why not a decade instead of 2 years. I managed to stay married 44 years because I won't control others that have to govern my behavior daily. That sounds like I am henpecked, I don't care what it sounds like by social consensus since all social consensus centers around denying how evolving works in plain sight daily.Skans » Yesterday, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑ Why don't men want to get married any longer? Divorce. They've been burned badly by a divorce. Their divorce-scarred children also learn that getting married leads to divorce which leads to financial ruin.
So, why not have a national divorce standard? The default setting would be that everyone who gets married gets to keep whatever they brought into the marriage, assuming they still have it when they get divorced. Everything else - money and stuff acquired through out the marriage gets split 50/50.
The cost of paying for any children gets split 50/50. No Alimony.
If women aren't satisfied with the default setting, then put it on THEM to get a prenuptial agreement setting out something different. Also, put a time requirement for re-marriage on anyone who gets divorced. Something like 2 years. This will discourage lonely women enticing married men away from their wives, because the man couldn't be legally bound to a marriage for 2 years. This seems fair to me.
My question is, if this were the "law of the land", would this encourage decent men, particularly young men, to embrace marriage and the family unit?
My sarcasm is my venting process for my brain resisting those that won't stop believing now cannot be the balance point of eternity where each lifetime here exists as specifically eternally separated now.