[javajosh]

Sorry to be negative, but I think the conventions around marriage needs to be redone alongside all the other changes around marriage. To wit, the ability of a woman to divorce you and receive alimony and child support for basically the rest of her life. It's not clear to me what reason a rational person has for NOT getting divorced after enough time has elapsed that alimony is possible. Roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce; 50% of those are high conflict. When you buy a ring and give it to her, this will not factor into that judgement. You can pay for everything and the only thing the judge will look at is your incomes. Be smart and split everything down the middle, including the ring.

[kemayo]

> It's not clear to me what reason a rational person has for NOT getting divorced after enough time has elapsed that alimony is possible.

I mean, assuming that you like your spouse, it's a perfectly rational decision to stay with them despite it being possible to make money by leaving them. It's economics-paper level sociopathy to suggest that "I could maximize my personal income by divorcing the person I love" is an action to be taken.

[intrasight]

>It's economics-paper level sociopathy

Indeed. Ask my ex-wife (an economist) how that worked out for her.

[Tostino]

Thanks for the laugh. I really wish this type of thinking weren't so common in the population, but the fact is, it is pretty common. You need to account for it.

[javajosh]

Believe it or not, love is not a constant, it's a time-dependent function.

[imtringued]

You have ruined your own argument though. Divorce because you no longer love your husband is a completely different thing than divorcing because of monetary incentives.

[ryanwaggoner]

In which direction?

And is that universally true? Does it apply to all relationships, like parents for their children?

[newaccount74]

> Be smart and split everything down the middle

That only works if both partners have similar income, similar working times, and also split household work equally.

Most relationships are not like that, especially when kids are involved, but often even before that. So you often have one partner work more while the other takes care of most of the household. This leads to a situation where one partner is financially dependent on the other.

Marriage laws are supposed to protect the dependent partner in that case.

[gnicholas]

> To wit, the ability of a woman to divorce you and receive alimony and child support for basically the rest of her life.

Child support doesn't last that long — just until the child reaches 18. And alimony stops if the spouse ever gets remarried (though of course some people dodge that by not technically getting married to a new partner).

[intrasight]

In many places (and all the ones where I've lived) it is the state that determines that you are married and not the couple. You may try to improve your odds with a prenup, but according to my friends that have tried, it doesn't offer much protection.

[MathMonkeyMan]

A divorce lawyer in New Jersey told me that 1/3 of the prenups she sees end up making any difference.

[fatuna]

"Be smart and" don't get an expensive ring! Spend that money on your honeymoon, wedding, just save it, or donate it to a charity. Doing anything else makes more sense really.

[joshbaptiste]

Get a pre-nup and most of that is handled.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia-9wWl2PoY