Novaseeker on a story featured in Oprah's magazine:

Actually I expect that the guy would lose more if divorced, hence why he is "agreeing", reluctantly, to what Jean Morgan effectively crammed down his throat here. As a quasi-SAHM, she will win, and win huge, in divorce. Family court viciously, absolutely viciously, punishes men who had wives who stayed at home or scaled back work (as Morgan suggests she did here, based on his income) in order to make time for child-raising. That’s a "favor" he did her that the state will make him dearly pay for forever, essentially, given that they were married 20+ years. So, he’s basically stuck between a rock and a hard place: he can get divorced, in which he will probably end up living in an apartment while the house is sold to redistribute the equity, and she gets what she wants (and probably more) anyway, or he can agree to this non-divorce divorce and live in the same house while his wife continues to draw on the joint assets and finances and remains "amicable" with him. On balance, he’s probably better off in the latter case, financially, even though it’s utterly emasculating. The family law doesn’t give him good choices.

Morals of the story: (1) never in a billion years have a stay at home wife unless you’re willing to support her financially until you die and (2) realize that in this culture, once your usefulness as a nest-husband has evaporated, don’t expect your wife to want to stick around — she can and will do what she wants, and depending on how your marriage works financially, you may have pretty much no good options at that point in your life.

All of this really just points out the inequitable nature of no fault divorce. As with adultery, a spouse who doesn’t do anything "wrong" still gets punished if the other spouse simply gets bored, as long as the bored spouse is the one who earned less money. It’s an insane, immoral system.