Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

That's a great way to increase the number of people who don't marry. Especially low income people who don't get time off. So, if you're trying to put the death knell in marriage, esp for people without a lot of resources, then great plan.

Personally, I didn't find I needed to be nanny stated like this when my husband and I decided we were ready to get hitched. I'm surprised you think you did.

modern day feminism, the divorce culture and our one-sided family law system is doing a fine job of persuading people to not get married. Taking a course isn't going to affect it one way or another.

"I didn't know what happiness is until I married.
By then it was too late."
Att. to Frank Sinatra

No, marriage isn't the be all end all OP.

It has wonderful things about it, and it has real challenges and limitations also. Just like single life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My BIL who is very wealthy is dating a woman with 3 kids all under 10. BIL is in his 50s. They are serious but I do not think it will go anywhere because she refuses to sign the prenup.

BIL does not have and never wanted kids so getting a prenup makes sense especially when his GF has no assets or a career. He obviously does not want to get married and deal with step teenagers in his sixties.

If the GF has no assets or a career even a prenup won’t keep him from feeling an obligation to the children. She will see him as a meal ticket and I’d be concerned that she might say “oh, I’m pregnant.”.

GF started dating BIL while she was married. She got pregnant at 18 and got married to her husband. Did not go to college and no education beyond high school. She obviously went through her contacts list and decided on BIL because most men her age aren’t stupid enough to date a married woman with three little kids. BIL met her through work although when she reconnected with him, they were no longer working at the same company.

No chance she’ll get pregnant by BIL since he has a vasectomy, a clear indication that he never wanted kids. He is also incredibly cheap. He’ll likely have a heart attack once he finds out how expensive kids are, yeah even stepchildren. It’s quite funny how things work out...

If he's incredibly cheap he will figure this out. However if she is incredibly hot in bed his brain could be in his penis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been lots of studies showing that marriage makes men happier but women unhappier. Personally, I’m very happy with my marriage bc even though it’s hard at times, I feel like my husband inspires me to be a better person, and I do the same for him.

Those studies are all b.s or clickbait. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/4/18650969/married-women-miserable-fake-paul-dolan-happiness

Studies also show kids make people unhappy, as does grad school and other things you have to work at that make a life meaningful.

Marriage has its benefits and detriments, with whom you are married to determinant as to whether its worth it.

I can't take this article seriously when it gets the title of the book that it's savaging incorrect. "Happy Every After"? Remove the plank from your own eye first, Ms. Kelsey Piper.

I would say Dolan's mistake (misinterpreting the survey data upon which HIS ENTIRE BOOK is premised) is several orders of magnitude worse than Piper's typo (a single letter away from the correct book Happy Ever After).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP brings a trust, no kids, to a divorced guy with kids. If she came down with cancer after getting married, her new husband will be happy getting all her assets.

I don’t understand the point here. When OP dies, someone inherits. So what.

Maybe she would prefer to leave her assets to her parents or siblings instead of her stepkids?

A) a will, or
B) don’t get married if you are so wedded to your money even in death.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My BIL who is very wealthy is dating a woman with 3 kids all under 10. BIL is in his 50s. They are serious but I do not think it will go anywhere because she refuses to sign the prenup.

BIL does not have and never wanted kids so getting a prenup makes sense especially when his GF has no assets or a career. He obviously does not want to get married and deal with step teenagers in his sixties.

If the GF has no assets or a career even a prenup won’t keep him from feeling an obligation to the children. She will see him as a meal ticket and I’d be concerned that she might say “oh, I’m pregnant.”.

GF started dating BIL while she was married. She got pregnant at 18 and got married to her husband. Did not go to college and no education beyond high school. She obviously went through her contacts list and decided on BIL because most men her age aren’t stupid enough to date a married woman with three little kids. BIL met her through work although when she reconnected with him, they were no longer working at the same company.

No chance she’ll get pregnant by BIL since he has a vasectomy, a clear indication that he never wanted kids. He is also incredibly cheap. He’ll likely have a heart attack once he finds out how expensive kids are, yeah even stepchildren. It’s quite funny how things work out...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP brings a trust, no kids, to a divorced guy with kids. If she came down with cancer after getting married, her new husband will be happy getting all her assets.

I don’t understand the point here. When OP dies, someone inherits. So what.

Maybe she would prefer to leave her assets to her parents or siblings instead of her stepkids?

Op here. My dads lawyer wrote the trust so that I cannot leave the assets to a husband. If I have no kids, I can only leave it to my father’s descendants (my brother and sisters and nieces/nephews) inherit.

I agree re old age and sickness. And also re household money and life rotating around step kids without me getting to have my own.

But I haven’t met any normal single men my age with no kids in years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is great if you are married to the right person.

Although as the product of a second marriage I would not marry someone with kids.

Op here. Thanks. Could you elaborate on the second marriage thing?

I'm currently dating someone with kids. Also, while he is well educated and has a steady job and good credit, he doesn't have a lot of assets and neither does his ex. They would have been in decent shape if they had stayed married, but between divorce lawyers and running two houses, their assets are fairly modest. And they have two teens to put through college.

While I actually have a lot of assets (mostly in trust)....

I wouldn't waste my time on him. And they probably should have stayed married.

This poster is focusing only on the financial. Op, just get a prenup so you don’t feel like you’ll end up funding a chunk of the kids’ college tuition. Has he said he wants to get married to you?
I don’t know what I would have done if I didn’t want kids. But kid or no kid, having a spouse comforts me tremendously. It’s like living with your best friend. Sharing fun stuff makes it extra fun, sharing sad or difficult stuff from your work day reduces the stress. You have built in care and support.
I am risk averse so I like it that marriage makes it less likely that people will divorce. Going through tough times as a couple , it really does make you think twice about taking the first step towards divorce. If he were just a boyfriend I don’t think I would have weathered the high stress inducing in-laws.

Anonymous wrote:My BIL who is very wealthy is dating a woman with 3 kids all under 10. BIL is in his 50s. They are serious but I do not think it will go anywhere because she refuses to sign the prenup.

BIL does not have and never wanted kids so getting a prenup makes sense especially when his GF has no assets or a career. He obviously does not want to get married and deal with step teenagers in his sixties.

If the GF has no assets or a career even a prenup won’t keep him from feeling an obligation to the children. She will see him as a meal ticket and I’d be concerned that she might say “oh, I’m pregnant.”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single 42 year old woman here. Have had several long term relationships that came close to marriage but decided things weren't quite right for marriage. I've always wanted to be married and I've tried to find the right partner. Now at my age I am mostly dating people who are divorced. And I am seeing my friends in marriage once the honeymoon stage has worn off. I'm OK with not having kids. And now I'm kind of wondering… What's a great about being married? Should I? Or is it kind of overrated? Maybe it's because I'm dating people his life situations are complicated now. I enjoy their company. But I really want to legally and financially wed myself to someone who has kids to put through college? Etc? And the divorce rate for second marriage is very high. Does marriage really make women happier?

At 42, I was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, and my husband and kids, ultimately, were my reason to fight. If I were single and childless, I would have likely just said 'Screw it', it was that bad. But I pulled through (at least, for now).

When shit hits the fan, you'd want someone who is truly close to you in your corner. Not saying that your dates would abandon you right away, should you get seriously ill, but it is family members who sit with the patients in that chemo room, not random dudes from Tinder.

Just sayin'.

You would have to have a happy marriage to feel this way. Not all marriages are happy. I am the same age as you..not happily married. Would not make a bit of difference...I would not want my husband around me to deal with something like this. Your anecdote is not a reason for marriage. But I am sorry about your illness...and I would feel that way regardless of whether you are married or single.

Anonymous wrote:Single 42 year old woman here. Have had several long term relationships that came close to marriage but decided things weren't quite right for marriage. I've always wanted to be married and I've tried to find the right partner. Now at my age I am mostly dating people who are divorced. And I am seeing my friends in marriage once the honeymoon stage has worn off. I'm OK with not having kids. And now I'm kind of wondering… What's a great about being married? Should I? Or is it kind of overrated? Maybe it's because I'm dating people his life situations are complicated now. I enjoy their company. But I really want to legally and financially wed myself to someone who has kids to put through college? Etc? And the divorce rate for second marriage is very high. Does marriage really make women happier?

Are you absolutely sure about this?

If you marry a guy with kids you will be shocked at how much of your household money goes to the kids. Yes, even if the kids are over 18 - college and first cars and weddings and all sorts of things. I think it’s hard to imagine as a child free person just how expensive kids are.

Also, if there was ever any lingering doubt that maybe you wanted kids - this will lead to a lot of resentment if you don’t try for kids whine spending all your money on your partners children. Just really think about it.

Anonymous wrote:

OP brings a trust, no kids, to a divorced guy with kids. If she came down with cancer after getting married, her new husband will be happy getting all her assets.

I don’t understand the point here. When OP dies, someone inherits. So what.

Maybe she would prefer to leave her assets to her parents or siblings instead of her stepkids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m divorced with kids, about ten years your junior. I think marriage is valuable - can be valuable - when you think of it not in terms of romance or love, but partnership. Of course, chemistry and sex and attraction and fondness are wonderful (and important) in marriage, but the value of a good marriage is what the partnership enables each individual to achieve, and what they can achieve together. I think these kinds of marriages are in the minority, but are what people who do marry aspire to.

I agree that the partnership is valuable. I got married in my late 30s to a guy in his mid-40s, and we've been married for about 8 years now. First marriage for both, no kids. I'd been very happy as a single, so I was nervous going into marriage - such a big CHANGE - but I'm even happier married. In addition to love, romance, and all of that - I gained a wonderful life partner. Financial partnership - we're BOTH better off by pooling our money.

Not clear to me why you have to get married to "pool your money". And there is the issue that getting married, and thus entangling your finances, puts your money at risk in the event of a divorce.

For one thing, I wasn't comfortable with making large financial commitments - such as buying a house together - without the legal commitment. Some people do it, but I wouldn't have. Either way, it would be a entanglement to sort out in the event of a breakup or divorce. To me, the benefit is worth the risk. Also both DH and I have partial pensions (one is fed, other is private sector), and I'm not sure that we would be eligible for survivor benefits if we weren't married. Not an immediate issue, but it does play into our long-term financial planning.

Buying a house together IS a legal commitment, if you're both on the mortgage and both on the title. So that makes no sense. You can designate someone for survivor benefits if they are not a spouse, so that is not very compelling either.

Yes, buying a house is a legal commitment. I didn't see the point in making that large of a legal commitment together without having the legal commitment for the relationship itself. If I was committed enough to make a half million dollar real estate investment, then I was committed enough to get married, and I wanted the same commitment in return. Not everyone sees it that way, but that's the way both my husband and I see it.

Well, for one thing, buying a house together just puts you on the hook for the house. Getting married puts you on the hook for 50% of your assets, plus the possibility of paying alimony and having them get a piece of your pension. You may say you're fine with that, but you'll be singing a different song if you wind up getting divorced.

Also, a house is not really a "half million dollar real estate investment" -- assuming you put 20% down that is $100,000 or $50,000 from each of you, quite a different thing.

The original question was about mid-life marriages without kids - this is our situation. Since we're both working and we both have fairly good jobs and both of us had pensions and decent savings going into our marriage, I'm not particularly worried about alimony. I guess that it's a (slight) risk, but for us, the benefits of combining finances far outweigh that possibility. Maybe it isn't worth it for other people. Certainly I wouldn't have wanted to combine my finances with someone who was so flippin worried about alimony from very beginning.

Keep in mind, finances was just one benefit that I laid out - love, sex, companionship, help around the house, emotional support during illness and deaths in the extended family......all of those are pretty darn important too. Personally, I enjoy being married to my DH, and I'm glad that we made the jump. If marriage isn't your thing, then it's definitely better not to get married.