• The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce. Before then, divorce was largely open only to men, and had to be granted by an Act of Parliament, which was hugely expensive, and therefore was also open only to the rich. (Long before then, of course, Henry VIII was granted a divorce by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and church courts retained the power to dissolve marriages.)
Under the new law, women divorcing on the grounds of adultery not only had to prove their husbands had been unfaithful but also had to prove additional faults, which included cruelty, rape and incest.
• A private members' bill in 1923 made it easier for women to petition for divorce for adultery, but it still had to be proved.
In 1937, the law was changed and divorce was allowed on other grounds including drunkenness, insanity and desertion.
The big change came in 1969, when the Divorce Reform Act was passed, allowing couples to divorce after they had been separated for two years (or five years if only one of them wanted a divorce). A marriage could be ended if it had irretrievably broken down, and neither partner no longer had to prove "fault".
• However, divorces continued to favour men, with the award and maintenance for the less-wealthy spouse – usually the woman – being calculated based on needs, until the White v White case in 1996. Martin White and his wife Pamela had run a farming business, worth about £4.5m during their 33-year marriage. At first Pamela White was awarded £800,000, but she took the case to the court of appeal, then the House of Lords in 2000, and was finally awarded £1.5m.
It was a landmark case because it was decided the assets should be split more fairly, and recognised the contribution of a "homemaker".
Divorce is never an easy situation to go through. There are many things to consider, on top of the emotional stress one has to overcome before, during, and after the whole ordeal.
A question many couples going through divorce ask is whether it matters who divorces whom. While the outcome will always come out that the couple will be separated legally no matter who initiates the divorce, it does matter who divorces whom.
When you weigh the advantages and disadvantages, the one who is divorced usually has more disadvantages for quite a few reasons. The person who files the divorce petition is usually the one who controls the speed of the proceedings, which could be inconvenient, especially if one of you plans to remarry. A clear disadvantage to being divorced is that you will usually be the one asked and ordered by the court to pay the legal fees that come with the divorce. While this sounds unfair, and even adds insult to injury, this ‘tradition’ of sorts was done with the idea that if you prove your case, you will reap rewards and be paid back the costs, even it does not always apply in the family justice system.
Some couples find a way to avoid having just one partner pay all the legal fees by agreeing or coming to a consensus that they will share whatever fees that the divorce will cost. This means that the partner who files the petition for a divorce will not seek an order for costs against the other. You are lucky if you find yourself in such a situation, because that means that your spouse is willing to look at matters from a very mature and fair point of view.
Another disadvantage to being the one divorced means you have to go through the ordeal of having a legal description of your behaviour, your private life and other private matters, most especially if your spouse bases the divorce on your unreasonable behaviour. This does nothing but add a lot of trauma to an already traumatic experience. What you can do, though, is to file an Answer to the allegations, forcing a compromise on the allegations made against you. This process can be quite inconvenient, and most couples will do their best to avoid going through this.
The good news is, who divorces who does not affect the other, more important matters concerning your divorce. While there are few disadvantages as cited above, being the one divorced does not affect your right to your children, or in financial matters, unless, of course, the Petition against you has something to do with your parenting skills, or how you treat your children, or how you handle your finances and other money-related issues. So make sure to check the Petition that your spouse filed, so that you’ll know what allegations he or she has made against you. Knowing what’s written in that petition will allow your counsel to prepare you for any situation that may arise.
To prevent going through all these troubles, and to spare yourself and your soon-to-be-former spouse the acrimony, is to offer the Petition in draft first before it is sent to the court. This way, you and your partner can discuss the matters written on the petition, especially those that may cause the other to get upset. This way, you can negotiate on the matters that will come up in court, and you can water down the other issues that you both have decided to present to the court. This is a good way to make sure that the entire process is fair to both parties.
Parents who are divorcing often get sucked into a nasty competition when it comes to the kids, with each parent vying for custody of the kids. Of course, both parents often want to keep the kids with them, which frequently results in joint custody. Once the arrangement is set, the kids shuffle between Mom's and Dad's respective houses, while the parents often avoid asking the kids what they want to do or with whom they want to live. Well, the truth is that there are endless misconceptions about divorce and its effect on kids. Many people feel that divorce is psychologically harmful for kids, though the research - and I'm referring to Judith Wallerstein's research, in particular - actually shows that divorce does not harm children over the long-term unless other factors come into play. For example, divorced parents who maintain a bitter relationship post-divorce and talk badly about each other to the kids can cause kids major anxiety and distress. But aside from such instances, there are many things that divorced parents can do to limit the harm caused to the kids.
Besides the fact that I’m convinced we will all be dead in 50 years due to radiation from Fukushima, there are other reasons our children may very well opt out of getting married. Marriage, as an institution, came about as an answer to a problem. Men wanted to make sure their women would
Because while you wonder, ”What’s wrong with him?” Consider this: Maybe nothing.
“I’m getting married in fall 2013,” my 38-year-old friend John told me, when we caught up in Paris the summer before. Congrats! Who’s the lucky woman? I asked. “Oh, I haven’t met her yet,” he’d responded, deadpan, over dinner. “But I’ll be married by 40,” said the guy who’s deliberately been a player for the past two decades. “Because if you’re a single guy after that, it’s like, you know, ’What’s wrong with him?’”
He’s always been very self-aware, John. Very conscious of his life choices, of his — some might say — semi-misogynistic way with women. But I’ve always found my old friend’s honesty refreshing, and rather insightful.
Anyone with salt-and-pepper hair who shows up in your online matches as ’Never Married’ might as well come with a flashing Warning Sign.
In many ways, he’s right: Never-married heterosexual men over the age of 40 have always had a stigma. Especially back in 1970, when they represented only 4.9 percent of the male population. But I wondered: As marriage inches toward the take-it-or-leave-it category — for both sexes — and there are more never-married men between the ages of 40 and 44 than ever before (20.4 percent at last census count), is being a perpetual (hetero) bachelor still considered a little … creepy?
Apparently, yes. Unless, of course, the perpetual bachelor is George Clooney — and let’s be honest, most aren’t. Still, even Clooney was once briefly married. Anyone with salt-and-pepper hair who shows up in your online matches as “Never Married” might as well come with a flashing Warning Sign, say women with marital aspirations who date them anyway. They are Workaholics. Playboys. Commitment Phobes. Gay. Definitely gay.
Oh, we can collectively cry, Double standard!! over the sad fact that never-married women of a certain age aren’t players; they’re pitied. See Bridget Jones1 and 2; in 3, she’s a 51-year-old widow, cougar and mother of two.
But in a way, steadfastly heterosexual single men over 40 are sort of pitied too. Or, rather, they are dissected, thoroughly examined — not by a class of seventh-graders using microscopes but by a table of 30-something women, well into their third bottle of wine.
“Perception is that it’s perfectly acceptable for a man to be single and dating because he was likely concentrating on his career and is now ‘ready,’” says one smart, fun, beautiful 34-year-old singleton in San Francisco — a city that is home to a seemingly disproportionate number of older, never-married men. (A lot of gay men, yes, but also a lot of straight dudes who care more about their triathlon training than tying the knot.) “The guys over 40 I’ve dated all have the Peter Pan complex,” she says. “They tend to resist growing up in a certain way. Worse: Many still have roommates and wear backpacks. (Over 40? No. Just no.)”
Still, like many women, she continues to give ’em a go. “There are always exceptions.”
I question a heterosexual male’s commitment to anything if he is unattached at that age.
Even, apparently, in New York City, another hub of never-marrieds. A physician named Amy says she was “totally wary” of her now-husband, who was 42 when they first met. “You can always judge a guy by what’s in his refrigerator,” she says. “Literally all he had in his was a pint of vanilla Häagen-Daz. Because, as he said, he could eat it and use it in his coffee instead of buying milk.” Also suspect: He once flew to see her in Portugal at a moment’s notice. “It was really fun, but I kept asking him, ‘Is this, like, what you do? Just jet off to meet women for weekends in Europe?’”
Turned out he was an older, never-married guy with nothing to hide. But most aren’t, says a 44-year-old opinionated gay man with no dog in this fight. “I question a heterosexual male’s commitment to anything if he is unattached at that age,” he says. “I just do. There’s something slightly predatory about it. Untrustworthy. Scarlett Letter-type mistrust.”
He admits he’s grossly generalizing and then breaks it down: “There are two models. The successful man who has it all but no spouse, and the dork who is infantilized because he can’t get his act together. (Gays, of course are exempt from this, he says, until gay marriage is completely commonplace, “and the gays are subjected to the same pressure to become more boring and mainstream.”)
That’s sort of spot on, agreed Raina, who was widowed at age 27 and spent the next decade dating. All types, all ages, but she was always wary of the guys over 40 who’d never been married. “They’re clueless,” she says. “They can’t make coffee. They just become kind of weird.” (She’s since remarried a divorced, devoted 40-something father of two.)
”Men who want to enjoy the intimacy of a lifetime commitment of marriage will likely be married younger (despite financial resources or their access to technology that feeds a feeling of entitlement and ongoing search for ’the best’),” says Dr. Monica O’Neal, a Harvard-trained psychologist in Boston. A city, she says, “with a high number of eligible (meaning ’good catches’ on paper), never-married people ranging in age from mid 30s to late 40s.”
THEY CAN’T ALL BE CLOONEY
SOURCE: CORBIS
Indeed most guys approaching 40 who’ve never been married are likely to stay that way — according to a not-so-scientific study conducted by author John T. Malloy and cited on the not-so-scientific site Dating Without Drama. Additional conclusions? “Until men reach age 37, they remain very good prospects. After age 38, the chances they will ever marry drop dramatically. The chances that a man will marry for the first time diminish even more once he reaches 42 or 43. At this point, many men become confirmed bachelors.”
The choice not to marry, whether by a man or a woman, is a life choice made by a rational human being.
Dr. O’Neal offers this as an explanation, not an excuse: “Men who have long-term relationships without (conscious or unconscious) intentions to marry may have what psychologists call an avoidant attachment style when it comes to intimacy. They may enjoy having relationships but struggle with the requirements of intimacy and dependence that marriage requires.”
But the question — apart from the obvious crime of leading someone on — is whether there’s anything really wrong with being a confirmed bachelor. Definitely not, says Carl Weisman, the guy who literally wrote the book on men who never marry, So Why Have You Never Been Married?He subsequently found the love of his life and got married four years ago — at age 50. “But if I had not met her, I’d probably still be single, which would have been fine too,” he says. The choice not to marry, whether by a man or a woman, is a life choice made by a rational human being. To stigmatize someone for making their best possible life choice, a choice that hurts nobody, seems ridiculous, especially in light of the divorce and affair rate.”
Courtney, a most eligible 36-year-old bachelorette in Manhattan, dismisses any such stigma. “Generalizing by age is silly,” she says. “Never-married men over 40 are no different than unmarried men in their 30s or 20s. They just haven’t met someone they want to be with.”
Turns out, neither has my friend John. Fall 2013 has come and almost gone. He’s still single. And quitefine with that.
This article is by Rachel levin AND CAN BE READ HERE:-http://www.ozy.com/resolved/never-married-men-over-40/3327.article
