Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
Yep, always figured that was a good rule.
Around the League 2017-2018 Edition
- Thread starter CTheBigPicture
- Start date
- Status
Yep, always figured that was a good rule.
UWHabs
Well-known member
I wish the default case with no pre-nup was the obvious "both sides leave with what they came in with, and anything else gets split". Sure, I understand back 50 years ago when things were different, and if you want to sign something that splits them differently, go ahead. But just like it's becoming more and more common to split the bill on the first date instead of assuming the guy will pay for it, if you leave a marriage, you can't just walk away with half the shit I had before we even met.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
The kicker is, the old system was shit. Abusive spouse? Stay with him. Hate each other's guts? Stay together for the kids! You don't want to die alone do you??
All sorts of nonsense social pressures trying to keep people from actually being happy in life. The sooner we clear all of that bullshit societal baggage from the decks the better. I'm entirely good with egalitarianism.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Absolutely...which is why I don't argue even a little bit about a 50/50 split of assets that are generated from the date of marriage onward regardless of the relationships composition. Even if there's no child raising involved, if the bread winner let's their partner do non income earning things with their time, don't cry when they want half of the assets generated during the marriage.
My qualm is only about what was generated before the marriage.
You only get out of it if she didn't understand what she was signing, eg had no ILA or if the guy didn't disclose the assets.
The leading case on that area of law was argued by a lawyer I know (Rick v Brandsema). I told him him once, thanks to you, we all soil ourselves re past agreements we had our clients sign.
It is also not true that house ownership aspects are not binding. Again, it depends on each case, if the house is excluded property, etc. I agree that if you have an agreement that says, no matter what contribution you make, you get nothing of the house we buy together, it will be set aside.
I love the clients who wanted to be big men with their friends and say, my wife doesn't work, I care for her and earn enough. Then right at separation, ****ing bitch won't get a job and expects me to pay for her
Women though are viscerally opposed to paying child or spousal support even when they make more.
In BC, that is excluded property now, only the growth on that property is divided although the court does have the ultimate right to divide the excluded property (done rarely)
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
Although...I think you cited one reason in your situation being your desire not to be the old guy in the club. That was part of my reasoning going into it too, but then I eventually realized it was much better to be the old man in the club than the old man miserable at home with someone he increasingly doesn't want to be around. So I hope your first and foremost deciding factor is that you feel you can't live without her, can't really foresee finding someone you'd rather be with, etc.
I think marriage really should be a one-time thing, excepting situations of premature death and stuff like that. Kind of an old-fashioned take on it. The difference though being that, unlike before, where you marry for all sorts of reasons, now you really just do it for love. Otherwise, **** it.
Sure... marriage "should" be a one time thing. However, some people change and some even hide their true selves for years.
That's not to say that people should bolt as soon as there are troubles, but when those troubles become insurmountable... then it's probably time to move on. And who knows... maybe try again someday.
That's not to say that people should bolt as soon as there are troubles, but when those troubles become insurmountable... then it's probably time to move on. And who knows... maybe try again someday.
Altair
Well-known member
Yup.
I'm not sure I would do it again. If I get divorced I'm off to france and the foreign legion and some french girl is going to need to work overtime to get me to marry again.
Humans are not made to be with one person for 60 yrs. It is only recently that started because we live longer.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
Agreed. To your point and his though, I’d say that people should get married later.
No guy should marry before 35. And girls before 27/28. You just don’t know yourself yet and there’s much change still coming in the near term. Have a bunch of relationships and then marry when you find the best one and you don’t even want to go out with other people anymore.
No guy should marry before 35. And girls before 27/28. You just don’t know yourself yet and there’s much change still coming in the near term. Have a bunch of relationships and then marry when you find the best one and you don’t even want to go out with other people anymore.
Altair
Well-known member
Not always the best advice.
I got married at 24, and she was 21,and we went through 4 years of infertility and miscarriage. Had we waiting any longer, I doubt we would have had our one kid at all. I mean, yeah, if you are sure that life wont step in and kick you in the nades and throw you a curveball like that feel free to wait, but I know of people who are only starting to try for a family now and are struggling and they don't have the wiggle room of youth to help them out. A woman has until she is 35 before a pregnancy is considered high risk, and it only gets harder to get pregnant the older a woman gets, the more time one has to work with in that regard, the better.
Absolutely not a problem if one doesn't plan to have kids, or a big family. Or can afford tens of thousands in IVF.
But everyone should know the risks of family planning if they wait to get started on that when they are older.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
Life is tough no matter how you slice it.
There’s no one right way, unfortunately, but I do think there is still a lot of fundamental personal growth happening in those ages I mentioned. And the risk of outgrowing a partner is prohibitively high. In my view, at least.
There’s no one right way, unfortunately, but I do think there is still a lot of fundamental personal growth happening in those ages I mentioned. And the risk of outgrowing a partner is prohibitively high. In my view, at least.
Last edited:
Jonathan Willis
Staff writer, @TheAthleticEDM. NHL writer at Sportsnet, the Nation Network and Yahoo!
@JonathanWillis
There's little reason to believe that a GM who squandered McDavid's ELC can win with him making $12.5MM. There's little reason to believe that a GM who has blown three of his four big deals (Reinhart, Talbot, Hall, Eberle) will get the next one right.
Staff writer, @TheAthleticEDM. NHL writer at Sportsnet, the Nation Network and Yahoo!
@JonathanWillis
There's little reason to believe that a GM who squandered McDavid's ELC can win with him making $12.5MM. There's little reason to believe that a GM who has blown three of his four big deals (Reinhart, Talbot, Hall, Eberle) will get the next one right.
LeafGm
Well-known member
35 as the earliest date a guy should get married seems too conservative for me, but in general, I agree with the point.
If I'd gotten married between the ages of 18 through to my mid-20's, I'm pretty sure I'd be headed towards my first divorce, if I wasn't already there. My outlook on life now, and what I'd be looking for in an ideal spouse today bears almost no resemblance to what it would've been at that point in my life.
If you're not married by 35 stay single forever. The sweet spot is 28-32. The only reason to ever get married is for kids and having them at 35 does not seem appealing to me personally. Get married at 28, wait a year or two.. have kids at 30-32. By the time you're mid to late 40s you're basically in the clear if you raised them right.
- Status