Who Opposes No-Fault Divorce?

-Shes-A-Carnival · 2024-06-18T14:45:11+00:00

what people don't seem to realize is that when divorce was difficult to obtain, couples routinely separated for life instead, but they were still married--they couldn't remarry and still had whatever obligations and legal whatever marriage entailed. they would be committing adultery if they got in sime other relationship and then they'd be giving the other partner grounds

Downtown_Cat_1173 · 2024-06-18T13:15:15+00:00

It’s also interesting that the same guys who claim that women trick men into committed relationships for beta provisioning of emotional support and resources are often against women being able to end a relationship. Almost like the issue is women’s autonomy

claratheresa · 2024-06-18T14:26:50+00:00

Alot of men are about to be VERY unhappily trapped in marriages with women who hate them, unable to divorce or have affairs or whatever else it is they ordinarily do when have a midlife crisis or feel entitled to something more out of life.

No fault divorce might mean it is harder for them to leave you. It doesn’t mean they won’t ruin your life, just you also cannot divorce them without cause. Hello dead bedrooms x 1,000,000, LMAO.

siempreloco31 · 2024-06-18T13:52:22+00:00

I think some conservative commentators are workshopping it along with banning IVF.

YveisGrey · 2024-06-18T13:11:13+00:00

The people arguing for no-fault divorce are doing so from a completely faulty frame of reference. They didn’t live through no fault divorce so they don’t know what it was really like. But the reason no-fault divorce became law was because of how difficult divorce was under the old system. If you have to prove fault to get divorced, every divorce becomes a situation of trying to prove that your spouse is a horrible person or has committed some crime. You can see how this would be incredibly messy and actually socially damaging. Many men would be accused of horrible things whether they did those things or not? who knows but you had to show that he did something in order to get your divorce so… it could ruin peoples reputations. So this is why no-fault divorce was introduced. Everything is a trade off. If you think fault only divorce would be better It’s because you’re not considering the trade-off.

Incarnate24 · 2024-06-18T13:27:54+00:00

You’ll find quite the overlap between those who oppose this and those who believe husbands can’t legally rape their wives.

No-Rough-7390 · 2024-06-18T16:17:48+00:00

I think the simple matter is that secular marriage makes little to no sense. Seeing the negative effects of no fault divorce just kind of does a better job of exposing it. If the state is going to be involved in marriage, it would be far better to make it just a one and done rule. As in you could get divorced, but never marry again. Would net some interesting results.

PM_ME_YOUR_DONGERZ · 2024-06-18T19:25:15+00:00

At-fault divorce means that if she cheats on you she doesn't get half of your house and bank account. So people who were or don't want to be divorce raped oppose it for sure.

alotofironsinthefire · 2024-06-18T12:41:34+00:00

Who opposes it?

People who don't see their marriage partner as an actual person. Their wife (or husband) is simply an extension of themselves that shouldn't have free will. Kinda like a NPC.

zackmedude · 2024-06-18T16:45:17+00:00

There is absolutely no reason to oppose no fault divorce other than the desire to control one’s spouse out of spite. Opposition of No Fault Divorce serves as yet another tool of subjugation of women…

Teflon08191 · 2024-06-18T16:19:38+00:00

Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME."

No.

There are people who think that marriage needs breech of contract clauses to protect the parties who upheld their obligations from the parties who didn't.

Bro_with_passport · 2024-06-18T16:55:08+00:00

I think no-fault divorce’s introduction made society worse off for it. It drastically increased the rate of divorce and normalized the practice, creating a culture that accepted ideas of marriage not being forever.

Jazzlike_Function788 · 2024-06-18T12:58:57+00:00

I don't oppose no-fault divorce, I just think it kinda defeats the purpose of marriage. People can do whatever they want, but I've seen a lot of pro-marriage people who basically reduce marriage to a financial decision "oh you get tax breaks", "you need two incomes to afford a house", seems pretty shallow and definitely makes the whole wedding ceremony drama much ado about nothing, but like I said people can do what they want.

Incarnate24 · 2024-06-18T13:31:19+00:00

You’ll find quite the overlap between those who oppose this and those who believe husbands can’t legally rape their wives.

There’s no reason someone should be bound into a loveless marriage for the rest of their life under any circumstance, but Marriage counseling and reconciliation should still be attempted before divorce

AdEffective7894s · 2024-06-18T14:10:30+00:00

I think a hybrid system is best.

A no fault divorce should be the norm, but if adultery is proved then it should be counted against the offender with certain consequences.

I tink thats something womne can get behind. They do tend to have a mean streak when the man cheats, I am just saying let that be equally enforceable on both sides

SaBahRub · 2024-06-18T14:44:47+00:00

People who see marriage as duty, obligation, and transactional

Meihuajiancai · 2024-06-18T12:37:36+00:00

I don't 'support' or 'oppose' no fault divorce. What I oppose is a state mandated contract that provides benefits in exchange for adherence to their contract. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage, full stop. The rules for marriage should be the same as any other contract two individuals can sign.

firetrap2 · 2024-06-18T12:32:52+00:00

It's pretty simple what men want.

If I broke my vows you get to take half my stuff. If I didn't break my vows you don't get to take my stuff. If you broke your vows you don't get to take my stuff.

That's it. Fixed.

boom-wham-slam · 2024-06-18T12:52:56+00:00

Well it's more like if I'm financially responsible for you... you shouldn't be able to just leave and make me keep paying. If I'm still responsible for you financially you have to be with me. If you won't be with me I don't want to be financially responsible for you. I think that's a big part of it.

Why should I have to continue my "death do us part" promises if you aren't going to? It makes no sense.

And tbh women work now. Being married shouldn't entitle you to the other person's finances. Just think, you could cook and clean for a man who financially struggles and get $15k as a divorce settlement. Maybe a car and a few bucks. Or you could cook and clean for a doctor and get a nice house a fancy car a retirement account etc etc.... it's just a cash grab because the first woman didn't get paid that much, why should the second? Just saying it makes no sense.

The difference in disparity is 100% only based on the man's labor. So why would it go to the woman? Makes no sense. And so if I have to put my house and retirement and all my financial goodies on the line... as long as you're utilizing them you should not be able to leave.

Here try this:

Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to support me financially anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left paying for ME."

Forcing them to pay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to pay, at that point. If someone told me they didn't want to be financially provide for me anymore, I wouldn't WANT them to pay me. That sounds like miserable life for both of us.

Financial support is meaningless if it's gained through coercion. I don't see how a marriage where you partner isn't ALLOWED to stop paying is more reassuring than a marriage where you partner chooses to financially support you because they want to financially support you.

Warm_Gur8832 · 2024-06-18T14:54:13+00:00

I think it’s primarily asshole men that can’t accept that they’re assholes and want to point the finger at something else because they’re unbearable to be with and can’t accept it.

yodawgchill · 2024-06-18T16:35:31+00:00

People who think they can only have a secure relationship if they can trap their partner. In short, bad people who shouldn’t be in a relationship.

thedarkracer · 2024-06-18T12:40:06+00:00

In my country, conservatives usually. We don't have no fault divorce. Also the alimony laws and such. Some don't want to break up the family as it is bad for the kids.

Personally, I also don't believe in no fault divorce. If you are not sure why have marriage and kids? Like people fall out of love, correct but if nothing went wrong (aka no abuse) and you were in love for let's say 5 years, you just don't stop loving suddenly. People nowadays have made marriage like a hobby. Rather than talking things out they just abandon each other. Both genders blame each other, men say women don't take as much as shit as they do and women blame men by saying they are not tied to them anymore. You are not sure don't get married. Marriage is a promise to stay forever and promises aren't meant to be broken.

KikiYuyu · 2024-06-18T16:35:20+00:00

People with trad brainrot have a problem with it.

relish5k · 2024-06-18T14:00:31+00:00

I don't oppose no-fault divorce in that I think it should be illegal. But I am generally opposed to it. Marriage is only as strong as we give it power and meaning. Stepping out of marriages willy-nilly weakens the institution for everyone.

I would like to see an option to have like a super-marriage where divorce either isn't an option, or there's a much more stringent divorce penalty enacted on the couple, but that also provides better benefits/incentives for those who stay together.

Piano_Interesting · 2024-06-18T14:30:24+00:00

you dont know what no fault divorce is. Its not about force, its about facing a judge and explaining WHY you are divorcing, thats it. Its about accountability, and each case is different.

DarayRaven · 2024-06-18T12:41:18+00:00

I agree with your partner having the choice to leave but this is why marriage services no incentive for men

matt_with_a_w · 2024-06-18T14:34:25+00:00

Just because you have no fault divorce in your state doesn't mean you can't file an at fault divorce. Things like infidelity violence are things that should absolutely be filed at fault. No fault just means you don't have to state a reason for the divorce.

Now it's laws and such that prevent divorce that are a major issue.

kn0tkn0wn · 2024-06-18T16:01:20+00:00

Certain people want mandatory female servitude and submissiveness.

r2k398 · 2024-06-18T13:56:54+00:00

If there weren’t no-fault divorce, is there at-fault divorce? I would love to have the actual reason for divorce be public information.

meisterkraus · 2024-06-18T14:18:43+00:00

No problem with no fault divorce but who still have to have at fault divorce as well.

mossab9112 · 2024-06-18T15:49:25+00:00

Omg it’s always about feeling even family which it’s function to protecting and providing for children

Puzzleheaded_Card_71 · 2024-06-18T17:09:17+00:00

It’s another way to break the strength of marriage. I agree that no one wants to stay with someone that wants out because its likely miserable, but at the same time, knowing you can’t just file for no reason does make people stop and think and maybe commit harder or be willing to do the work.

With no fault you can walk away at the drop of a hat… that’s a difficult thing to avoid when things are tough and maybe worth saving.

alwaysright12 · 2024-06-18T17:28:24+00:00

Probably better to just scrap it all together

mike-sonko · 2024-06-18T17:39:08+00:00

I'm in support of no fault divorce. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to be with me.

The only issue I have is that often times, the person who didn't initiate gets punished. Can you think of any other contract in life where that happens? A tenant can break a lease any time they want but they will lose out on their deposit. I can quit my job any time I want but I'm not getting any form of severance from my employer. Now picture a world where the reverse is true: A tenant can break the lease and get all their deposit back and not only that you have to pay for them to move into a new place and pay rent for that new place. I quit my job and my employer has to pay me until I find another job.

shadowrangerfs · 2024-06-18T17:48:21+00:00

I support no-fault divorce. But I understand why it would make a lot of men apprehensive about getting married since they are the ones most likely to end up paying alimony and child support. I think that it removes the incentive to try to fix the problem.

I've seen videos of women talking about how they divorced a good guy because they just didn't want to be married anymore.

I think a positive of getting rid of no-fault would be that people would take marriage more seriously. They would be less likely to rush into it.

FateMeetsLuck · 2024-06-18T18:12:58+00:00

The only thing I can guess is that they view their spouse as property and not an individual human

ingenjor · 2024-06-18T19:06:14+00:00

I'm for no-fault divorce personally, but I think the people arguing against it are coming from some big picture thinking about what's best for society instead of the individual. I.e. if you remove incentives for divorce more people will stay together and that is desirable if you combine it with their belief that the nuclear family is better for a more stable society.

tendrils87 · 2024-06-18T19:39:51+00:00

I think in a world with perceived equality for women, no fault divorce is fine as long as each party walks away with whatever they monetarily put in. If a woman puts in whatever amount of work in exchange for a man taking care of her, exiting the agreement should entail the loss of said care. I do know multiple men that have been absolutely fucked by no-fault because their spouse cheated on them and somehow got alimony. They must have had shitty lawyers or something.

PeaSlight6601 · 2024-06-18T20:02:00+00:00

Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME."

The thought is that if there were stronger social and legal pressures against divorce, then people might try harder to overcome their issues. Certainly there is no guarantee that greater social and legal pressure would cause couples to work through issues. In many cases it probably wouldn't help, in a few it might.

I think the bigger question is: "Why do we have marriage." What does marriage offer to a young couple today? What are the benefits?

Unless American society and law changes, my advice to my children will certainly be: "don't get married." There just isn't any value in it. You can basically get all the things you want from marriage, without marriage; and a lot of cost if the marriage fails.

Bewpadewp · 2024-06-18T20:30:46+00:00

if people incapable of commitment stopped getting married, divorce rates would plummet.

DecisionPlastic9740 · 2024-06-18T20:39:14+00:00

It's more opposing alimony or other financial support. You shouldn't be able to divorce and also be rewarded for it.

Salt_Alternative_86 · 2024-06-18T13:19:17+00:00

I'm not against divorce, I'm against marriage. It's a failed institution. No fault divorce just helped prove that.

66363633 · 2024-06-18T14:49:17+00:00

Yes, its dumb af

excess_inquisitivity · 2024-06-18T15:09:28+00:00

I do. People call it "no fault" but the men get the punishments.

The best way to avoid it is to avoid marriage all together (where have all the good men gone?!?)

PriestKingofMinos · 2024-06-18T16:15:24+00:00

No fault divorce pretty clearly ruined marriage. At the very least it was an early and major turning point that led to the gradual decline in the importance of marriage. Prior to the 1940s and 1950s the United States and most English speaking nations allowed divorce but you actually had to prove wrong doing like abandonment or adultery. About 30 years after no-fault became the norm marriage rates collapsed and there is no reason to believe they will ever rebound.

Additionally, this isn't a system that just hands men a wife guaranteed with no strings attached. During most periods of time when there was no fault divorce there were also greater legal responsibility on the part of the man to take care of manage the families assets. He was usually going to be liable for everything. More importantly things like abandonment and adultery were illegal and sometimes punishable by death. Culturally there were also strong stigmas associated with things like abandonment and almost any system that involves enforced monogamy a man does actually have to be worth something to receive approval to get married.

Marriage was a fairly stable institution throughout most of Christian history and then in the past 80-100 years it's been heavily up ended. It's likely in my lifetime it will become meaningless and it's plausible a majority of American adults won't ever be married by the end of the century. The individual and social benefits of marriage are fairly large and people have not replaced marriage with anything better so some guardrails to protect it aren't actually that unreasonable.

The lack of no-fault divorce prior to the mid 20th century wasn't perfect and imposed costs but so does having no-fault divorce. Any arrangement involves costs and benefits, positives and negatives. Neither system is perfect but it's obvious that the current system which includes no-fault divorce is much worse for some people.

DietTyrone · 2024-06-18T14:43:33+00:00

Riddle me this, if you can leave anytime you want for any reason, what's the point of progressing a relationship to marriage if it's no longer a lifelong commitment? You can just cohabitate and not have to go through the messy divorce and everyone takes their own shit when they leave.

So yes, I am one of those people who thinks No-Fault divorce devalued marriage. At least with At-Fault divorce you have to prove to some extent that the other person did enough wrong to justify the separation. If you think people should just be allowed to leave for any reason, even boredom, then why do you even think marriage should exist? Why legally tie up all your shit if you're just going to go through even more hassle, possibly years worth of legal battles separating it later?

If people knew they couldn't leave a marriage easily they would actually take that commitment seriously and not just do it out of tradition. It would also force people who don't have serious problems to actually get counseling and work through the problems they do have, which they should be doing anyway.

gntlbastard · 2024-06-18T13:18:22+00:00

If there is one thing that divorce stats show is simply this - most human beings have no capacity for cohabitation let alone being married and should be avoided at all cost.

16F33 · 2024-06-18T16:05:44+00:00

Who benefits from a couple that’s both miserable but have no options but to stay together? The state?

Jumpy-Comfort-1858 · 2024-06-18T16:04:55+00:00

Seeing as how many women seem to view marriage nowadays as a wedding/honeymoon photo op for socials and then get bored and wanna run away for new dick when the reality of marriage and being a repsonsible adult hits, but maybe still wanna keep dear hubby around for provisioning and validation even if they constantly give him shit, it serves no man to get married or at least be faithful to one woman. Also, prenups and paternity testing get shit on because every married woman wants the power and their husband caught lacking when she inevitably finds "better".

Additionally, if a man does decide to commit, he should always keep a roster/side piece if he can.

AutoModerator · 2024-06-18T12:30:02+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2024-06-18T12:30:02+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

nnuunn · 2024-06-18T15:11:39+00:00

No-fault divorce gives you an exit strategy, the idea of not allowing it is the same as Cortez burning his ships when they landed in America, you must make it work. I don't understand this argument that it will lead to this massive increase in unhappy marriages since people will just choose to make each other miserable if they can't get divorced, since making your spouse miserable also makes you miserable.

SoldierExcelsior · 2024-06-18T18:31:22+00:00

I oppose marriage I think k it's a ridiculous out dated archaic institution.

fupadestroyer45 · 2024-06-18T20:14:27+00:00

I'd be interested in hearing a detailed pros and cons. Old social conventions were far too restrictive to blend with the modern world, however we've over corrected drastically and denigrated the sacredness of almost all of our social institutions. Marriage is a mindset and the more serious you (and society) takes it, the more you will get from it.

kvakerok_v2 · 2024-06-18T16:08:44+00:00

Who Opposes No-Fault Divorce?

Gold digging hoes want No-Fault divorce. Normal people don't.

/thread

Anyone who just wants to fuck in a relationship, simply stays unmarried. There's only two reasons why anyone would want a no-fault divorce: 1. Someone who is absolutely shit at judging a person's character and wants "insurance" against picking some good-looking psycho . 2. A gold-digging hoe, marrying up who fully intends to divorce eventually.

Barely-moral · 2024-06-18T13:17:55+00:00

I've seen a number of posts on this sub that seem opposed "no fault divorce" and claim that it's ruined marriage.

It did ruin marriage for those that wanted old marriage. It solved marriage's issues for those that wanted current day marriage.

Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME."

I want the option to enter into a marriage that can only end through someone being at fault and that someone is punished while the party that is not at fault is rewarded. Call it old marriage. You can keep the new one. I get that it suits you better.

Forcing them to stay isn't going to make them love you again.

It is not about love but about the continued existence of the marriage.

And I can't imagine why you'd want them to stay, at that point.

Marriage existing good. Marriage not existing bad.

If someone told me they didn't want to be married to me anymore, I wouldn't WANT to stay married to them. That sounds like miserable homelife for both of us.

See above.

Loyalty is meaningless if it's gained through coercion.

I disagree. Actions are valuable no matter how or why those actions are taken.

I don't see how a marriage where you partner isn't ALLOWED to leave is more reassuring than a marriage where you partner chooses to stay with you because they want to be with you.

Because in the latter that can choose differently.

But maybe someone else can help me see a more... "positive" outcome if No-Fault were eradicated?

There is no positive outcome for that scenario. Current day marriage works for most people. For people like me it doesn't work at all. All I want is the option to enter into old marriage with someone that is also willing to enter old marriage. You keep your weak and meaningless version of marriage.

WillyDonDilly69 · 2024-06-18T13:43:21+00:00

It's so funny that Only USA and a few countries have no fault divorce just to allow woman to leave a marriage and robb a guy of his money. If women would have left men at this rate in any ither country they would pay the man damages for breaking marriage for no real proven reason.

harmonica2 · 2024-06-18T13:06:54+00:00

I feel like there are pros and cons to no fault divorce. Obviously the con is a person can be left whenever, the other person wants for no good reason, which sucks

But back when there was fault divorce it was difficult for a person to prove to the court that they were being abused or cheated on.

If only there was some sort of middle ground where you need a good reason to divorce but the burden of proof would be a lot easier to get somehow legally?

KratosGodOfLove · 2024-06-18T14:39:28+00:00

If the government shouldn’t be deciding whether a marriage get dissolved or not, then it also shouldn’t be in the business of deciding how assets are split

AMDisappointment · 2024-06-18T14:50:55+00:00

If you can get divorced for no reason and she benefits by getting half of what you have (possibly alimony too), isn't that fucked up?

Marriage should be more binding than just a relationship. You shouldn't just get married on a whim then just end it anytime.

This is why marriage is a scam for men.

Any_Suspect332 · 2024-06-18T16:20:25+00:00

Mostly white nationalist wannabes who think that women are a possession and not a partner

Proudvow · 2024-06-18T13:23:31+00:00

I oppose it as long as alimony is also no fault.

You should not lose money and property if you're not "at fault" for anything. That is absolute bullshit.

Remove no fault alimony and I support no-fault divorce.

Forcing them to stay isn't going to make them love you again.

It prevents legal robbery.

OkProfessional9405 · 2024-06-18T13:25:44+00:00

The problem with no fault divorce is that it comes with a 50/50 split, which benefits the lower income earner. I think there should be no fault divorce but no fault should conclude with no alimony. If you want alimony you should have to seek an at-fault divorce.

Also child support should default to zero with 50/50 custody. Child support should only apply if one parent cannot fulfill their 50/50 duty.

Our current system rewards (usually) women who walk away from marriage for little to no reason and our approach to child support is to avoid financial abuse from the man, but allowing the woman to commit financial abuse with the man's own money.

Perfect_Sir4820 · 2024-06-18T13:32:03+00:00

Nothing wrong with no-fault divorce on its own. The problem is that we still have 'traditional' marriage responsibilities post-divorce' (i.e. alimony) but not pre-divorce. The system as its currently structured gives a financial incentive to women to initiate divorce which is ridiculous. IMO it might be past the point of repair though. I think most couples would be better off with some other civil contract type arrangement that specifically and clearly outlines the terms and limits of the 'marriage'. Or just don't get married at all.

Embarrassed-Tune9038 · 2024-06-18T13:12:02+00:00

I don't oppose no-fault divorce or divorce in general.

However, I categorically oppose the sort of marriages to the sort of woman that leads to divorce

I also oppose entirely the idea that a man must pay Alimony. The minute the relationship ends, the man has no further responsibilities to her.

Transactional marriages to transactional women are to be avoided like the plague.

abaxeron · 2024-06-18T21:17:53+00:00

The problem is not the ability to leave marriage by itself.

The problem is that in the US, no fault divorce laws have a tiny footnote saying that marital fault cannot impact division of assets.

In UK, this footnote was passed separately something like 60 years before NFD itself, and it had the same effect as NFD laws in the US.

In year 2022, in the US, only 16 percent of couples relied on the wife as either primary or sole breadwinner.

Men have only one life. Taking a decade of paid mortgage away from us just because a woman who claimed to love us changed her mind, through no fault of our own, is violation of our right to life.

Addiitionally, NFD made it a lot easier to get away with abuse. If there is no difference in division of marital property regardless of who is the abuser, many victims will not bother with reporting the abuse to police.

ThorLives · 2024-06-19T01:28:24+00:00

Looks like I'm late to the conversation, so I'm sure this will get buried. I'm not someone arguing against no-fault divorce, but I think there are some positive psychological effects that comes from no-fault divorce.

Human psychology is quirky. When people aren't given an option, they can paradoxically become happier because they aren't second guessing themselves. On a similar note, I've heard that arranged marriages are surprisingly happy.

There's some psychology research called the "Paradox of Choice" that shows how weird human psychology can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

There's also a lot of assumptions in modern society about how people think that contradicts how people actually think.

One of the things they talked about in the "Paradox of Choice" book is that, in an experiment where people are given a choice and then half the people are given the option to change their choice later and half the people are NOT given the option to change their choice later, that the second group is actually happier with their original choice. What seems to be going on is that the option to change their previous decision incurs a psychological cost that makes them less happy with the choice. People who are not given the option to change their original decision learn to accept it and are happier as a result of not second-guessing themselves.

Obviously, if a relationship is terrible, then breaking up is the best option. People always use this as the cornerstone of their argument that no-fault divorce is good. But what about the people in the middle - who have a decent-ish but not amazing relationship who think that MAYBE they can breakup and find someone better, but they really can't. Maybe they breakup and end up more unhappy. Or maybe they stay together and the second-guessing makes them less happy. If they weren't given the option to divorce, they could stop the ruminating and just say "I can't exit this marriage, let's make the best of it". Overall, it possible that society where people can't easily divorce is - on average - happier. We like to think that people are enlightened beings who are supremely capable of making the best decision, but the older I get the less I believe it. Hell, we have a massive obesity epidemic going on because people choose the short term "sugar tastes good, and I can't help myself" ends up winning over the long-term "I would be healthier and happier if I practiced more restraint". I've lost a lot of faith in modern society's belief that people are rationally enlightened beings when making decisions.

TheHonPhilipBanks · 2024-06-19T00:41:48+00:00

No fault let's people get paid out when the other person did nothing wrong.

That incentivizes divorce over working it out. It encourages willy nilly proposals instead of being certain.

ThrowawayHomesch · 2024-06-19T02:37:47+00:00

It would encourage people (especially women) to work through their problems instead of just leaving whenever they feel like it because they no longer get the tingles for their spouse. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment for life, and it’s not about love—It’s about creating a stable environment to raise children. If you aren’t willing to commit then don’t fucking get married. Stay in a live-in relationship. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that alternative if you don’t like the commitment that comes with marriage.

purplish_possum · 2024-06-18T21:43:13+00:00

I don't oppose no fault divorce. However, it makes clear that marriage vows are basically meaningless.

527east · 2024-06-19T01:11:13+00:00

No fault divorce is fine as long as there are no cash and prizes given to the party that files which is what 80 percent of women. Too many women are treating marriages like nothing more than a long term relationship and get half of mans wealth he worked hard for.

DrMantisToboggan1986 · 2024-06-19T07:19:23+00:00

Women want the "no-fault divorce" primarily because despite them holding all the cards on the dating scene, being able to shit-test men and withhold sex from a man until "exclusivity commitment", they still want the government bailout if they fuck up and pick up a man who they will lose sexual attraction to without having to take any accountability. Remember, women in most western countries have equal rights to men and still have prior generational privileges that places them at a bigger advantage in life than men. Honestly women are so much better off these days than their mothers and grandmothers, to the point where if they get into an eventually boring, sexless or downright "AbUsIvE" relationship (according to the women lol), they should take some accountability instead of looking for a government bailout.

CJour1982 · 2024-06-19T09:12:28+00:00

If judges keep wiping their asses with prenups we’re going to eventually see No-Fault divorce abolished. 🤷

Commercial-Formal272 · 2024-06-19T11:45:40+00:00

I would be completely on board with no-fault divorce if marriage wasn't a government upheld contract with financial and legal repercussions for ending. Get rid of alimony, fix asset division or prenups, and remove the bias from family court and no-fault divorce is fine.

DoinIt989 · 2024-06-19T17:21:01+00:00

Forcing them to stay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to stay, at that point.

Because divorce is often financially ruinous. People go bankrupt due to the court fees, loss of assets, child support/alimony.

MC-Purp · 2024-06-20T02:54:08+00:00

I’m support no fault divorce. But what are we talking about here? One partner loses their job? One partner is diagnosed with an inconvenient disease? One partner just wants to fuck around with a co worker? I don’t any rational person wants to oppose no fault divorce, and the actual feelings behind the negativity towards it, is that people suck these days and don’t work on their marriages. Which has lead to an over sentiment of, it’s it’s not perfect/ hassle free, I’m out. This general sense of selfish apathy has been on the rise for years, and includes dating, and careers.

RobertTheWorldMaker · 2024-06-20T14:16:37+00:00

When No Fault divorce became law, the suicide rate of married women dropped by 8-16%.

Without no fault divorce, women will die.

Many by suicide.

Many eventually killed by their partners.

I will never discuss eliminating no fault divorce as an option. Nor will I respect any opposition to its existence.

'Without no fault divorce, women will die.'

End of discussion.

NothingOrAllLife · 2024-06-18T14:33:58+00:00

You guys realize men still had to pay alimony in fault-based divorced too right?

cromulent_weasel · 2024-06-18T21:05:56+00:00

I think it's the Stephen Crowders of the world who oppose it.

Logically, I guess whichever partner loses more in the Divorce would be opposed to it.

OtPayOkerSmay · 2024-06-18T22:35:56+00:00

Men who have been the victims of of no-fault divorce maybe?

Also, men who aren't too pleased with the fact that it's primarily women benefiting by breaking marriage contracts.

Ppersephone1111 · 2024-06-19T00:40:39+00:00

A lot of the complaints here are really about the division of assets upon divorce (e.g. if she cheats she shouldn’t get half my stuff, I paid for the house we bought when married therefore it should be mine, etc.) rather than no fault divorce in and of itself.

If someone cheating on you or otherwise being “at fault” and getting half of the marital assets (“your stuff”) is so important than get a pre or post marital agreement (a proper one, which requires attorneys or a proper waiver of counsel) - not just some rinky-dink unenforceable writing that you and your spouse signed over coffee one morning.

ALSO even where you can get divorce due to fault - it is NOT RELEVANT regarding the equitable distribution of assets unless it has directly impacted the marital estate!! Therefore if your spouse screws somebody else but isn’t spending money from the marital estate to do so the court isn’t going to give you damages for pain and suffering. You’ll have to bring a tort action instead like intentional infliction of emotional distress or alienation of affection.

Ok_Landscape_592 · 2024-06-19T12:21:25+00:00

It's obviously not the idea of no-fault divorce that is the problem, it's the marriage and divorce court laws and practices that people usually men are against.

kkkan2020 · 2024-06-19T15:13:29+00:00

the problem is this Irreconcilable difference clause that gets thrown around so much and is tied to no fault divorce it makes it look like people don't even put in any effort to try to repair the damage before throwing in the towel. People don't like at fault and they don't like no fault... can't please people.

TheMedsPeds · 2024-06-19T22:55:41+00:00

It’s so weird and such an obvious glorification of the past. Because a long time ago marriages were arranged. Women and men were simply paired off and real love was probably pretty rare. But in the past 70-50 years marriages started do become more and more about two adults willingly choosing each other, love became more important. Feminism still wasn’t super prevalent at the time, so though you could choose a man, you had to hurry up since women still couldn’t do things like open bank accounts or work high paying jobs in certain fields. So women really needed to choose a man so she could live a steady life. So it only makes sense that when society progressed to the point where women had the ability to live on their own, that marriage changed with it. Why would women stay with men they are unhappy with when they can walk away and still have food and shelter because people who lived before them made up some morality bullshit so women who were fucking miserable with this husbands could feel a little better. I can’t hold a conversation with this man and his body repulses me, but at least I am following the vows of marriage so I’ll get to live eternal life in paradise after I die

eli_ashe · 2024-06-21T21:32:58+00:00

although i am pro-no fault divorce, there are real reasons why folks might prefer a fault based divorce, namely, that a marriage entails building a life together, and if people can just willy nilly divorce for no real reason it risks destroying the lives of everyone involved over fairly petty shite.

what i oft hear on the 'pro no fault divorce' side are strange claims that people are trying to control women (as if men are involved in marriage) or that people in a marriage ought simply take off over any ol' thing, as if there was no real commitment involved in it.

just use your lover until you got whatever you wanted from them, then toss them aside like a garbage.

im sure the pro no fault divorce crowd would deny this, but like, i see that sort of stuff in the comments here and is oft in the discourse 'you go get yours girl, time to live your life!'

the tension is that there is a 'no ethics at all' crowd on the pro no fault divorce side of things, they are relationship anarchists, who think there is literally basically no ethical reason aside from the desire to be with someone to bother to stay with someone. there are no obligations to try, no obligations to make an effort, no obligations of family, or basic human treatment of others, just 'meh, i'm done, bored, time to leave and live my best life'.

that is the thing the pro fault divorce folks are responding to. and they ain't wrong either. they are pointing to real problems of people pushing ethics free living where people just treat their lovers and spouses as instruments to their own desires, to be used and tossed as their whims hold them.

there is a pro no fault divorce stances that don't promote ethics free living. there is a sound ethical position to be had there.

the real problems on this issue lay with the relationship anarchists who want ethics free living.

PredictablyIllogical · 2024-09-10T10:41:08+00:00

Let's face it, the divorce laws are not equal and heavily favors the woman in the ended relationship.

I would allow no-fault divorces to allow the person who initiated the divorce to walk away with what they had going into the marriage. So if they had nothing coming in, they get nothing going out. The relationship just didn't work out and that's understandable.

There is no reason to force the former spouse to pay money for the rest of their life to the person who left the relationship. Alimony was to help them get back on their feet, not some lifetime payment.

Title	Who Opposes No-Fault Divorce?
Author	Gravel_Roads
Upvotes	103
Comments	882
Date	June 18, 2024 12:30 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1diphho/who_opposes_nofault_divorce/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/who-opposes-no-fault-divorce.1521932 https://theredarchive.com/post/1521932

Comments