Why are They Still Married???

[AutoliteParticipant]

I know of a situation that puzzles me and I want to ask you divorced guys for an answer that makes sense ’cause I can’t figure out what’s going on.

I know a couple here in Canada who have been separated for about eight years. They have two grown, adult children who no longer live at home. They each have new partners and they live in two different provinces about 1500 miles apart. They do not contact nor see each other ever.

Yet they are still married!

What would be the purpose for this? Is there any legal reason not to finalize a divorce? Their marriage was several years of perpetual mutual misery and turmoil for both and it is highly unlikely in the extreme they they will ever get back together again. They hate each other.

What possible reason(s) might there be for staying married under these circumstances? I just don’t get it…

[MonkParticipant 16975]

Possibly taxation and inheritance. There may be other, more obscure legal advantages.

Those are the sensible reasons.

On the other hand, it may be that she wants to stay married on paper because it is to her advantage to do so, whilst he is either too gullible or lazy to do anything about it.

She might be playing on on his sentimentality in order to keep the option to reverse monkey branch open.

I know a couple exactly as you describe. They stayed married on paper for 10 years whilst completely separated. They both believed that they were using each other. In reality, it was almost all one way.

Which way, you can probably guess.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Monk wrote:

Possibly taxation and inheritance. There may be other, more obscure legal advantages.
Those are the sensible reasons.

Taxes maybe but the guy tells me that there are absolutely no financial ties or obligations between them. That this was part of their separation agreement.

On the other hand, it may be that she wants to stay married on paper because it is to her advantage to do so. She might be playing on on his sentimentality in order to keep the option to reverse monkey branch open.

This doesn’t seem very likely at all. She’s the one who did everything possible to destroy the marriage. She was the one who wanted out.

I know a couple exactly as you describe. They stayed married on paper for 10 years whilst completely separated. They both believed that they were using each other.

Using each other how? In what way???

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

in the philippines, divorce is illegal because of the catholic church’s influence. couples have to get an annulment, which many cannot afford. so many couples separate and find new partners, but never divorce or dissolve their marriage.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[AutoliteParticipant]

uchibenkei wrote:

in the philippines, divorce is illegal because of the catholic church’s influence.

In this particular case this is not an issue. This is not their first divorce/separation for either of them.

What I really don’t understand as why won’t these two people just finalize a divorce and get on with their respective lives. Their marriage had been ‘over’ several years before they even separated. Staying married all this time after separation must be doing some sort psychological damage. It would be like keeping a dead dog as a pet for several years IMO…

[narwhalParticipant]

I can see why the woman would want to remain married. She can use that to claim victimhood and attract the sympathy of men. It also allows her to exert some control over her husband, even though there is no financial ties. If he shows any sign of wealth, she can go after it.

On his side, perhaps he’s just procrastinating, avoiding the inevitable conflict. I suppose it also keeps him from being pressured into marrying someone else.

Ok. Then do it.

[AutoliteParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

I can see why the woman would want to remain married. She can use that to claim victimhood and attract the sympathy of men.

I don’t see how. Women don’t need to be married “to claim victim-hood” or to “attract the sympathy of men”.

If he shows any sign of wealth, she can go after it.

I don’t see this either. He’s fully retired and will never have anymore money than he has now. And she’s still working BTW.

On his side, perhaps he’s just procrastinating, avoiding the inevitable conflict.

What sort of conflict are you talking about? They seem to have all the legalities already settled with their separation agreement.

I suppose it also keeps him from being pressured into marrying someone else.

As I understand it, the woman that he’s with now has no intention of marrying him…

(Perhaps the reason for my bewilderment is that I’m lacking details. Maybe there’s something going on between them that I know absolutely nothing about.)

[SwimcatParticipant 3589]

I knew a couple like that. I thought they had been divorced for years. Then of all things, they got back together. Never did get divorced.

On the other hand I had an uncle that was engaged to a women for thirty years. Never did marry her.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22502]

Obviously its because its like an old comfortable shoe.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[HermitParticipant]

There are only two reasons I can think of.

One is money. It costs money to get a lawyer to draw up the divorce decree and have the judge sign the papers. My x found the cheapest lawyer she could find and we split the bill evenly. It didn’t cost a whole lot, but maybe they don’t think it’s worth the hassle and expense.

The other reason is, they have both decided it’s over for good and neither one wants anything from the other so why bother with the actual divorce. Marriage really means nothing anyway. It’s just a piece of paper that says you’re legally bound to one another. Just go on about your lives without acknowledging the marriage.

I can understand both to be good reasons to just walk away from it as if it never happened. Why bother to legally dissolve something that never meant anything anyway.

If I could’ve trusted my x, I’d have done the same thing, but you know what trusting a woman gets you. I wanted it over while the iron was hot and she kinda’ felt sorry for me since she was kicking me out. If I had just separated, she would eventually see how much better I was doing and how much money I was saving and she’d have financially raped me. Getting divorced while I was still impoverished worked to my advantage.

Man, I’m glad it’s over. Divorce was a way much happier ceremony than the stupid marriage.

The evil in women’s hearts leaves them no moral bounds as to inhibit them from descending to the lowest levels of darkness to acquire their self entitled desires.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Hermit wrote:

I can understand both to be good reasons to just walk away from it as if it never happened. Why bother to legally dissolve something that never meant anything anyway.

Okay, that does make sense. Coupled with the fact that lawyers cost money maybe that could be why they’re still married. Like you say, being married (other than the financial liabilities) means nothing else anyway…

[TaxGuyParticipant]

You did say they are legally separated, financially at least. I guess my question is whether there is some benefit to being separated but still married.

Look, as much as I am not a fan of my ex I would do her a favor for my children. Let’s say that I could be legally separated from any finances between the two of us, but staying married would give her more money from Social Security in retirement. I’d at least give that a thought. What the hell, I wouldn’t want my kids hating me and blaming me for her s~~~ty financial decisions later in life. I would be the ultimate trump card if she started bitching about money 20 years down the line. Plus, I know I’m never getting married again, so I certainly wouldn’t care from that perspective.

Order the good wine

[MonkParticipant 16975]

Autolite wrote:

Taxes maybe but the guy tells me that there are absolutely no financial ties or obligations between them. That this was part of their separation agreement.

The only binding ‘seperation agreement’ is a divorce. ‘Gentlemens agreements’ are rarely accorded any legal validity, and this certainly doesn’t amount to a contract.

If he inherits money, she can still come after it. When he dies, as a wife she has a claim on his estate. Even at this juncture, she can still come after his pension.

Narwhal and Hermit also make this point.

This doesn’t seem very likely at all. She’s the one who did everything possible to destroy the marriage. She was the one who wanted out.

You are looking at it from a male perspective.

They always try to keep their options open – easy if you have no conscience. There are plenty of reverse monkey branching stories on the forum – many of them years down the line.

Using each other how? In what way???

Suffice to say that he got housekeeper (not her), whilst she and her child by a previous marriage got passports and money.

He thought he was being clever, but she definately came out ahead.

[AwakenedParticipant 35200]

Mental Illness

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[GrumpyParticipant]

They are “separated” period.
There is no such thing as a “legal separation” just as there is no such thing as an “illegal separation”.
The only logical reason would be financial. That is it.
Legally, in Canada they both can claim married status for provincial and federal taxes until such time as they become “officially divorced in/by a court of law”. Therefor both benefit with lower tax payable, and other benefits available to “married” people that are not available to singles.
After 7 years (IIRC) either “spouse” can petition the “court” for a divorce on the grounds of abandonment. It costs less than a “traditional” divorce, however there is no economic benefit/loss (for her) to do so initially, for him, it would eliminate being held responsible for her debts after that 7 year period, and mitigate estate/pension losses.
“Separation agreements” are tossed out more often than per-nuptiuals.

Regardless, how they want to do their shyte is up to them, as are the consequences, and sometimes there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for the things people do.

-Caveat-
I am not a lawyer, nor a professional practitioner of law.
Seek professional legal advise for the best results.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[StealthParticipant 5326]

A friend of mine is in a similar circumstance. They just never wanted to bother with the lawyer fees or paperwork. They don’t have assets to split. Marriage is such a disposable status that it really doesn’t matter.

"Once you’ve taken care of the basics, there’s very little in this world for which your life is worth deferring." -David Hansson. "It’s not when women are mean or nasty that anything is out of the ordinary. It’s when they are NICE to you that you have to be on high alert..." -Jackinov.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Stealth wrote:

A friend of mine is in a similar circumstance. They just never wanted to bother with the lawyer fees or paperwork. They don’t have assets to split. Marriage is such a disposable status that it really doesn’t matter.

I guess then the reasons for them remaining married must be to save money on taxes and lawyer’s fees. ‘Separation’ means that you get the few benefits of marriage without the financial or legal obligations???

[SpiderHerderParticipant 3753]

I’ve been irreligious for about a decade, it did take me years to contact the Church to get ex-communicated. It was just a pain in the butt. It needed to be done though. For me.

[Buller100Participant 2189]

narwhal wrote:

I can see why the woman would want to remain married. She can use that to claim victimhood and attract the sympathy of men. It also allows her to exert some control over her husband, even though there is no financial ties. If he shows any sign of wealth, she can go after it.
On his side, perhaps he’s just procrastinating, avoiding the inevitable conflict. I suppose it also keeps him from being pressured into marrying someone else.

Well he will be earning more so she is building years equity , why cash in an investment that is growing well … thats why , he is just being Mr White knight

[L. EulerParticipant 343]

Simple friggin’answer MGTOW’s

!. Financial, financial, financial.

2. Divorce alimony payments are such that, in Canada at least you have so much “alimony” ( read ‘support’ ie legalized extortion).
The prime problem is that it is set so astronomically high… you can’t pay income tax!!! We all know what happens when you fiddle with the FED.

So, the next aspect is ….should I commit suicide given two impossible creditors??? Hard – ball question to say the least.

The Family law Reform Act (Ontario 1987) guarantees not equal pay for equal work, God help you if you can’t pay tax! The masculine body count from this piece of very flawed legislation, is real. Alberta got rid of it ….too many bodies!!

3. Since there is no way out other than your own death….the murder rate for females rises. The neurosurgeon who chopped up his Toronto wife is an example of when cupcake is bankruptcy exempt while the male is bankruptcy liable can hardly be described as equal.

4. His choice was suicide or tax jail. No wonder he procrastinates…..Like who doesn’t want to procrastinate death.

5. The law has to change, but not in my lifetime. The problem gargantuan. Yet somehow ignored.

6.Women’s alcohol consumption rates rising (as they hit the wall)…..240% increase in the last 13 years in Canada.

7. The Law also gives no closure, prevents you from writing a will until there’s an agreed upon divorce…. naturally she doesn’t want to agree, thus preventing the male from giving his assets to his children.(without her taking it all first)

8. So, the only plan offered ( by Ontario will lawyers) is to die absolutely penniless. Not very reassuring. Might cause some males do consider something rash.

9. Unless, you give the item to your children BEFORE you die…. you can bet she’ll be there to exert claim for it all, leaving the kids penniless.

10. The body count , in Canada is not going down.
I don’t see any hope for marriage here. Courts too gyno centric.

11. This society will not reproduce with women like this. They’re looking for Mr. Goodbar and finding a bottle.

12. Throwing men in jail in America for the crime of not earning a million dollars, (for “support”) is morally and ethically wrong a stupid result of our generation. The world needs less people anyways.

L.Euler

[Author]

Posts