forums

OT- Coach O Getting Divorced Unfortunately

This thread has gotten so f***ing far from Coach O and his divorce it ain't funny.

Personally, Coach O's divorce don't confront me none, but it is loosely college football related. But now ****** ******* be debating about Scandanavians and other Viking countries and Adam Smith's "approach in the wealth of nations"! Holy ****!
 
Advertisement
How do is men go about changing these laws? I feel like these laws are archaic. This is when back in time when women weren’t paid equal and wouldn’t work. Now women want to keep the old benefits with the new benefits.
 
Canedog said:
This thread has gotten so f***ing far from Coach O and his divorce it ain't funny.

Personally, Coach O's divorce don't confront me none, but it is loosely college football related. But now ****** ******* be debating about Scandanavians and other Viking countries and Adam Smith's "approach in the wealth of nations"! Holy ****!
Click to expand...

It’s 100% relevant because Adam Smith would be vehemently opposed to paying a woman alimony in perpetuity, just to sit on her butt in order to maintain the lifestyle her ex-husband handed her.

The system is set up that a man must pay a woman welfare if he divorces her. Hence, my original premise....a man with means should never ever marry a poor woman or else he’d be on the hook for funding her welfare program if things don’t work out.

That’s why I said marriage is a business venture. A poor woman will require and be entitled to an ex husband sponsored welfare program....a woman with means and her own assets usually won’t require it
 
The Svengali said:
You’re bringing ideology into the mix, which weakens your stance. Namely, it seems you’re veering towards the American construct of marriage as an ideal. For example, and to paraphrase your original point, you stated “getting married to bear children were foundational to building a strong society”. So, as a counterpoint, I mentioned Scandinavia to disprove that premise, especially since the US is only 4.7% of the worlds population. That’s just a slither.

I’m focusing mostly on western societies (plural) - Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, US, because our systems are relatively similar, but the takeaway is, there are many different kinds of societies built on wholly different principles and institutions. But I certainly can’t wrap my brain around marriage and having children as some duty to the State for building society. That seems far closer to being wedded to the state under that concept, than a single patent being so called wedded to the state in scandanavia.

Also, not only do I disagree social programs have rendered marriages obsolete in scandanavia, I totally disagree Scandavia is a cradle to the grave welfare society (they practice compassionate capitalism), and I’ll argue against both premises with these points:

1. Their cultural norms are just different (see cultural relativism)...America is a very young country and still figuring things out, I’d argue and,

2. Denmark is ranked nearly 10 spots HIGHER than the US on the Index of Economics freedom scale....and Sweden is only a few spots behind the US. The index of Economic Freedom is an annual index created by the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation to measure the degree of economic freedom in the worlds nations. It’s underpinned by Adam Smiths approach in the Wealth of nations. Denmark is 8, US is 17 and Sweden is ranked 22

Also, America is the second largest social welfare state in the world and it’s most certainly cradle to the grave, which nullifies your point about welfare programs making marriages in Scandinavia obsolete. Their society is strong and there are having children out of wedlock choosing not to marry as a choice. Real per capita social welfare spending in the United States is second largest in the world. America is the epitome of a so called welfare state!

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org

www.heritage.org

The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
Click to expand...

Interesting. How exactly is bringing "ideology" inherently weakening one's position? Are you not smuggling ideology in your position? It is all ideology when we are engaged in a discussion of this nature. When talking about societal/cultural norms and which ones work, don't work, what is necessary, what is not, etc. it is all ideologically based. If you don't see it , then it is a blind spot for you.

You brought up Scandinavian society in a prior post to make a point that marriage was not foundational to family. And in that society they have a different ideology in regards to marriage because that society is largely secular. They have a secular ideology as a basis to how they view the world. I suspect your ideology is similar. But it is ideology, nevertheless.

My view of marriage is non-secular and based on traditional values. You can disagree, of course, but you can't in the same breath claim you are being less ideological in your position than I am.

I don't disagree that we do have welfare programs, but not to the same extent Scandinavian countries do. Yes, I am aware they are capitalists but they also have very high taxes that help fund free education, including colleges and universities, and free universal healthcare. We are not at that level yet. They also have generous unemployment benefits/insurance so you can survive longer without work than in other countries. Their unemployment rate is actually a bit higher generally speaking. I mean, why go back to work right away if you can still make rent and pay basic living expenses on the government dole for extended periods? That said, they lead the world in public sector employment so those type of jobs are plentiful if you wish being a bureaucrat in some government ministry.

I am not debating the merits of their economic/poltical system over ours. You can call it compassionate, or whatever. That's not the point. What I am saying is that when you have that kind of government entitlement supporting you as individual, you are less reliant on others (including family members) for help. You can't deny the unintended consequences this kind of system may have on traditional notions of family and marriage. The necessity for family becomes less significant because the state picks up on and meets much of the needs that traditional families would meet in cases of hardship. So things like family, marriage, etc. while still around, take a on a different meaning. You can have and raise children in Scandinavian countries out of wedlock with less economical repercussions; couples are not "tied" together in the same manner as those in countries with traditional views of marriage so have looser bonds and can form multiple partner relationships with little economic obligation to each other. This certainly allows more freedom in relationships if that is your thing, but it certainly erodes notions of commitment, responsibility, and obligation one has to keep a family (in the traditional sense) intact.

I linked a good read, in my opinion, on the evolution of marriage in Scandinavian countries as they have taken a more ideologically progressive view on what constitutes marriage (though from the perspective of the *** marriage debate) over the past few decades. This has had some unintended (or intended) effects on that institution and society in general.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-end-of-marriage-in-scandinavia
 
How strong are prenups (in general)? Can't you just marry who you love and use a prenup if you're worried about it?
 
Advertisement
The Svengali said:
It’s 100% relevant because Adam Smith would be vehemently opposed to paying a woman alimony in perpetuity, just to sit on her butt in order to maintain the lifestyle her ex-husband handed her.

The system is set up that a man must pay a woman welfare if he divorces her. Hence, my original premise....a man with means should never ever marry a poor woman or else he’d be on the hook for funding her welfare program if things don’t work out.

That’s why I said marriage is a business venture. A poor woman will require and be entitled to an ex husband sponsored welfare program....a woman with means and her own assets usually won’t require it
Click to expand...

The same could be said about a well-to-do woman marrying a poor man.
 
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...

You realize how unlikely it is to find a woman that makes that kind of coin? If you are in the 1% income wise, it is extremely unlikely that you will find a woman that is anywhere near attractive, AND single that makes that kind of money. If you are going to get married, and you are making bank, the best thing you can do is 1)Vet the **** out of any woman you get serious with and 2)Get the best prenup you possibly can. Even then, it may not work out, but at least do your homework.

Family court is stacked against men, enter any arrangement with your eyes wide open, and also if you have a solid marriage, don't do something stupid like bang the secretary. I hope Ed did do anything stupid, because his soon to be ex wife saved his ***. Remember, she took a chance on a recovering alcoholic, and followed him across the country as he rebuilt his career.
 
IMG_0055.JPG
 
The Svengali said:
I have been happily married to a physician for 10 years - we have a son - so I don’t have a low opinion of marriage at all. She’s a great woman and we have an awesome partnership. However, I married my socio-economic and educational equal and we were in our mid 30’s when we met. We were mature, built our careers, traveled quite a bit had our own resources. We lived a bit before marrying and we both had a good sense of self. Also, we talked openly about finances. In short, she had her **** and I had mine - we had lifestyles we wanted to maintain - and neither of us needed to leech off each other.

My parents (especially my mother) drilled “proper mate choices” into all of my brothers before we went off to college. Namely, never ever marry a poor or uneducated woman - not under any circumstances - and status and economics matter just as much as love when choosing a mate. Date and marry “up” or your social economic equal if you have means, or else you’re a fool.

Why? Because law are skewed heavily against men, so economics should play a major role in your life partner (if you’re smart), especially since 50% of marriages end in divorce. Therefore, if you’re a man with means, marrying a poor woman is a pretty **** stupid thing to do, and dare I say, irresponsible, given the way the laws are written.

And what you wrote is exactly why soooooo many wealthy men get burned when marrying a poor woman. Marriages should be carefully thought through when there are large assets involved.

Think about it: 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is a coin flip, so how is it logical or make economic sense for a man with means to marry a poor woman when there is a 50% chance he’d need to continue PAYING her for the rest of her life to maintain a lifestyle he introduced her to (if divorced)???

Also, If you understood the history of marriage in the United States and Europe you’d understand the concept of marriage IS underpinned on concepts of it being a business merger.

But look, if both parties are poor and don’t have many resources....sure, go for it. Get married until your heart is content. Have a party.
Click to expand...

Great post. Wish I had your moms advice or that sense given my current situation.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...
Its called a prenup. If you have any wealth or in the position to acquire wealth, don't get married without one. I bet she would want one if she was the wealthy party coming into the marriage.
 
Advertisement
The Svengali said:
Men with means never understand simple rules. I say never get married at all, but if you must marry, never, ever marry a poor woman. You should never even date a broke woman unless she’s a play thing for a couple weeks. Always date “up” or your economic equal.

Namely, if you’re making $300K+ you should never ever marry a woman making $50K or not even $90K. If you do, you’d be giving her a lifestyle she’s otherwise never be able to afford.

And It’s a fools errand because she’ll be living your lifestyle and not hers, and when the divorce happens you’ll need to pay her so she can maintain it. No, if you’re making $300K+ it’s better to have the woman you marry making $225K+.

Men sucker themselves into marrying poor women with nonsense like “she’s hot”, she’s funny or she’s really cool AND likes sports, etc and then mortgage their economic future on that kind of nonsense
Click to expand...
I approve this message! Never and happiness is fleeting!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top