Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology

Beggar Psychology and Family Law Psychology 

There are some important differences, but at one level, one can get a fairly good idea of the psychological aspects of the marriage entitlement ideology by considering a man begging on the street.  Suppose that every day for 365 days,  man A passes the beggar and gives him nothing and man B passes the beggar and gives him one dollar.  On day 366 both man A and man B pass the beggar without giving him anything. It is an extremely good bet that the beggar is angry at man B and not man A. Despite the beggar having his standard of living improved for 365 days by man B, the beggar gives man B little appreciation. Instead, he is angry at man B because the beggar's standard of living drops by one dollar when man B stops giving.  In the beggar's view, man B is responsible for a drop in the beggar's standard of living.  

The family law psychology is eerily similar to the beggar psychology.  Consider man A and man B, both of which have substantially higher incomes than a woman.  Suppose that man A will not marry a woman because he does not want to share his higher income with her. Suppose that man B is willing to share his higher income with her and he marries her. Every day that the marriage endures,  man B is increasing her standard of living.  Despite the woman having her standard of living improved during the marriage, the woman gives man B little appreciation.  If a divorce ensues, the woman's standard of living would decrease dramatically if man B no longer shares his higher income.  In the law's view,  man B is responsible for a drop in the woman's standard of living.  But, whereas the beggar cannot force man B to continue supporting the beggar's standard of living, the law can force man B to continue supporting the woman's standard of living.  If, even after the law's intervention,  the woman perceives that her standard of living has decreased, it is because not enough is being transferred from man B to her.

It may take a bit longer to find financially successful women, but currently there are plenty of them. Biologically, men can afford to be patient. Keep beggar psychology in mind and avoid good deeds per:

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/marriage--no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.html

Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

 Marriage Entitlement Ideology - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Men would be well-advised to take women's admonition "not to think with your dick" very seriously.

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2018/01/dont-think-with-your-dick-valuable.html

Do not value women solely for their youth and beauty.  The important things are the things that endure. Youth and beauty are waning assets. Think also about important things that endure. Don't marry solely for waning assets.  Shared values,  the ability and inclination to communicate rationally, and the willingness to compromise are going to be more important for the long term.

Apparently, women need to be protected from "power inequalities" in marriage and their "bounded rationality." ( Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice, by Sharon Thompson page 167 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309847645_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice) The most logical way for women to protect themselves from "power inequalities" and their irrational behavior would be for the women not to marry men that had such unequal power.  The trouble is that women seem to prefer men with high status, income, wealth, and power.  Attorneys try to protect these women from their "bounded rationality," by making it uncertain that a prenuptial contract will be binding.  This protection, of course, comes at the expense of successful men. Thus, successful men should protect these irrational women from "power inequalities" by not marrying them. (That is, don't think with your dick.)

Because of "marriage entitlements," if a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, he should beware the mantra "no good deed goes unpunished."  As will be explained below, the more good deeds a successful man does, the more the law will punish him. For simplicity, and because she gets her entitlement whether she has his children or not, assume that the marriage endures for ten years or so and that there are no children.

Consider three different options for a financially successful man (there are other options not listed):

Case A:  Similar Financial Status 

If a financially successful man marries a similarly financially successful woman, he is relatively safe from legalized plunder. Basically, there is no net transfer of marital wealth between the spouses during the marriage or in a divorce. A high standard of living is possible, along with high savings and investment, when both spouses have comparably high incomes.

Case B:  Dissimilar Financial Status with a Prenuptial Agreement

If a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, there will be a net transfer of wealth from the husband to the wife during the marriage. The married man sacrifices the higher standard of living and the higher savings and investment that he would have had if he had stayed single.  Conversely, the married woman gets both a higher standard of living along with higher savings and investment than she would have had  if she had stayed single. In a divorce, there are lower savings and investment in case B than case A.  Assume the savings and investments are split evenly between the spouses. For the husband, compared to staying single, after divorce he has lower savings and investment. For the wife, compared to staying single, after divorce she has higher savings and investment.

What does the prenup do for him?  A prenuptial agreement can help minimize (hopefully to zero) any transfer of income and/or wealth after divorce.   

Case C:  Dissimilar Financial Status without a Prenuptial Agreement

Case C is almost the same during the marriage as Case B.  That is, if a financially successful man does not marry a similarly financially successful woman, there will be a net transfer of wealth from the husband to the wife during the marriage. The married man sacrifices the higher standard of living and the higher savings and investment that he would have had if he had stayed single.  Conversely, the married woman gets both a higher standard of living along with higher savings and investment than she would have had  if she had stayed single. In a divorce, there are lower savings and investment in case C than case A.  Assume the savings and investments are split evenly between the spouses.  For the husband, compared to staying single, after divorce he has lower savings and investment. For the wife, compared to staying single, after divorce she has higher savings and investment.

The big difference between case C and case B is that the woman expects a  transfer of income and/or wealth to her even after divorce. 

If a woman will not even communicate and negotiate what she needs in a prenuptial agreement, how can one expect good communication and compromise in the marriage?  An unwillingness to negotiate and a "take it or leave it" ultimatum on getting married without a prenuptial agreement is a power play that shows total disregard for the man's concerns.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

In case A,  the man is not making any financial sacrifices due to marriage and thus the law sees no "good deed" and thus will not even attempt to punish him in a divorce.   Not only that, but women generally do not see the man in a bad light.

In case B,  the man is making a financial sacrifice due to marriage and thus the law sees a "good deed" and will attempt to punish him to the extent that the prenuptial agreement can be circumvented.  The law, and women generally, will give the man no credit for the financial sacrifice he made for the marriage.  There is a negative sentiment that he is not a good guy because he should have simply trusted her and not negotiated a prenuptial agreement.  Instead, women will complain about "power inequalities" and being "forced" to sign a prenup that attempts to stop a  transfer of income and/or wealth after divorce.

In case C, the man is making a financial sacrifice due to marriage and thus the law sees a "good deed" that needs to be punished.  Furthermore, because he trusted both his wife and the family law system, the law sees more good deeds that the man has done and will punish the man even more harshly than in case B.  Because he trusted family law, family law will force him to provide her a marital lifestyle entitlement and will attempt to go after even premarital assets in any way possible to satisfy her unmet "needs."

  

Don't Think With Your Dick - A Valuable Marriage Insight

Don't Think With Your Dick - A Valuable Marriage Insight

When I was in college I heard numerous women complain that "men think with their dicks."  This expression was sometimes used simply to complain about men.  More ominously,  it was  also used to justify either indifference or often outright glee that a man had "been taken to the cleaners" by a wife that the speakers thought was not appropriate for the man.  There was absolutely no sympathy for the man; indeed, it was his fault.  Something like: " If he hadn't been thinking with his dick, he would have known she was a gold digger;  why else would she have married him?"  (The most common reasons for "inappropriate" wives seemed to be either a much younger woman than the man or perhaps he was ugly whereas she was pretty. My assessment was the speakers considered the wife  inappropriate because she was "out of his league".  Therefore, she had to be a gold digger.)

There were four things I considered from this:

1.  The law encourages gold-digging because it (sometimes) compensates women simply for "marrying well."

2.  Many women thought that there was nothing wrong with the law compensating women that they claimed were gold diggers, even if the sole reason for a large compensation was that they had "married well."

3.  Many women did not consider the man to be the victim of a gold digger, instead they blamed the man for his stupidity and "thinking with his dick."

4. He had simply trusted her and given her "the benefit of the doubt," even though a prenuptial negotiation could have resolved much of the doubt.  He was, in fact, thinking with his dick. Had he been thinking with his brain he would have realized that the benefit of the doubt should be given when the doubt cannot be removed, not instead of removing the doubt.  A true gold digger is unlikely to sign a prenuptial contract.


After these comments from women about men deserving what they get when they "think with their dicks", I was much more conscious that a man needed to be very careful not to let love cloud his judgment.   Marriage is often the most dangerous financial action that successful men ever take.  There is a great deal of value to the admonition not to "think with your dick."  Men should think with their brain and not marry women that are financially dangerous to them.

An American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory."

From Russell Sandberg's comment on the book "Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309847645_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice

  "... And to cap it all, the book creates, develops and advocates a new approach: ‘Feminist Relational Contract Theory’. ..."

 Let me give an American's perspective on "feminist relational contract theory." Although "feminist relational contract theory" may sound new, it is really just government tyranny to take away the liberty of negotiating meaningful contracts.

 "Feminist relational contract theory" is basically gibberish for using government tyranny to ensure that nobody can know what a contract means at the time it is signed. If a prenup is signed as a "feminist relational contract," does it mean anything except that the government, ex post facto, is going to determine what it means? If it does mean something, why shouldn't the prenup specify what it does mean?

 Americans typically take a dim view of ex post facto laws, viewing them as unfair, unjust, and tyrannical. Maybe Americans are less tolerant of government tyranny after having experienced so much of it under English rule that a revolution was necessary to free America from English tyranny.