I agree with you that women should never stop having their career. The only person you can be sure will stand by you at the end of the day is you.

Anne, New York, NY,

So guys - you should all expose yourself to potential financial, emotional and psychological destruction in a divorce court just so Kate won't think you're "shallow and simple".

Can anyone think of one single advantage to a man in being married? You can get love and sex outside marriage. Being married provides next to no protection for your relationship with your children post-divorce. Cooking and cleaning are cheap to buy. So unless your wife earns more money than you, you stand to lose out severely if she gets tired of you. She'll keep the house and the kids. You'll end up in a bedsit somewhere on the other side of the tracks financing it all. You'll see the kids every other weekend - and that's if you're one of the lucky ones.

Someone please tell me...what is the benefit of marriage to men that offsets this risk? And given that 50% of men end up divorced, it's much too big a risk to just ignore.

Please, someone explain why men should even think about doing this any more?

David , London, UK

Having read the comments fromthe majority of men, I'm genuinely shocked. The comments seem incredibly shallow and simple, and focused on financial gain.

Since when were the sexes at war? It's sad when any relationship breaks down, and heartbreaking that one partner should be left destitute or struggling at the hands of another - be they male or female.

I wonder how much money Harry might owe Anna if her role had been broken down as nanny, chef, housekeeper, cleaner etc....

kate, London,

Ummm...what about the Dad who ends up bringing up a single daughter alone? When the Mum opts out of the joys of Planet Mummy-dom?

Anybody out there got a teenage daughter? Especially one that's bright, witty, sharp, talented, gifted, gorgeous, mature & funny? Well let me tell you, Folks, that is one angry teenager to look forward to meeting!

The ones who never get a good press or a tax break are single Dads; we are both ostracized and unempowered - you never heard of a competent single Dad...did you?

As for Rory Anderson: the relevant "female point of view" is surely the daughter's, not the Mum's. The relevant opposite male point of view involves dignity in the face of the impossible, not carping pseudo-feminism.

Think about it, Folks: it ain't easy being a single Dad. No complaints, but not easy.

Cris, Bracknell, UK

Harry needs a better lawyer !
He can do better than that on money & kids !
But the article is correct on one point - the woman who gives up work to look after kids without benefit of a marriage certificate is no better than a disposable concubine - and on separation if the kids prefer the monied lifestyle of dad to her penury she may lose them too .
Married men - support your wives' careers with lots of childcare !
Unmarried women - keep working or refuse to have kids ( preferably both ) !
It would really be better to have some system which imposes rights & duties of childcare & financial responsibility on both parents .
Of course that would mean kids could never be looked after by mum at home fulltime - the greatest modern luxury !
Penny Raby ( family lawyer )

penny raby, pershore, uk

How very sad that none of your comentators have looked at the problem from the female point of view. She has either given up her job to bear his children, or is it their children? Instead of a, possibly, rewarding and interesting job, she has remained at home to be a nanny and housekeeper of his house for him at little or no wage (or is it their home?) instead of creating her own asset base. If the relationship breaks down, she is expected either to leave their home with or without the children and to face the charge that it is unfair to him if she asks for, let alone gets, a sum to enable her to have some form of life.
Their are 2 problems. Income and capital. As far as capital is concerned, any long-term partnership should have the house transferred into joint names, posibly protecting by agreement the equity at the start of the relationship. Income is always difficult. Pray.

Rory Anderson, London, UK

"Don't have children if he won't marry you".

You must be joking.

It's the women who are desperate for children.

Better advice would be for the men:

"Don't get trapped into marriage by a sperm bandit!"

Chris, Wokingham, England

Good God, I've never read such cynicism.

Women are not all gold diggers. Some of us really do want to marry for love - and we're even worth committing to. We're beautiful and loving, but also educated, independent and pay our own way in life. But if it all goes wrong someday, we'll be able to fend for ourselves AND look after the children, thank you very much.
My mother had a stable career, raised and provided for me, without asking my father for a penny after they divorced. She kept things amicable with him for my sake - oh, and eventually met and married a wonderful man. So I've been brought up to believe in love but make sure I can take care of myself.

Have a little faith, we're not all out to fleece you!

Angharad, Cardiff,

I think the moral of 'Anna's story' isn't to protect yourself against the fallout of a horrid relationhsip with a horrid man, but, rather, to ensure you are with a decent man to begin with.

Johanna, London,

I love it when a female columnist goes off on a rant about how bad men are and how women should always be prepared for the day when the relationship breaks down.

Her tirade has the effect of reminding men never to get married or get tied down by a female -- because the female will always be looking to leech every penny off the poor sucker when she decides it's all over. (It's almost always the 'she' who calls an end to marriage.)

Marriage is a trap for men, that's why we're avoiding it. Men didn't start the sex war but we sure look like we're winning it!

Mark Adams, London, UK

If wealthy men are stupid enough to
a) marry women who are only after their money; and
b) if aware of a), do not get a prenup agreement (thought not binding in the UK, the court will still consider it)
then they deserve to lost half their money, and it is highly unfair and totally ridiculous that other non-golddigging women and their children should suffer because of it.

As for woman: if he refuses to marry you, leave him. "Common law" marriage does not exist. You do not get any special rights just living with someone. Marriage is the only thing that provides legal protection.

Lisa, London,

The possibility of divorce is a risk in marriage. It's a risk for both men and women. However, 70% of divorces are initiated by women, suggesting the downside risk for men is greater. Perhaps this is why men are reluctant to marry - they can see a fairly high probablility that their wife will give them the boot some years down the line when she gets sick of him leaving the toilet seat up and farting in the morning.

Dave, London, uk

Actually Heather Mills is providing a very useful public service to all young men - i.e. alerting them to how marriage & its subsequent (high-probabilty) failure could well be the ruin of them. So bravo to Heather. The problem is not the high-profile of divorces featuring enormous sums to seemingly pampered wives - it's rather the rules from which those settlements are dervied in the first place - not just financial but also in relation to child custody.

Karl 22, Auckland, New Zealand

Took a couple of wives, a gaggle of children, and maturity accompanying getting older to discover the secret of senior male happiness--a comfortable income, interesting hobbies, a first class laundry service, a house cleaner whose English isn't good enough to hold conversations, and no girl friends.

Apparently younger men are smarter than I was at their age. Was raised to believe in the romantic love I-promised-you-a-rose garden delusion, a prescription drug for endless wifely dissatisfaction.

It's sure a man's world today freed of the social pressure to marry along with sex being a drug on the market!

MARK KLEIN, M.D., Oakland, CA

I sympathise with Anna. Now consider what happens if they were married:

She gets the kids. She gets the house. She gets maintenance from the CSA. She gets a share of his pension. It's not guaranteed, but face it, it's the norm.

They bought the house for £100,000. It's now worth £200,000. She gets £100,000 of equity. He can't afford to buy again with prices at £200,000.

Harry is left with no house, no equity, no way to ever get back onto the housing ladder. Any savings or investments will also have been split. He might see his kids every other weekend, even if he can afford to rent somewhere to take them. He could even still be paying the mortgage.

He will work the rest of his life still putting towards his pension that his ex-wife will benefit from. He will pay the CSA 20% of his salary, despite any lump sum of cash and equity handed to his ex-wife.

Paul McCartney has it easy. Even if he gives her £100 million, he still has everything he needs. Harry is destroyed!

Jon , Winchester, UK

I worked in the credit's collection department recently. It opened my eyes, to see the other side of the world full of Debt among civilians. Maybe it was myself trasfering from banking, where only people with $ to invest or send come, to the collection division where only people with debt come to consult. Having kids, being married can be a bit of being caged in a prison or something. I surely thought of myself be careful! never ever going to the same shoes of debters!

Joti, Tokyo, Japan