Men are resorting to increasingly desperate measures to protect themselves from the huge risks inherent in marriage. Prenups have exploded in popularity, and despite Tiger Woods’ recent cop-out and capitulation, are proving effective. Men are becoming more discerning when it comes to choosing a wife, which probably goes a good ways toward explaining the rise in illegitimacy rates — many women are having to resort to tricking men into impregnating them out of wedlock to have children at all. Society is awakening to the fact that women are far from the morally unimpeachable angels that white knighting old fools fantasize about. However, none of this is enough. Given the miserable state of millions of divorced men, it is obvious that men need a lot more.
One thing that could definitely gain some traction is marital insurance. People have always sought out health and life insurance, because everyone knows that a disaster or accident could strike from out of the blue, cutting down young or old, healthy or sick and rich or poor alike. It’s just a fact of life that adults accept. But what about divorce? This catastrophe is far more likely to cut a man down in the prime of life than cancer, a serious car accident, or even falling and breaking a leg on an icy sidewalk. A wife can go from calculated pleasantries to blitzkrieg divorce war while a man is at work, entirely unaware of her scheme, and he can come home to flashing lights, armed men and an order to collect his “personal belongings” and immediately leave and stay at least one mile away from his home and family.
In these cases, far too many men are left with no help, no options, and literally nowhere to sleep. No man is safe; I have heard from policemen who were forced to sleep at the station because their wives had seized their bank accounts and obtained orders throwing them out of the house. Many men must sleep in their cars, and others in their offices if they are lucky. There are no shelters for these men. In fact, the only shelter always open to them is jail, because they are commonly labeled “perpetrators” whether or not they have been convicted of crimes.
An innovative solution to the acute crisis of marital separation is an insurance policy to cover the short-term costs in such an event. A man with marital insurance, upon being ordered out of his house and thrown into the cold, unforgiving night, could obtain temporary lodging pending finding a new place to live, funds for food and gas, and enough money to pay a retainer to a good family law attorney. More comprehensive forms of marital insurance could include counseling, private investigator services, and temporary backup for any bank accounts seized or liquidated by the wife.
Not being an attorney, I’m not sure exactly what the laws are surrounding such forms of insurance, but in a search I found that a number of patent applications have already been filed for marriage insurance. Obviously, I’m neither the first nor the only one who has thought of it, and people are apparently taking the idea seriously.
In addition to protecting men in the event of a sudden divorce, divorce insurance could prevent a number of men from making the wrong choice in the first place. Just as an insurance rate varies according to the value of the asset and risks involved, a method could be developed to calculate which women are good bets and which ones are not. The more statistically likely a woman would be to divorce, the higher the insurance rate. Knowing how much a wife would cost to insure could give men a much better idea of whether marrying her is a good idea or not. If, for example, a young female intern in a family law firm cost, say, $500/month to insure, many men might opt for a new car instead of marriage and save themselves from a future catastrophe.
Complicated times call for extraordinary measures, and this might be one that could tide over men until we can finally do away with the current mess and try something better.
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
An absolutely fantastic idea whose time has surely come. I only wish I’d thought of it first.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Want great marriage insurance?
Do I need to say it?
Don’t freaking get married, ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what, pray, is to stop couples colluding with each other in order to make some mazulah out of the insurance company?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Same measures that prevent other forms of insurance fraud, I imagine. Insurers know they are taking risks as well.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
In case of divorce won’t insurance money just add up on the ability to pay alimony?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Man… the terrible thing about your idea, is that it makes absolute sense.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“An innovative solution to the acute crisis of marital separation is an insurance policy to cover the short-term costs in such an event”
I think this is a great idea. But this is not enough.
We need an insurance that will cover ALL the costs caused by a divorce, including c/s payments.
Such an insurance would sure be very expensive, but both husband and wife could pull their resources together to ensure that the husband will not be treated unfairly.
Or better yet: the government might offer such an insurance to men in order to “help” end the marriage strike. Of course, the insurance would be paid by the government.
This is easy. No need to change the laws. No need to remove the bias against men if the government takes all the costs.
I think that any form of palimony or child support must be paid by the state. The real father (the state) must assume his responsibilities.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Interesting. Not workable. Too easy to dupe the system by colluding. If you burn down your own house, you’ve lost a real material asset that you can no longer sell and have to pay to replace. If you burn down your own marriage, no comparable damage is done – rich acquaintances could marry, file for divorce, cash in and never deal with each other again.
It also leads to significant moral hazard and problematic signaling issues – the type of person who would buy it would be more likely to divorce, and actually buying it would only increase those odds. It doesn’t help that their partner would probably be aware of this. If it’s paying legal fees, you have motivations to seriously overuse lawyers. If it’s compensating you for losses, it’s just going to be too expensive – compensating you for half of your assets will cost you a substantial portion of the other half. On the other hand, if it’s small – like covering a hotel room and some basic attorney’s fees – it just ain’t worth paying for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
This problem can be alleviated extremely easily.
First, the government provides full insurance to men at no cost. (gov. pays for everything). If fraud is detected, life in prison or death row for both husband and wife: that takes care of collusion. (passing such a punitive law should be no problem in the U.S.). And it would create jobs.
We mustn’t give up on such a great idea just because of a couple of little problems. Even insane solutions are better than what we have. We can make it happen if we put enough pressure and repeat and again and again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Righttttttttt.
The gov’t that doesn’t even enforce prenups will do all this knowing that it might favor men.
The last thing we need for men is more gov’t involvement when in reality gov’t involvement in marriage is one of the big reasons why we are here.
And death sentences or life sentences for fraud will never pass, may be life without parole for a huge fraud scheme but not for one crime.
Don’t get married & you won’t have to deal with some of these problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am with Expatriate on this one. Don’t get married to (or live with) a woman and she can’t get the state to help her steal your money. Marriage insurance will become like what Malpractice insurance is to doctors, a new target for the legal machine to set it’s sights on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
O.K. imagine paying a premium for this (And a huge one at that to make this profitable for the insurance companies) and you’re married and the wife is going to see the continued paying of this premium as justified how, since it significantly lowers her standard of living paying $500 a month on it (and it would HAVE to be at least that expensive, if not more to make it workable for the companies)?
Insurance, all insurance is a parasite on society. It is part of why health care costs are higher, and costs in everything is higher.
The government that can’t afford to pay for more than Social security and the military is going to borrow even more money for this, GMAFB.
This idea is born dead
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Kid yourselves not: we are in agreement here, through and through. The insurance in question would be the minimum requirement by men to end the marriage strike.
Going our own way is certainly the best option, but should there follow a crisis because of men’s massive withdrawal, the government has to make sure that men benefit from marriage no matter what the outcome. In other words, reverse the situation.(swap male/female, make the female the slave). A good idea: a woman tax to pay for the added insurance costs.
I think that men would agree to return to matrimony if the tables were thus turned around.
In fact, unless the tables are thus turned in our favor, freedom afforded by bachelorhood is best.
In the end, it’s up to men to make it happen. Collectively, I don’t see what could stop men with determination.
I cannot think of something that is capable to resist man’s willpower. So, we can do whatever we want.
But of course, men have already given up on marriage.
So be it. The discussion is academic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Folks,
All great input, but yes, the risks are easily mitigated. And, while we agree that having a financial safety net is great, we’re making the biggest payoff for people who stay married. You’ll see it available to the public shortly after the first of the year. Contact me via SafeGuard Guaranty’s website (www.safeguardguaranty.com) if you’d like more information.
John Logan
CEO
SafeGuard Guaranty
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If there is talk about starting a marriage insurance company, why not start private marriage contracts as well? I think a large part of the problem is that the government makes (and changes at will) the rules.
If a marriage company would issue the marriage certificates, they would probably have a much lower divorce rate. Different companies could compete with each other over the contracts offered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol. That was quick.
Goes to show that these problems are on a lot of people’s minds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a great idea but it will not work unless divorce laws are rewritten. First let me add it is a very very good thing for guys to look at the real risk marriage poses. For guys living outside of a western country this idea would seem absurd, but they do not have the extremely unfair divorce laws and courts that all but guarantee destitution for a responsible guy.
What is an insurable risk as far as insurance companies are concerned?
An insurable risk is an event which is unlikely to happen.
The odds of divorce are very high so it a likely event.
Next is what cost will be incurred and here is the big problem, the cost are scalable and can get quite extreme and in my opinion are often fraudulent. And this is what would make writing a policy impossible as it is hard to define the cost risk and you have rampant fraud which would have to be brought into control. Also women would be unwilling to pay in albeit they would be willing to accept the financial benefits from such an arrangement. No one could afford the premiums as they would have to be so high unless cost and fraud was brought down and contained.
For now the best solution is NOT to get married. That is number 1.
The truth is women F-around more than men do yet men foolishly make promises to women who have no intention of doing the same and HAVE NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS to keep any marriage vows. For men it is completely one sided, all obligations. For women it is only benefits but zero obligations. It is no wonder divorce is so high and women initiate most of the divorces.
Next no promises of anything including that she is the only one. Women are far better behaved and will treat you much better if a guy does this. Once they know they have all of you present and future wealth guaranteed to them they have no incentive to be faithful or stay with you. The divorce statistics bear out what most women actually do, take the money and run. Giving women less in a western country is always the best thing to do.
Guys need to think about this and not get in a position to lose everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a clever way to make men stop feeling good about marriage with their hearts and start thinking about it in terms of risk-benefit analysis.
Of course, once men actually *think* about the risk involved in matrimony, they’ll decide to go do something safer, such as bungee jumping or hang gliding or juggling nitroglycerin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is the whole problem.
Gov’t will not enforce private marriage contracts because it will put an end to many of its scams.
Hell even prenups are not enforced or only partially enforced a lot of the time.
The family courts will throw out your private marriage contract if they think the cunt is getting an “unfair” deal even though she signed the contract, this they justify under the excuse that they are courts of “equity” not justice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But what about divorce? This catastrophe is far more likely to cut a man down in the prime of life than cancer, [etc.]
Wouldn’t this fact make premiums quite expensive?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To avoid collusion, perhaps a requirement for insurance is if the couple has a child together (which is when the man risks much more financially, than if there were no children).
Sort of how life insurance policies are only allowed on people age 18 or higher.
Also, even if feminists lobby politicians to outlaw such insurance, the actuarial calculations would show that the woman initiates divorce 90% of the time, etc. At least the probabilities will be exposed to the light of day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If there is any one type of male who is more deservied to be made to sleep in his car due to wife than a cop,does…please, someone tell me who? You mean to tell me ! NOT THE SAME TYPE OF SON-of-BITCH (COP) WHO THREW ME OUT OF MY OWN LIFE WITH JUST AN ACCUZATION FROM A CHICK , screw MALE COPS….THEIR WORST THAN THE WOMEN THEMSELVES….consciencious objector ?.,,.? Ever hear of such ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d rather have an alternative contract / premium:
Written into the marriage contract is a clause for us to pay a monthly premium to a hitman fund. If either spouse leaves and takes the kids (whether court approved or not) without the other’s written consent, the hitman is activated and murders the kidnapping spouse. The longer the marriage the better quality hitman that can be afforded – in balance to the greater loss to the betrayed spouse.
I’m joking, but I suspect it would be very effective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An interesting idea. Too bad the insurance proceeds would probably be considered a marital asset and half given to your wife. The extra few bucks she’d get from the insurance might be what prompts the divorce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am wondering if a man could collect on the policy if he was (falsely or not) accused of domesic violence or infidelity. Also, the woman would definatelgetty to claim a portion of the return. “He insured OUR marrage, so the money is MINE!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve considered a similar scheme before, Welmer, but in regard to insurance for companies at risk of sexual harrasment claims.
In fact, if the MRM ever managed to organize themselves, we ought to create a corporation and sell the policies ourselves, in order to fund future activities that promote our cause. Screw government funding! Plus, it could be a great career for aspiring MRA’s who feel they’ve been screwed by the system.
A great thing about insurance is that statistics and studies, which are more or less mathematically accurate, will naturally abound. An insurance company offering “Sexual Harrassment Insurance” will know exactly what the statistical risks are for hiring women… also, I would suspect that “cost per employee” studies would soon arise, and would not show women in a favourable light.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t recall the exact numbers, but something like 70% of all divorces are initiated by women. So, women should pay 70% of the premiums. Take it right out of her wages if she has a job – working women are more likely to divorce anyway, if I remember correctly.
There ought to be some sort of incentive program to stay married – reduced rates after a certain number of years, a free t-shirt, something like that. The shirt could say “10 years together at $500 per month – Priceless.”
On a more serious note, the type of fraud I’d be worried most about is the one-sided kind. If a woman stands to lose a lot if she initiates the divorce, she is quite likely to just make life hell for the man until HE initiates. I’ve heard that actually skews the divorce statistics even more against women, since they are more likely to do that than men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the best insurance is building yourself a legal/financial fortress, especially one that she doesn’t know about:
save some of your cash in a deposit box at a bank that you don’t use for your other transactions. better yet do that through a holding company or other legal structure.
use a prenup to keep her hands off your business interests. or don’t let her know it exists (especially if you’ve offshored it)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The best insurance is not to expose yourself to a risk unnecessarily.
Don’t get married; why give the government a toehold in your private affairs? Live with someone if you’d like, but don’t get married.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bob said:
“If a woman stands to lose a lot if she initiates the divorce, she is quite likely to just make life hell for the man until HE initiates.”
Absolutely right, Bob. My ex had me removed from the house, thanks to a DV allegation, got a restraining order, and then accused me of child abuse. I still remember her voice asking me, “You haven’t filed [for divorce] yet? What *ELSE* do I have to do to you?!?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice idea but there’s only one way to really protect yourself – stay away from the bitches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s a nice idea, but the necessity of it in the first place belies why it will never be allowed to work: female favoritism. If divorce proceedings were fair, we wouldn’t need the insurance. It’s for the same reason that prenups are routinely shredded. Marital insurance, while an interesting idea on paper, would never be allowed to get off the ground in any meaningful way. It violates the golden rule of feminism: the only things allowed to stand are that which women want; the only things that change are those that women perceive to hurt them. Under the golden rule, marital insurance shall be verboten!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@Jesse
“Nice idea but there’s only one way to really protect yourself – stay away from the bitches.”
Plain, simple, and effective. And exactly what I’m doing. And loving it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps instead of insurance what a man seeking a traditional married life needs is a marriage broker – a service working much like the family arranged marriages in India.
A modern marriage broker would research the character and history of its clients to determine viable matches, provide well tested pre-nups, and most importantly, provide a money-back guarantee. Since women tend to be more interested in marriage than men, they would pay a majority of the brokerage fee while the man would be awarded the full refund in case of divorce. With the money going to an offshore account beyond the reach of the courts.
Profitability would depend on creating stable, happy marriages. Since the fee would be upfront there would be no long term payments for clients unlike marriage insurance.
While the current anti-male legal environment would prevent such a service from being a perfect solution, the risks to a man might be mitigated enough to make marriage a viable option.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Written into the marriage contract is a clause for us to pay a monthly premium to a hitman fund. If either spouse leaves and takes the kids (whether court approved or not) without the other’s written consent, the hitman is activated and murders the kidnapping spouse. The longer the marriage the better quality hitman that can be afforded – in balance to the greater loss to the betrayed spouse.
—
bingo, however it should instead be a legal hitman who goes after the parting spouse legally for all losses suffered by the company as a result. Also, eliminate marriage and have the two sign a contract with the insurance company that forms a pseudo-marriage. This way the insurer has legal standing to sue, kinda like a cellphone cancellation fee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Marital “insurance” may not be feasible – but a more direct option will be steep dowry.
Productive men with good incomes agree to marry if and only if the prospective bride puts in a substantial sum as collatral. Pehaps this is the how the dowry first came into existance.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I like dhoorendhar’s proposal. If you want to have some insurance
against a frivolous divorce, demand that your prospective spouse
post a bond with a reputable bonding agency.
Bonding agencies provide ‘surety bonds’ as guarantees for a wide
, so long as you both shall live’, then she
variety of legal contracts – why not a marriage contract? If she
really means to ‘love, honor and obey, in sickness and in health,
(and poverty or wealth
won’t mind backing her promise with a credible guarantee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }