Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanmarsh | Hacker News Reader

If a change of mind is all it takes to "walk with his assets" then he doesn't really have any reason to believe his share is "50-50" does he?

Marriage, for heterosexual men, is the worst kind of contract. The terms of the contract are not agreed to in writing up front. If they are agreed to beforehand (prenup), a judge can disregard the terms in part or whole during divorce proceedings.

Can anyone think of a worse kind of contract than this?

Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.

View on HN

Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell.

You’re gonna have to help me out here. I have no idea what I did to make this thread a “flamewar hell”.

The internet trope of men's supposed resentments about what a shitty deal marriage is, etc. etc. blah blah, is unsubstantive flamebait.

Generic resentment is impossible to engage with other than ideologically, which leads directly to ideological flamewars, all of which are off topic for Hacker News. If you've read the site guidelines and understand its mandate, it should be easy to see why: such discussions are all the same, and there's no intellectual curiosity in them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.

Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up.

Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.

> If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.

There are no terms on the sheet (marriage licence). State makes up rules as it go.

States make up the rules as they go?

Last I checked, there was a legislative process that is overseen by elected officials required to change most laws around marriage. You have to sign a contract with the state to get a license and operate a vehicle legally, I don't see people up in arms and refusing to drive because the state can change driving rules. Same with incorporating a company in any given state. You are subject to that state's laws even if they change after you start your company, but you take that risk because you determined that the protections you get from signing that contract is more valuable than the risk from not doing so.

Also, other than legalizing no-fault divorce and expanding marriage to same-sex couples, what are the changes that states could make which are so scary to you? Sharing wealth 50/50 in the case of divorce is not some new thing.

It's not 50/50 if your spouse gets alimony on top of your assets. It might even be permanent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#United_States

EDIT: With regards to no fault divorce, you might want to take a look at this rather short paper, called "No-Fault Divorce and Rent-Seeking": https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1630462

> * ... driving licence ... company laws ... *

Except (AFAIK) none of these has ever resulted in 50% of someones wealth/future-wealth/ip being "awarded" to someone else.

> Also, other than legalizing no-fault divorce and expanding marriage to same-sex couples, what are the changes that states could make which are so scary to you?

Beside legislative branch, judiciary also gets to set precedents as it go.

> Sharing wealth 50/50 in the case of divorce is not some new thing.

It was new when first time it happened. Since it could not have been in marriage contract or constitution. It must have been made up by courts.

Would you sign a contract which can be arbitrarily changed by a third party at any point? Would you signed a contact where the terms are not clearly defined? This is the state of marriage today in many Western countries

1. The terms are clearly defined in legislation 2. Do you refuse to drive a car for the same reason?

1. It depends on your jurisdiction. Often they are not clearly defined. In part because there are so many possibilities and it's difficult to write rules to handle all of them. This is where judges come in. If you go to court, it will depend on the judge and their take on the situation.

That aside, my original point stands. You sign a marriage contract and the state legislature can change the terms of the contract without your consent.

2. Could you elaborate? I couldn't understand the point you made. As far as I'm aware you don't sign a contract when you drive a car.

I would not.

Did you mean to reply to parent comment ?

Maybe I could have been more clear. I agree with you and was echoing your sentiment with a couple of questions to back up your point.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet

Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.

Good point - I feel like marriage is glorified and society is telling us without it you will not be happy. This is coming from Hollywood, religion etc.

People are waking up to the fact that marriage may not suit everyone and divorce can be unfair in some cases.

My case in point. My wife cheated on me after a year of marriage but because I was the higher earner I had to give her all the money I earned that year. Not to mention the fact I didn't get any credit for having paid off all of her car loan with pre-martial money.

> Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan".

Are you, like, what, 120 or something? Even Ametica’s (unusually large minority for a first world country, but still) religious fanatics today mostly are extremely pragmatic (arguably, downright libertine) when it comes to the male position with regard to marriage. I don't know what line you may have been fed, but I think you are grossly mischaracterizing any living generation with your generalization.

I shouldn’t have said “my generation” too broad. Young Christians I grew up with and around.

Absolutely. Heres one fucked up example. You thought of an idea; get married; divorced; you implement the idea/make money off it;. Goodluck cause now state gets to decide how much ip-right/money should the ex-spouse get.

Citation? Everything I'm reading says that your property, including IP, that was exclusively yours before marriage, is yours when you get divorced. Likewise, I don't see any way for post-divorce ideas and businesses to be considered "community property". Looking at WA laws though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com