arises out of character.

 

[BeExcellent]

And you really don't see where I've 0 protections in this, and that I'd also be relying on being LUCKY to not get ruined in divorce...

No. Read my post above. I was not passively lucky. I made my luck because I knew the situation and my spouse. You know your situation and your wife. You'd be relying on your ability to negotiate something that will satisfy the interests of your wife. That is how you tackle it.

Do you know what your wife is most concerned with? What would you be most concerned with if you'd been out of the workforce for years to raise your kids?

Have you ever thought of backing off the "I- I- I " "me, me, me" attitude? To have a shot you need to be very pragmatic.

You have to be willing to give to get; collaborative.

 

[BeExcellent]

The biggest issue I see here is this. @Money & Muscle has this idea in his head that the grass is greener out there somewhere.

For me that certainly has been true. But often the grass isn't greener. What happens if the grass is greener for your attractive wife but not greener for you? What if you end up confirming that you had a really loyal person & good mother & wife and all you find is trash?

Something to consider. You still haven't addressed my question about what your wife wants out of your situation. That answer will matter a very great deal.

 

[Mertz09]

In many cases, the grass is not always greener. It’s just different grass.

 

[RickTheToad]

Sorry that happened to you. But that is your experience, and your opinion on the matter is jaded towards only the worst case scenario. If the consensus is marriage is that terrible, there would be a precipitous decline in new marriages, and an uptick in divorces.

I disagree, but you have a right to your own opinion. The data seems to disagree with your statement though. This data is within the last year. I'm pretty sure you said you'd be open to cheating on your spouse if you wanted. If that is actually true, then why get married in the first place?

I assure you, a piece of paper is not going to keep the female faithful. It may keep the male faithful so the courts don't fleece him; but not the female since, in general, she has the most to gain. My scenario is the average scenario that is played out around the country. Since you have never been through a contested divorce, then you really have no idea what you are talking about. I know a guy who's is going through a divorce since 2021 since the ex-wife, who's been cheating on him since they were 1st married, refuses to grant the divorce. The scum she's cheating on him with has since moved in with her and he's living in a small apartment. He doesn't get to see his kids more than twice a month and also had to file bankruptcy. This is in the state where you currently reside: New Jersey.

Believe what you wish, but marriage rates are falling. Females are starting to earn more than males, and the males with the assets and income are too concerned about divorce.


Sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/07/19/why-are-people-not-getting-married-anymore.html#:~:text=Almost%2090%25%20of%20the%20world's,big%20factors%20here%20in%20play

.

The Societal Cost of the Marriage Decline

Marriage rates are plummeting. More young people are delaying or avoiding dating altogether. Pew Research recently found that 1 in 4 40-year-old American adults have never been married. Parenthood is viewed with much greater apprehension among young people than it once was.

ifstudies.org

.

Is Your State in Step with National Marriage and Divorce Trends?

Puerto Rico had among the lowest marriage and divorce rates in 2021.

www.census.gov

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/25/marriage-declining-single-dating-taxes-relationships

 

[EyeBRollin]

I disagree, but you have a right to your own opinion. The data seems to disagree with your statement though. This data is within the last year. I'm pretty sure you said you'd be open to cheating on your spouse if you wanted. If that is actually true, then why get married in the first place?

I’m a pragmatic individual. Regarding cheating, male and female cheating are in fact different manifestations. Red pill aware should know this.

I assure you, a piece of paper is not going to keep the female faithful. It may keep the male faithful so the courts don't fleece him; but not the female since, in general, she has the most to gain. My scenario is the average scenario that is played out around the country.

No, I assure you that scenario is not the average scenario. Most people are not going through a bitter divorce. Harsh it may sound, you chose to marry who you married.

 

[Manure Spherian]

Regarding cheating, male and female cheating are in fact different manifestations.

Do you think male infidelity should be grounds for women to divorce? I do.

I do not think any man here is exaggerating ramifications of divorce in the current day and female incentive to divorce.

See:
Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers by Roger Devlin
Taken into Custody by Dr. Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex by Dr. Stephen Baskerville

Anyone in here with the attention span required can listen to the first five minutes of this interview.

The New Politics of Sex (with Stephen Baskerville)

Scholar Stephen Baskerville will join the show to discuss his book The New Politics of Sex, and how the intersection of ideology with the legal regime has de...

www.youtube.com

The Men's Marriage Strike: What the Political Class Has to Lose

Professional conservatives will lose the most, and they know it.

stephenbaskerville.substack.com

Quote:

This is not new. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" some were asking more than two decades ago. In an undeservedly neglected book, Helen Smith has thoroughly documented how men are refraining from marriage when they realize the devastating effects of divorce inflicted on them unilaterally through literally “no fault” of their own. No sane man marries and has children knowing that he can lose those children and everything else, plus be incarcerated without trial – all without having committed any legal infraction. “I could not in good conscience urge any young man . . . today to marry, or even to date,” confesses one marriage advocate. “There is simply no point in continuing to play by the old rules with women who openly despise those rules.”

With that said I personally chose to marry, but I don’t ignore what is out there today regarding men as a group.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Do you think male infidelity should be grounds for women to divorce? I do.

As in a man screwing another woman? Generally speaking, no. Men have been screwing side pieces since the beginning of time. No amount of social conditioning will override the biological programming. What keeps men “faithful” in a monogamous society is lack of options. It is no coincidence that the wealthiest / famous / highest status men always have problems with infidelity, given the amount of pvssy that gets thrown their way. We are a tournament species.

Is a women screwing another man grounds for divorce? Yes, it is. It is indeed a double standard.

 

[RickTheToad]

I’m a pragmatic individual. Regarding cheating, male and female cheating are in fact different manifestations. Red pill aware should know this.



No, I assure you that scenario is not the average scenario. Most people are not going through a bitter divorce. Harsh it may sound, you chose to marry who you married.

Whatever you say dude. A person who has no knowledge of a situation and has never been through a similar scenario has no idea what they are talking about. It's like someone going to an auto mechanic when he needs an HVAC system repaired. It's not going to work.

 

[RickTheToad]

Do you think male infidelity should be grounds for women to divorce? I do.

I do not think any man here is exaggerating ramifications of divorce in the current day and female incentive to divorce.

See:
Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers by Roger Devlin
Taken into Custody by Dr. Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex by Dr. Stephen Baskerville

Anyone in here with the attention span required can listen to the first five minutes of this interview.

The New Politics of Sex (with Stephen Baskerville)

Scholar Stephen Baskerville will join the show to discuss his book The New Politics of Sex, and how the intersection of ideology with the legal regime has de...

www.youtube.com

The Men's Marriage Strike: What the Political Class Has to Lose

Professional conservatives will lose the most, and they know it.

stephenbaskerville.substack.com

Quote:

This is not new. "Have anti-father family court policies led to a men's marriage strike?" some were asking more than two decades ago. In an undeservedly neglected book, Helen Smith has thoroughly documented how men are refraining from marriage when they realize the devastating effects of divorce inflicted on them unilaterally through literally “no fault” of their own. No sane man marries and has children knowing that he can lose those children and everything else, plus be incarcerated without trial – all without having committed any legal infraction. “I could not in good conscience urge any young man . . . today to marry, or even to date,” confesses one marriage advocate. “There is simply no point in continuing to play by the old rules with women who openly despise those rules.”

With that said I personally chose to marry, but I don’t ignore what is out there today regarding men as a group.

@EyeBRollin, while they may be knowledgeable in relationships, knows nothing about family court.

 

[EyeBRollin]

@EyeBRollin, while they may be knowledgeable in relationships, knows nothing about family court.

I plan to keep it that way!

Make no mistake, it is our job as men to screen properly and make a sound choice about if and whom we shall marry. Sorry about that guy with the cheating wife. He should not have wifed a 304. The signs were likely there beforehand.