Throwing Good Money After Bad Love
Why does anyone get married? (ie, Why does anyone harbor the delusion that a relationship will necessarily last forever, given how long we all live, just for one?) Why, especially, does anyone who's an aging bazillionaire who isn't interested in having children get married? Perhaps a wife is just another acquisition, perhaps they, like all the 17-year-old girls who write me, dream of finding "the one." Kate Zernike writes in The New York Times about super-rich men, multiply divorced, who are right up on their feet, chasing wife number three, four, or five...to the tune of many, many millions when they divorce:
FOR Ronald O. Perelman, Forbes magazine's 34th-richest man in America, marriage would seem to be getting expensive: last week, he announced that he was divorcing his fourth wife, the actress Ellen Barkin, and would pay out the $20 million promised in their prenuptial pact — having paid $8 million, $80 million and $30 million, respectively, to Wives 1, 2 and 3.While matchmakers among the ultrarich are already speculating about who will be wife No. 5, others might reasonably ask why Mr. Perelman and other serial grooms in his jet set don't take the actor George Clooney's "never again" approach: Date ferociously, but don't marry. As one prominent New York divorce lawyer said of an 85-year-old client now negotiating his fourth prenup, "Don't you think he would stop?"
"They marry people who listen to completely different music, who don't know who Joe McCarthy was," bemoaned the lawyer, who would not be quoted by name for fear of angering his clients. "They have less chance with every one that it's going to succeed."
So why do the ultrarich marry, and re-marry, and re-marry? For men who have cycled through what Harriet Newman Cohen, a New York divorce lawyer, called "very high powered, high ZIP code divorces," marriage, more than dating, fills old traditions of respectability, status and comfort. It might even be love, for a while. Plus, they can afford it.
..."This is a new phenomenon — not the mercenary quality, but the fact that people are willing to risk this kind of money, just to say they're married," Ms. (Stephanie) Coontz said. "Love has been so idealized that at the top, the rich are willing to throw good money after bad to see if they can get the magic ring." So if a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience, as Samuel Johnson observed, that's only more true of Marriages 3, 4 and 5.
"They love the institution, they want to do it again," said Janis Spindel, a matchmaker in New York who said she charges $100,000 for what she calls her "power elite clients" to find a spouse. "They think three times is the charm."
Of course, marriage to a certain kind of woman — a movie star, a socialite — can also be about conquest, ambition, cachet.
"It's ego," said David Patrick Columbia, who writes NewYorkSocialDiary.com. "If you're a big deal, you've got to have ways of showing it. You've got the house, got the car, got the wife. They don't think much of marriage, they think much of possessing."
They can easily find women to agree — and typically it is the women who are, as divorce lawyers gently call it, "the non-moneyed."
Stanford G. Lotwin, a divorce lawyer in New York, said he tried to warn his serial clients about taking on serial wives.
"We tell these men, you cannot go anywhere without our card in your pocket," he said. "As soon as you have your second date, you have to call, and we'll remind you how expensive this is. He'll say, 'I repeat your name in my sleep, I promise you I'm not doing anything.' " But soon enough, Mr. Lotwin will be pulling out the box of tissues he uses to guide the man's new fiancée through the prenuptial process.
For many of the men, the prenuptial is simply part of the business deal that is marriage. "They see it like a hedge fund," said Ms. Cohen, the divorce lawyer. "Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't."
In the Advice Goddess economic analysis, dating models and having sex with hookers is much cheaper, and the "love," in the end, probably works out about the same.
You're being silly... You're just not that cynical. The superrich and superfamous often amuse with details of their love lives, as they do with the recklessness of their finances. So what? It's not that people "harbor the delusion that a relationship will necessarily last forever," it's that they nourish the hope that one might.
A few in my family HAVE lived long enough to lovingly supervise the exit of their partners. It's a thing of beauty that transcends economics.
I'm mean, you wouldn't fucking believe. It's beyond description blog comments. One widowed 85-year-old has gone on to make friends with a neighbor and... Fuckit, the person would kill me for publishing details.
As compared to "sex with hookers"? For someone OVER 21 years of age? Puh-leeze.
If some startling new majority of the population isn't up to it, it's not because people are SMARTER about pairing than they used to be.
Yours in better bachlorhood,
Crid
(PS- The software ate the first take of this comment... It swallows previews without even a belch.)
Crid at January 29, 2006 10:47 PM
Sorry about the preview thing. Will either be fixed or ditched soon. You can probably retrieve the comment with the "back" button. I tried it earlier today and got it back.
I think relationships in the past lasted for a number of reasons, like the fact that women had no means to go off on their own. It's not that a relationship necessarily can't last; it's that it's naive to assume it can or will -- unless, of course, you simply must stay together or the cows will go hungry or something.
Amy Alkon at January 29, 2006 10:57 PM
Scroll down for the old photo:
http://tinyurl.com/a68q6
Here's the newer photo, he died a couple days later:
http://tinyurl.com/7r2j4
Crid at January 30, 2006 6:44 AM
Let's just say they're in the minority, Crid!
Amy Alkon at January 30, 2006 7:20 AM
"It's not that people "harbor the delusion that a relationship will necessarily last forever," it's that they nourish the hope that one might."
Well I can understand that perfectly (breaking up sucks), but still don't see what this has to do with getting *married.* You don't have to drag the government and the legal system into your relationship for it to last forever.
Pirate Jo at January 30, 2006 8:21 AM
I would like to thank you, Amy, for posting this story. I have finally realized that looking for love makes about as much sense as an Ionesco play, and is far less entertaining.
That Julia at January 30, 2006 8:23 AM
> Let's just say they're
> in the minority
> You don't have to drag
> the government...
> makes about as much sense
> as an Ionesco play
(Jesus Christ, how did these women get so fucking cynical? And why am I, a Bitter Bachelor with Blind Date Gallantry Ribbons, Awkward Travel Partner Citations and Oak Leaf Cluster, compelled to argue the point? Whatever. We're not here to amuse ourselves... Let's get on with it. Start with PJ about government.)
Liberals say government is a profound expression of who we are. (This makes good Republicans cry, and it doesn't always apply overseas but it's true here.) Government's the best possible agency by which to certify that your coupling is a serious, bankable venture. You could probably just tell your friends that you've picked a favorite, but it wouldn't be the same. State certification is an older expression, from the days before Blockbuster cards, of the mutual responsibilities between individuals (or couples) and the state... Be Kind, Rewind, and Take Care of Your Goddamn Spouse.
America is freaky because it's so tidy and rewarding that people attribute their success to their own natural excellence, when actually it's ALL about boundaries. The people who do best in it are the ones who respond to those pressures most closely, if not consciously. Didja read that piece about the children's clown in DC the other week? Highly recommended:
http://tinyurl.com/9qucu
Consider the parents of his audience. The wealthy suburbs of Washington are full of people who we wouldn't like very much. But when they decide that birthday kids deserve this or that, the kids get it. To drop the ball on such a thing is just NOT DONE. These pressures seem to improve them.
Two favorite essays on the fantasy that we're independent renegades in a world of conformists:
http://tinyurl.com/97fsw
http://tinyurl.com/arhod
Meanwhile, back to Amy's post: Most marriages fail because insane expectations are brought to them, not because human nature makes productive pairing impossible. If we were better people, we'd marry better. Telling people they shouldn't marry because they probably won't make it is like telling them to stay unemployed because they'll never be Bill Gates. Don't you wish everyone was rich? Poverty shouldn't be a source of pride per se.
Yes, this is blowhard commentary. Take it out of the February account.
Crid at January 30, 2006 12:24 PM
I recognize a difference between cynicism and taking things lightly. I wish I could recommend a good tranquilizer for Crid. And, for the record, I haven't said that love is impossible; I have realized that a search for it need not play a huge part in my life.
There I crave permission to leave the matter.
That Julia at January 30, 2006 2:04 PM
Denied!
No! NO!!
Crid at January 30, 2006 2:20 PM
Not being a rich man myself, I don't put much stock in the opinions of the wealthy or super rich when it comes to issues of marriage, relationships or commitments. Rich people become bored way-too-easily.
Consider generations before ours, when grandmom and granddad celebrated anniversaries for their entire lives while watching their children and us divorce, re-marry and divorce again. Sometimes so often that to them, it seemed obscene. In their day, they didn't have anything except each other and their children. Family meant something then.
The truth is...unless your watching "The Sopranos," by our generation's standards, marriage, family and commitment mean absolutely zilch when you get right down to it.
I married because I truly loved my wife. Truly and deeply. Maybe I had co-dependency issues, or worse yet, abandment issues. I was a state raised child.
I hung in there continually, even when she fucked around with other guys, then came back to me crying, "I'm sorry, I don't know what made me do it, I was drunk, I'll never do it again." Over and over and over.
I thought things would change if I worked harder, made more money, provided a better lifestyle, bought her nice things ie. new car, new house, great neighborhood, and trust, even when she repeatedly betrayed that trust.
Now I suffer from trust and betrayal issues...to say nothing of the fact that now, she even alienates my children from me. In other words, even when she fucked around, it was my fault because I wasn't 'handling my business at home.'
Now I'm the one in therapy to help me not be jaded about relationships. Ain't THAT a bitch?!
Anyway, you've got a great site here. Next time I'll comment on something allot more positive.
Masculiste at January 30, 2006 9:53 PM
While I sympathize with you for the hard time you're going through, the best thing you could possibly do is blame yourself. "Huh?" you're thinking. You have to look at who you're with -- before you're with them, and while you're with them -- and be willing to see the truth and act on it. Very few people are willing to live with their eyes open, because it seems easier not to. In the short right, that might be the case. A book recommendation: The Art Of Living Consciously, by Nathaniel Branden. (On my book links page, or pretty easy to find in stores.) You were betrayed by your own wishful thinking, first and foremost. Cold as that might seem for me to say, by taking responsibility for what you allow in your life, and what you keep in it, you might be able to avoid a situation like this the next time around. There's nothing wrong with being "jaded" about relationships. Very few people are ethical and fine. If you admit that, you might have half a chance of finding one who is.
Amy Alkon at January 30, 2006 10:59 PM
"... by our generation's standards, marriage, family and commitment mean absolutely zilch when you get right down to it"
My mother (who is fundie religious) is always saying this type of thing, usually to "prove" that the world is circling the proverbial bowl, that we will obviously destroy ourselves without God's intervention, and so isn't it nice that Armageddon is just around the corner. But I'll try to stifle my kneejerk "fist of death" reaction anyway. ;-)
As for what this means to me, well, I've never wanted children. By "never wanted" I mean I've always been dead set against it. I realize this is unusual, but I had several role models at a young age who were childfree. Two of these role models were women who didn't want children, and they were both beautiful, exciting, enviable women who had interesting lives and a lot going for them. In both cases, they ended up having children anyway, and it ended up (in both cases) being the worst decision they'd ever made. I realized that I definitely did not want children and that I was not going to make the same mistakes they did.
So with that in mind, I figured I might not end up getting married either, since when you weed out the men who want kids you are down to a much smaller pool. When I got older and got interested in libertarian stuff, I read Harry Browne's essay against marriage and began to see it as a purely legal form. (I'm an atheist, so the religious aspect has no meaning to me.) When I looked at it from a critical point of view, I couldn't really see any advantages to it, at least, not until I am in my 60's - then there could be some legal advantages. So at the end of the day, I decided I wasn't really interested in getting married either.
As far as commitments go, I am monogamous with my boyfriend, I get to work on time every day, and every time I can't make it to bowling league I find a substitute. When I dogsit for my friends, I take scrupulous care of their pets. So hey, at least I'm reliable! But in all honesty, aside from taking care of myself, which isn't too hard, I really don't have a lot of responsibilities or commitments, but then again, so what? Is that hurting anyone?
When godless heathens like me turn away from the traditional path of marriage and children, is it killing any puppies or taking away anyone's birthday? Does anything bad happen? Is somebody getting ripped off or shortchanged because Pirate Jo isn't getting married or having kids? Is anyone worse off because I'm just a happy dork, lying in the periwinkle with the sun on my nose, enjoying my life and getting away with it, not caring whether my genes are passed on or whether I am "chosen" by some guy?
As Amy has pointed out, the reasons for marriage have changed, and there are a lot more divorces. With all the things to experience and do in the world, having kids doesn't even rank that high up the list in terms of personal satisfaction. So if that means fewer people want to get married and have children - well, maybe that's not a bad idea! I certainly have no regrets.
Pirate Jo at January 31, 2006 1:07 PM
PJ: If boyfriend fucks up, meet me for coffee
Crid at January 31, 2006 3:10 PM
Leave a comment