SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-they-really-who-they-say-they-are dept.
Historian and TV presenter Lucy Worsley has said romance is dying because it has become "too easy" to meet new people via dating apps and the net.
In an interview with the Radio Times, she said couples no longer faced the obstacles that had traditionally made for strong romantic encounters.
The "slow exquisite torture" of love in Jane Austen novels no longer existed in the age of Grindr and Tinder, she said.
But relationship experts say not everybody is good at commitment.
"There have always been a proportion of people that find it hard to form relationships and, rather than trying to overcome difficulties, who have moved on more quickly to others," counsellor and therapist Peter Saddington, from relationship support service Relate, told the BBC.
On the other hand, people who do marry after meeting through a dating app might be less likely to divorce.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Sunday October 11 2015, @05:28PM
You know, it never occured to me that they might actually enjoy it.
After observing dozens of relationships though, being married is definitely not something I'm interested in. And now I'm far along my career path, if I do meet a permanent girlfriend after 2 years she's entitled to take half my stuff when she leaves where I live. It's even written in law. I've also known a few guys (although not well) that have been burned by this. When you're younger and have nothing it's not really a big issue. Now that I've spent half my life amassing assets and other things losing half of it will really screw up my retirement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 11 2015, @08:22PM
> if I do meet a permanent girlfriend after 2 years she's entitled to take half my stuff when she leaves where I live. It's even written in law.
No it is not. Man, for someone who thinks he is an expert you don't know jack shit.
When two people get divorced, marital assets are split - that means everything accumulated while you were married, including debts. Not before you were married, only during the marriage. And presumably she has a job too, so you are entitled to half of everything she earned too.
(Score: 2) by danomac on Sunday October 11 2015, @10:41PM
This is definitely not true, unless there's a prenuptial agreement. In the case of common-law marriage (at the two year mark) there's no such thing and assets are deemed equally shared by both (most cases the major assets are real estate i.e. a house/home.) As an example, where I live if someone moves in with me into a place that I own before she moves in she owns half of it after two years, even if there's no marriage. The matrimonial home is an exception to what you are stating. Look under "Matrimonial home" [divorce-canada.ca]. So yes, if you own a house and even if she lives with you for two years she "owns" half of it (see paragraph 4 of this article [www.cbc.ca] (I'm too lazy to look it up on the government website, but it IS there too.) Quite often this is applied to any assets (including businesses.)
I know someone who has been burned by this on a home valued at $400,000.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12 2015, @12:34AM
> As an example, where I live if someone moves in with me into a place that I own before she moves in she owns half of it after two years, even if there's no marriage.
You are a "google expert" who doesn't understand the full context of those terms. Simply moving in is not sufficient to start a common-law marriage. You must behave as spouses - blending of finances, have a child together, call yourselves husband and wife, etc -- all are factors used to determine if the relationship qualifies as a common-law marriage. The article you linked to even quotes the BC law to that effect with the phrase "a marriage-like relationship."
> The matrimonial home is an exception to what you are stating.
According to the very link you provided it is the biggest exception. Saying it applies to other things like businesses is hand-wavy bullshit.
So now you've walked it back from "everything" to the house - which 99% of the time is mortgaged so will probably be more debt than asset.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday October 12 2015, @07:04AM
In India (which is apparently the latest target of feminist spear campaigns), a live-in that doesn't end up in marriage is, by law, considered rape, and since rape is such a heinous crime even minors can be tried like adults.
A bitter divorce battle means, for men, loss of children (women cannot be punished for not following court orders - true!), loss of property (the law to include ancestral property in it just got rejected due to large scale protests from MRAs - this is the second time), maintenance irrespective of her qualification or earning capacity, removal of your parents from their house if your wife has stayed in it for even a week, consistent harassment by the judges to nudge you for out-of-court settlement and jail time for as many people as you deem close to you.