HN Explorer

Ask HN: Marriage

38 points by buggy_code ↗ HN
From reading the biographies of famous entrepreneurs (Gates, Ellison, Jobs, Woz, Clark) it seems like:

() those who marry in young 20s end up with divorce () the successful marriage ends up one in the late 30s or early 40s

Can HN shed light on this? Do most entrepreneurs end up with this problem, or are these just especially high profile founders, and as a result, they needed balls of steel to bring the revolutions they did (thus probably resulting in slightly intolerable personalties).

Thanks!

[Curious about this myself via the whole: marriage or startup first question; marriage first results in the question of -- crap, I have responsibilities; startup first results in the issue of -- crap, gold diggers]

107 comments

[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] thread
vaksel
I think it has to do with the work load. When you are young, you pretty much focus 100% on your business and neglect your relationships...so you work 60-80 hours a week trying to get it off the ground and make something of yourself.

In your 30s/40s, you are already more or less successful and can have a lot more free time, so you can switch to the basic 9 to 5. And have time for family and kids.

As far as gold diggers etc, just stop showing off your wealth and you'll be fine. Even if you saw Steve Jobs or Bill Gates on the street, chances are you'd never think it was them. But put them in a Ferrari and you'll probably connect the dots. Worst case scenario, you can go James Bond on this issue. Have your mansion and the Ferrari in one town. And a rented apartment and a Honda in the next one.

teej
> Even if you saw Steve Jobs or Bill Gates on the street, chances are you'd never think it was them.

I saw Eric Schmidt on University Ave in Palo Alto last year, and I didn't need a Ferrari to believe it. He was actually driving a Prius.

vaksel
How do you know it was him and not just someone who looked like him? Thats what I mean, if you more or less appear average, most people won't link you to the "celebrity".
TriinT
Ferraris? Mansions? James Bond? Gold-diggers? Is this HN?!?
brk
startup first results in the issue of -- crap, gold diggers

This statement is funny. You seem to think you will make money of your first startup :)

For most people entering the startup world today... find a girl with a comfy couch that you can sleep on when you're broke.

In all seriousness, you need to assess where you really think you want to end up.

I got married fairly young. Started a couple of companies and have participated in many more. My wife is (mostly) understanding, and more importantly intelligent and a good reality check for most of my schemes and ideas. I couldn't imaging getting through some of the situations I've been in without having someone who is knowledgeable and unbiased to discuss these things with.

Figure out what you want to be when you grow up, and screen for a person who fits those criteria.

josefresco
... or just fall in love.

(tip: you can't screen for it)

calvin
Exactly. You can't write a business plan for love. It happens, or it doesn't.
timr
you can't really write a business plan for a startup, either. ;-)
swombat
I'm wanting to make some lewd joke about iterating rapidly and keeping a keen eye on your key metrics, but I've been told it's not the done thing around here.

If I tried really hard, I'm sure I could work out an exit/IPO into it too.

grandalf
If you think of marriage as duty, responsibility, time commitment and compromise then it probably isn't compatible with doing a startup.

But if you and your spouse love each other for being motivated, self-actualized, driven, and passionate, then a startup and marriage can be wonderfully complimentary.

I actually really liked the movie Revolutionary Road for this reason -- it showed what happens when a guy who should be doing a startup ends up taking a safe job because he thinks it's what his marriage demands of him. In reality his wife was attracted to him because of his passion and his vision and she only came to loathe the soft, mushy, 9 to 5er that he became. Not a perfect parallel with the startup world but a great exploration of what it means to be "a man" outside of the narrow confines of man as simple uninspired breadwinner or corporate yes-man.

Bottom line: If your relationship thrives on the creative life-energy of passion, work and drive, then go for it. If not, why would you want to marry such a person?

breck
> I actually really liked the movie Revolutionary Road for this reason

This was one of my least favorite movies of all time until I read your take on it. Didn't think of comparing it to the startup life.

btwelch
Attracting gold diggers is a problem of success.

More likely, you should be more concerned that doing your startup first and neglecting relationships means you will burn through your younger years (and younger looks) and won't be able to leverage them when it comes to finding a mate. Then, if your startup fails... oops, no leverage at all.

barry-cotter
Hey, if he wants leverage he could go live and work abroad for a while where a middle class US lifestyle is livin' it up. Also men's pulling power is a lot less dependent on looks than womens'.
kirubakaran
These 'gold diggers' that you refer to... are they top-karma users of Digg?
russell
50% of all US marriages end in divorce. I would say it's partly the poor judgment of youth; mine wasn't so good. Maybe it has always been true, but now it is easier to get out. Romance is a pretty poor basis for a marriage. With mutual respect comes love and a more lasting relationship. Consider all the other qualities needed for success.

Starting companies is a huge commitment and raising children is an unbelievable stress load. The combination is a marriage killer.

With all that said, a good mate is a good thing to have.

DanielBMarkham
Romance is a pretty poor basis for a marriage.

This is such a true statement, yet everything you see on TV, movies, the web, etc. ignores it.

Marriage is a lot of work. Fun work and worthwhile, but sometimes the person you love, well, you just don't like that much right now. You have to work through problems. You just can't ignore them and hope they go away. I wouldn't trade it for anything, and a good partner can change your universe. But it is nothing like mass media has prepared you for.

jerf
I would never tell my wife this, but I think it's important for other people to hear. I've never actually been "infatuated" with my wife. The only people I've actually been that sort of "in love" with were utterly unmarriable (and for that matter utterly un-relationshipable). That part of my brain really seems to like the cute, crazy chick, but the problem with the cute, crazy chick is that she's actually crazy. "Quirky" is cool and all, but the crazy that comes with it, not so much.

No, all I have with my wife is love, a deep agreement on many of the important issues (including how money should be spent), an agreement with how many children we should have (broadly) and when and broad agreement on how to raise them, the ability to be friends with each other and work through arguments, and other such things. And a commitment. Love is primarily a choice, not a feeling.

If there's a part of you rebelling and saying that sounds cold and unfeeling, kill that part. That's propaganda, bad social programming, and it will lead to exactly the sort of pain and failure you'd expect when you shut off your brain for the one of the most important decisions of your life.

It's not that feeling don't enter into it at all. I've got and had all kinds of other feelings. (You can't tell because this is a text message and it's too easy to read it as emotion-free.) I'm not saying that feelings or emotions are bad; I'm saying that this one particular feeling is treacherous beyond belief. If you are lucky enough to be infatuated with someone whom you can have a relationship with, more power to you, but consider it a bonus, not a prerequisite.

(I also think that if you do know what you are doing, some such things can be decided surprisingly quickly. Some "love at first sight" stuff does work out because it doesn't necessarily take two years to figure out whether you've got this sort of deep compatibility. Sometimes two days is enough. I don't recommend that approach, but it can work.)

whughes
That's not true: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html

Also, "all US marriages" is not the same thing as "all US first marriages." A person divorced twice and divorcing for the third time is different from a person divorcing for the first time. That has little to do with the poor judgment of youth.

Radix
There was a discussion on this 50% meme where tokenadult pointed out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=1 I believe the highest the divorce rate has ever climed was perhaps 43%. And as yummifajitas states here (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=548939) it's mostly divorcee's getting divorced. Repeating the "half end in divorce" statistic obscures the more interesting possibility, that some people aren't able to make a good spouse.

with edits: Took me too long to find it, I got beat.

russell
Guilty as charged, but it appears the statistics are all over the place. The census bureau claimed 50% in 2002. The 43% figure was for marriages under 15 years. By that statistic I'm still married.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

barry-cotter
2/3 of marriages that are the first for both partners end in death.
falien
11 percent of murder victims were killed by an "intimate" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm
breck
misleading. i'm guessing the number of murder victims is many orders of magnitude smaller than marriages, and is negligible.
falien
I like how I'm downvoted for a joke response to a worthless uncited statistic. If its because you think its not funny fine. I sincerely hope no readers of HN are dumb enough to actually be "mislead" by it.
TriinT
There's a lot of herd phenomena on HN. Humans are social animals, and animals are dumb by nature.
charlesju
I don't get why everyone pushes themselves so hard in a startup. I'm in a fairly profitable startup right now (my first one, never had a job), and I still have more time for my gf than she does for me.

If you have a good idea, solid team, you can execute on great ideas with 40-60 hrs a week. If you're spending more, you're not managing your resources properly.

I really appreciate my gf, she helps me relax and take my mind off of work, so that when I am working, I can be twice as productive.

swombat
I think the part that wreaks havoc with relationships is not so much the amount of free time but the timing of it.

For example, if you start off working on your start-up on the side to check your assumptions, that'll suck up a lot of your common free time.

Then, if you work full time on your start-up, you might find that a lot of your essential networking and meetings happen outside of normal office hours. So if your girlfriend is working office hours you might find that you've got a lot of flexibility, just not when she does. So then you find yourself busy when she's free and free when she's busy. Not a recipe for success.

TrevorJ
From talking to a lot of married couples it seems as if marriage takes a lot of work and a lot of self-sacrifice. Perhaps the maturity of age has something to do with the successful marriages being those that where entered into later.
josefresco
Do we actually have data that shows later-in-life marriages are more successful? (besides the submitters anecdotal evidence)
mmc
http://www.divorcerate.org/ has the following for men:

  age   rate
  <20   11.7%
  -24   38.8%
  -29   22.3%
  -34   11.6%
  -39%   6.5%
So if you are just playing the numbers, wait until your late 20's at least.

But please, don't play the numbers. As someone already said, don't try to plan love.

bokonist
Those statistics are totally the wrong ones to look at. It's "Age at marriage for those who divorce in America". You want "Divorce rate by age at marriage".
breck
"Divorce rate by age at marriage" + the age of marriage as a percentage of all marriages (otherwise you might find 80% of marriages at age 60 are successful but fail to realize that probably accounts for a <1% of all marriages).

I think it's kind of funny that we're all seeking statistics on marriage. Where are the romantics on HN?

davi
Numerate romantics seek sanity check?
mmc
Very good point. Finding the second breakdown seems harder.

At any rate, it's still the wrong game to play for the OP.

sokoloff
And presumably you want that for only first marriages.
lutorm
Relationships take a lot of work and a lot of self-sacrifice, regardless of whether you are married or not, I'd say.
TrevorJ
I agree with that. I think it's a continuum. Most other relationships don't have the expectation that he should be life-long, day in and day out things. That added constraint ups the anty on the difficulty a bit I think.
noodle
frankly, i think its a commentary on marriage, not just entrepreneurial or techie marriages.

divorce rates are higher with younger couples. the younger, the higher.

krschultz
My plan was to start a startup at 22 or 23 and cash out at 30 and then find that perfect woman and marry her then and not have to work much because I made my money and blah blah blah.

Guess what, I found the perfect girl a year before I started the startup life and she totally supports it. I'm not sure if I could have done what I do without leaning on her and vice versa.

It is about the right person, not the right time or order. You can't plan when or how you are going to meet the right person.

chollida1
I think the biggest problem is that both a marriage and a successful company require a lot of work. And when push comes to shove you sometimes have to let one suffer inorder to help the other.

The guys you mention above all fit into the work is their life mold where they throw themselves into what ever they were doing. This won't surprise anyone but that doesn't really endear yourself to your partner.

I know a very successful entrepreneur who has been married 4 times now. Each one of his wives couldn't stand coming second to work and I'll bet that each one went into the marriage thinking that this time it would be different, that they could change him.

[dead] furburger
I know a very successful entrepreneur who has been married 4 times now

maybe he's just a prick?

blender
Wives are like startups. You fail at the first one.

I speak from personal experience on both counts.

;-)

xenophanes
Don't marry.

http://curi.us/blog/post/1168-monogamy

chops
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, but I think it's a fascinating read. This is particularly powerful, I think:

We shouldn't be scared of trying things that aren't best, and if something is genuinely good, it shouldn't fear criticism and rivals. If it's good, it will beat those rivals.

There's something so true in that. There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks to another guy. It's the confident ones that know they are the best that aren't afraid of competition.

Thank you for posting that. A very good read

Edit: on second thought, perhaps it's just a little bit off topic (it talks about marriage, but not with respect to startups). Perhaps it would be better as it's own submission.

thoughtidsay
> There's nothing weaker than a guy that gets furiously jealous if his wife/girlfriend talks to another guy. It's the confident ones that know they are the best that aren't afraid of competition.

There's nothing weaker than a startup founder who gets furiously jealous if his employee aids and abets another company. It's the confident ones that know they're the best that aren't afraid of competition. No reason to get litigious, a little competition is all.

Jealousy is a basic human emotion of paramount importance. Loyalty is a cornerstone of society. I value deviation from the norm as much as the next free spirit, but deviation from this basic principle I will not allow myself ever. There is nothing insecure or weak about the territorial insticts humans associates with things of value. It may have a perfectly sound evolutionary explanation, it has a perfectly sound religious explanation, no matter how you split it, it's there. I don't buy that it's cultural, except may be some manifestations of it. There must exist a core which transcends culture. Perhaps protection of offspring can form one tenet of such core, but I'm no expert and this is not a proof.

Nonetheless, let me give you an example of how jealousy is simply a construct which one can use to describe a particular response to a given stimulus. Let's say one is walking down the street and notices a pile of trash. One, not prodded or otherwise influenced decides to do the "right thing" and remove the trash. The prospect is not pleasant, but one proceeds out of some motivation that is not relevant. Then let's say someone swoops by and picks up the trash and hurries it away. The first individual may very well be relieved of no longer having to deal with the trash, and feel grateful for another's "brazen" act. Let's replace trash with gold. Sure, some people may say: "meh, it's just a pile of gold, let 'em have it!". Some might get very upset. See, here we have jealousy measure a degree to which a given individual can raise their defenses. It's a protection mechanism more than an act of insecurity. Just as carrying a gun to a gun fight is a protection measure. If you chose to bring a knife "cuz you're confident", you'd get a few in the dome and that'd be the end of it. Just as any old general strategy or planning. Granted, one can still lose even with a bazooka, and some can win with a knife, but one had better be prepared regardless.

So back to relationships. If one partner decides that they're liable to "chat someone up and accidentally have sex" they should divorce/separate and carry on. Unless their significant other has agreed that it's normal and is liable to do the same. Those relationships work, they're fine, but they're a contract of sorts. Let's not conflate the desire to keep something special, with the inability to let people "talk to others". If we define "talking to others" as being a precursor to a steamy side life, then we're talking of different things. No one owes anyone anything, unless one has a previous arrangement which forges a contract. However, when we enter a mutual contract with another party, a modicum of self worth is good to keep honest to oneself, and the loved one. Of course people make mistakes, and if they so choose, they can separate and pick a different life. But back stabbing is one of the most weak and worthless acts of human nature. There are amazing stories of couples that not only went through true horrors in their life and remained together, but remained loyal in the face of seduction from a rather "appetizing proposition". I respect, and dare I say even admire such people. Lastly, since it's inevitable that the "self preservation and self interest uber alles" is an always-nascent thought, I would only say this: if one wants polygamy, then there are plenty of partners who also do; pick N.

Sorry for the rant.

Edit: response to your edit:

> We shouldn't be scared of trying things that aren't best, and if something is genuinely good, it shouldn't fear criticism and rivals. If it's good, it will beat those ...

xenophanes
> I value deviation from the norm as much as the next free spirit, but deviation from this basic principle I will not allow myself ever.

I think it's bad to be a 'free spirit' in the sense of wanting to deviate from the norm. I do appreciate variety, but I'd prefer if there was less need to deviate. Radical and counter-intuitive ideas are harder to implement, and it's harder to find associates with those shared values. The point of deviating from the norm is that some normal ideas hurt people or cause problems. At least that's what I think. There is a genuine disagreement about the wisdom of some normal ideas, not just deviation for the sake of being a free spirit.

> If one partner decides that they're liable to "chat someone up and accidentally have sex" they should divorce/separate and carry on.

That's one option but there are lots of others. Richard Feynman made a game out of not cheating on Arline with tempting girls. He enjoyed the challenge. If you don't want to cheat, there are rational ways to accomplish that.

> I'm just appalled at an apparent justification of betrayal.

I think it's bad to betray people. I also think it's generally wise not to make promises that are hard to keep in the first place. One reason is this reduces the number of betrayals that take place. Another reason is that it's hard to predict the future and predict what you will want in the future.

thoughtidsay
Free spirit, free thinker, thoughtful, radical are some descriptions of the same idea. I guess it depends on the vantage point. A radical opposition to an oppression that catalyses a positive outcome, is viewed as a positive deviation by some, and of course viewed as a negative deviation by the oppressors. I basically try as I can to evaluate most "big ideas" on their merits, to the extent of my ability. I don't have neither the time nor energy to evaluate everything so some things I take at face value. So in my view, the more people who choose to think outside of the boundaries of a given established "norm", the more healthy the society in general. This is an enormous topic, so what I said is not even a splinter of it.

> That's one option but there are lots of others. Richard Feynman made a game out of not cheating on Arline with tempting girls. He enjoyed the challenge. If you don't want to cheat, there are rational ways to accomplish that.

Basically I view change of heart as a normal occurrence. It happens, there are far worse things in life. But I also view betrayal in some of the most negative light possible. Divorce/separate and off you go. I just don't see a solution to suppressing one's urge. If one is convinced they've "finally found the right person" then what next? I don't know, but I do know that to exercise that urge while feigning ignorance is pathetic example of a human malice and weakness. At least hold it until you can separate and inform your former "loved one" of your intentions. Otherwise, if it's a fleeting "crush". Drop it like a hot potato and move on. Why betray? Because it feels good? I don't know. Why make your loved one jealous? Some do it out of spite -- it becomes an endless game of getting back at each other.

> I think it's bad to betray people. I also think it's generally wise not to make promises that are hard to keep in the first place.

There are civil and fruitful means of dissolving a contract. It's just my view that conniving and lying and otherwise being unfaithful is an anathema to reason, trust and a healthy society. That's my view of course, and I don't plan to impose it on others in any way, but I will go to the utmost of my ability to abide by it.

It's just so happens that jealousy is the central emotion that runs through the veins of the aforementioned beast. Human interaction is built on jealousy and it can be either good or bad. I think few other emotions, except perhaps fear, have more influence over our lives, or are as central. I remain suspect when people claim immunity to it.

gits_tokyo
First question you should be asking yourself...

Why do I want to be married?

yummyfajitas
Don't marry if you are a guy. At present, marriage is a contract with no upside for you. You gain nothing from marriage that you can't get from a committed non-marital relationship, and stand to lose a lot.
[dead] furburger
still fuming over the CL erotic services decision i see
endtime
How many women out there want to raise kids out of wedlock? Probably not many, and the same is probably true of most men. Or are you assuming that men don't want to have families?
pohl
I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner. Neither a wedding nor a state-enforced contract is required for a committed, long-term, loving relationship.

There is an increasing phenomenon of women choosing to give birth out of wedlock. It's not yet clear if they are having children without a cohabitant partner.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-tren...

endtime
>I think that what women want is to raise a child with a partner.

I really think you're being unrealistic if you think women don't care about getting married before having children with someone. You can place whatever value judgments you like on the reasons for that, but to say it isn't the case isn't realistic.

Jem
Please don't generalise women - some of us really don't care.

(I'm 15 weeks pregnant, I have no intentions of getting married.)

endtime
Sorry if my wording wasn't clear - I interpreted my comment's parent as a generalization, actually. I should have said something like:

>I really think you're being unrealistic if you think most women don't care about getting married before having children with someone

calvin
You can gain quite a lot. If you want a partner beside you to learn from and grow closer to, it can be a great thing. If you want children to love and raise and educate, marriage can be awesome. Those are two reasons I look forward to marriage when I meet the right woman.

If those aren't your priorities though, then I would agree, marriage probably isn't a good option for you. If you view marriage as "what you can get" rather than "what you can give/share" then it will not work and will result in unhappiness.

yummyfajitas
You can get all those things from a committed non-marital relationship.

Marriage (by which I mean the contract enforced by your state) adds nothing to the mix beyond a massive financial liability (for the man) if the relationship ends. Read this article for an example of the bad results of marriage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.h...

cujo
I think you're still stuck with a financial liability if you decide to have kids with non person you aren't married to. Plus there are tax breaks for being married. But that is just monetary.

In reality most people in the US aren't as inclined to have life partners without the marriage part. And frankly, there is something special about professing your commitment to another person in front of your community that somehow makes your bond with your partner stronger.

Is marriage required? Probably not. But I think you are missing a good part of it by claiming financial reasons for despising marriage.

falien
how about philosophical, political, legal, and financial?
grandalf
Tax breaks for being married? Quite the contrary. You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels. Also, if you file as married (jointly or separately) if one person itemizes the other must itemize, or vice versa w/ the standard deduction.

One gets big tax breaks for owing money to a bank for a mortgage loan or for having children, but not simply for being married. Hence the term "marriage penalty".

anamax
> You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels.

If you do the math you actually find that married folk pay less US federal income taxes in certain situations and more in others. (CA is the same - I don't know about other states) The result depends on the distribution of income between the two people

If both people make roughly the same amount of money, being married results in more taxes. If one person makes all the money, being married results in less taxes.

It turns out that a marriage differential (different taxes for married and unmarried couples) is a mathematical consequence of any tax system that has progressive marginal rates and treats a married couple's income as a lump sum.

That said, the marriage differential can be "married is always cheaper", "married is always more expensive", or "some times married is cheaper and some times it isn't" (as is the case with US and CA). It all depends on the various rates and deductions.

grandalf
Good point... i'd only done the math for both people earning roughly comparable amounts.
eli
Pre-nup. Problem solved.
pohl
If only it were that easy. Pre-nuptial agreements are routinely invalidated by judges at the precise moment one needs them to be enforced.
eli
Usually because they either poorly written and/or one party was coerced (or claims they were coerced). As with all contracts, you should get a decent lawyer. And your partner needs his/her own lawyer.
3pt14159
That's because you need two more things besides just a pre-nup: A POST-nup and $15k to the woman to go find her own lawyer to work through the paperwork so she can't claim ignorance. With that you are pretty safe. As an aside, I know a guy who had his father own the deed to his house and paid "rent" to him. When the wife cheated on him and left/was kicked out she couldn't get much because most of his assets were in his dad's name.
dsteinweg
Interesting, paying rent to his father...

Other than the possibility where that could be interpreted as not trusting your partner, that sounds like a great idea from a "CYA" perspective.

Of course, it could only really work if the relationship you have with your father is very solid. You wouldn't want him kicking you out of "your" house because of some arbitrary conflict.

garply
In all seriousness, if you don't want children, what is the purpose of marriage? What little I know about divorces and children suggests that marriage functions as a crude insurance policy for the kids - which seems reasonable. But if you just want to live with somebody, other than perhaps being able to do some small tax optimization and handle stuff like medical decisions if your spouse is unconscious, what's the point?
scott_s
Marriage is a way of saying "My intention is to spend the rest of my life with you as my partner." That means something to your partner. If you're not willing to say that, then that means something, too.
cglee
I guess this conversation precludes same-sex couples.
jrockway
Only in third-world states.
pohl
That's an interesting perspective. What you're saying is that marriage is a mode of communication for that one sentiment. Are there other modes of communicating the same sentiment? (an epic poem, breaking into heartfelt song, getting tattoos,...) Are they all equivalent? Does choosing to not express it by marriage necessarily imply that one is not willing to express it at all?
scott_s
It doesn't just communicate it to your partner, but to society. Getting married is a ritualized promise that is done before one's community of family and friends. I think saying the vows to your partner, in front of your family and friends, is markedly different than, say, writing a poem and getting tattoos.

I suppose marriage is what you make of it. I consider being married to be a different state than not being married. I don't see any state change happening from writing a poem. But there is one with getting tattoos.

Whether or not you get married in the eyes of the state or a church I don't think is important. But I do think that promise is important, and it is further weighted if done publicly.

pohl
I can dig that. I've been through the process myself. In the beginning, my thoughts on the matter were perfectly in line with yours.

Now that I'm on the other side, I've seen that neither the church, nor the state, nor the social network of community witnesses (nor the legal commitment of having adopted her two sons for that matter) could stand in the way of her caprice-driven dalliances.

And, living in a "No Fault Divorce" state meant that her violation of the terms of the marriage provided me no benefit or protection when it came time to kick her to the curb out of self-preservation.

Society, with all its witnessing, was nowhere to be found. Everybody wants to come to the wedding. Nobody wants to come to the divorce.

Next time I'll opt for the tattoo. ;-)

ahoyhere
As a life long marriage skeptic - who recently got married - I can tell you, being married is different than any other situation.

I've always been a "it's just a piece of paper, you don't need it to signify real commitment" -- but I was wrong. I was surprised, myself.

axod 

  * Children
  * Taxes
  * Commitment
patrickg-zill
It used to be that marriage was a contract between you, your intended spouse, and God.

Now, it is a contract between you, your intended spouse, and "The State". And therefore when you marry you are giving the State some measure of control over your life.

eli
How so?

Seems more like a contract between you and your spouse that has been approved of by the state.

scott_s
And, I'd like to add, witnessed by everyone important in your life.
Retric
Last friday I had to stand in front of a judge and say that two people where not living together for the last year so they could get a divorce in the state of Virginia. After 6 months of marriage it took a year, a judge, an attorney, and a witness, plus some cash to finally separate them.

If they had been married for 10 years then there would be Social Security implications etc. Plus I think they still force you to take a blood test ect.

PS: Separation of Church and State my ass.

jhancock
rational for divorce proceedings through state courts has little to do with Church. The courts are mostly dealing with issues of property.
Retric
Then why should the state care if they lived together?

It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced.

Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plenty of people get divorced without hating each other.

jhancock
I would be very surprised if the rule, in some states, of being apart for a year to finalize a divorce, has anything to do with religion/church. Most likely, it is a relic of legislation attempting to define "litmus tests" on which the judiciary can make decisions.

Keep in mind that with things like divorce and child custody/support, couples change their minds (sometimes a lot). Our court systems can't handle this (certainly not the costs). Over the years, our societies have required legislatures to define rules and processes for lumping everyone into a process. I don't think the state really wants to be involved in divorce cases, but there are reasons they are (property, debts, retirement benefits, child custody/support, etc).

Like it or not, state courts have to be involved in divorces. For some couples that can handle it without the courts, well, like education, they get dragged down into the mean.

eli
I still think these are problems that are easily solved with a good pre-nup.

And there's no blood test in VA anymore (nor DC for that matter).

lutorm
Definitely not true if you are a foreign national...
eli
Uh, you are aware of the concept of a pre-nup, right?

I'm pretty sure a marriage + a solid pre-nuptial agreement would put you on much better legal/financial ground than a "committed non-martial relationship" without a written contract.

SteveC
In the UK what you can do with a pre-nuptial agreement is very limited.
vaksel
apparently prenups are pretty much worthless in this day and age. Even if its air tight, the other lawyer can just say that they were forced to sign the prenup(i.e. no prenup = no marriage) and poof, your air tight prenup is null and void
eli
It's pretty simple: both you and your spouse-to-be need a lawyer to review the document before signing it. Then nobody can claim they were forced or didn't understand.

And, really, this is pretty basic legal advice. You should always have an independent, disinterested lawyer review contracts before you sign them.

[dead] furburger
if you play your cards right, you could end up being married for fifty years

on the other hand, you will likely be "done" with playing mr. web startup guy within ten. you're not going to be forty three going to geeknrolla and y-combinator meets.

so what i find puzzling is why you would give up a fifty year gig for an eight year gig.

and drop this "gold digger" crap...you don't have any gold to dig. you might in fact end up leeching off of your wife

seanc
Lots of good comments here, many of them all true at the same time.

A marriage is a such a big commitment (10 times bigger if there are kids), that if there is something in your life more important than your marriage, it (probably) won't last.

Some people seem to make this kind of thing work, but I think it's quite rare.

My philosophy is that companies come and go (especially startups), but a loving family will last you a lifetime, and have a much bigger impact on your happiness and wellbeing than success and work.

frossie
Well thanks for the laugh, I needed that today.

Folks, finding the person you want to spend the rest of your life with - you know, the person that is going to stick around to wipe your... okay I'll say drool... when you are 80 and have Alzheimers - that is a much more unpredictable proposition than what you chose to do with your professional life. If you are trying to time the former to the latter, you are taking a big risk that the right person won't be around when you decide you are ready for them.

Date. If you are still dating after 1-2 years and like it, move in, or else break up and try again. If you are still living together and like it after 3 years get hitched, or break up and try again. By all means do not be hasty - but please do not overplan this.

JoelPM
I used to believe that you could pick any two of the following three items:

1) A job you like and are good at 2) A body you like and take care of 3) A marriage & family you invest in and enjoy

I've found that you can have all three, but it requires a lot of flexibility, discipline, and willingness to say no to everything else (which is really just a manifestation of being disciplined).

I don't think marriage and a start-up are always mutually exclusive. In some cases they are, either due to the spouse or the start-up (or yourself, possibly), but if you're willing to be disciplined and set boundaries it's definitely possible.

Kaizyn
When you look at the entire human population, you will see very different statistics for marriage and divorce. Now many people who marry young will get divorced (at least in the United States), but then so will many who wait until later in life to marry. Your sample there is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

As marriage relates to a startup or any entrepreneurship, the fact is that you only have so many hours in a day. Most spouses like their mate enough to want to spend some nontrivial amount of time with them. When this time commitment cannot be fulfilled due to wanting to the entrepreneur working insane hours in the basement or whatever else, it will put strain on that relationship. In short, having good personal relationships requires a major time commitment. Any startup or other entrepreneurial project also requires a significant time commitment. Depending on how these are managed or not, it can lead to a successful startup and failed relationship or vice versa. If you take greater care, then you can make both work but that won't be easy. After all, nothing worthwhile is particularly easy.

granular
If you're in the USA, and you're male, don't do it. In the US, she can leave you at any time and by default get the kids, house, child support, and alimony. For a variety of reasons, the deck is obscenely stacked against you.

Regarding the kids, you have no idea how much you'll love your kids when you have them. But if she decides to go, she won't care one bit about that.

And I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Ah, but you don't know her. She's different. She'd never do that." I'll tell you what: people change -- in unexpected ways. Especially after the kids come.

Do some research. Google for "dads", "divorce", "custody", etc.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
rsheridan6
If you get married, there's a good chance that your wife will want you to quit and get a stable job with reasonable hours. Even if she doesn't now, that's likely to change if you have children. It's also likely that her patience will wear thin eventually, especially if your first startup fails and you want to try another one.
pj
Marriage increases your responsibilities and, consequently, reduces your risk tolerance. Maybe it wasn't a choice, just so happened that it was because of the higher risk tolerance that those unmarried individuals could be so risky.
prawn
Whatever you do, when it comes to marriage, don't rush into it. Don't do it because it seems like the next logical step, don't do it because it brings a partner health benefits, don't do it because either family is pushing you.

You can take your time, give the r'ship loads of time to be tested (by travel, financial compromises, living together, sexual compatibility, etc) - if and when you do it, only do it for absolutely the right reasons.

It's harder to undo than it is to do.

(Personally: Married and divorced before 25. Now engaged to someone after 6-7 years together including living together for much of that, and travelling the world for 12 months.)

bokonist
I cannot find the statistic, but I am sure I read once that statistically marriages started between 23-27 have the lowest rates of divorce (if you only count first marriages, then I think the lowest rates come at a bit older age). Anyway, it's marrying before 23 that has the much, much higher rates of divorce. After that, I wouldn't worry about statistics.