[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
There is no such thing as an amicable divorce.[/quote]
Amicable divorces are rare, but they do happen. My parents were happily divorced for 11 years before remarrying in '95.
From the horror stories I’ve heard, I will never get married without a prenup.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
There is no such thing as an amicable divorce.
Amicable divorces are rare, but they do happen. My parents were happily divorced for 11 years before remarrying in '95.
From the horror stories I’ve heard, I will never get married without a prenup.[/quote]
Well then your parents’ was the exception that proves the rule.
I somehow doubt they were “happily” divorcing as it is quite an emotional and stressful time.
There is a saying that in criminal cases you see bad people at their best, and in family law cases you see good people at their worst.
I highly doubt divorce laws will ever become fair to both parties in our life-time. So the only obtainable solution is to never become legally married. Go ahead and have a wedding/ceremony just don’t make it legal.
A lot of women will bitch and moan “if you love me then you’d marry me”. Which has about as much standing as “if you loved me you’d buy a bigger diamond for my engagement ring”. If people truly love each other and want to spend their lives together you don’t need the government getting involved and hand you a paper stating “they lub each others lots hugs kisses”.
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
I highly doubt divorce laws will ever become fair to both parties in our life-time. So the only obtainable solution is to never become legally married. Go ahead and have a wedding/ceremony just don’t make it legal.
A lot of women will bitch and moan “if you love me then you’d marry me”. Which has about as much standing as “if you loved me you’d buy a bigger diamond for my engagement ring”. If people truly love each other and want to spend their lives together you don’t need the government getting involved and hand you a paper stating “they lub each others lots hugs kisses”.[/quote]
I get the impression that men always think they get the short end of the stick, but usually they are the ones going home to clean clothes, a clean house, children that are taken care of and a cook, a mother and a lover. Not that men don’t contribute, but for the majority, women do contribute more hours and have more of an emotional investment in the caring of the home and family.
This isn’t always the case, so if you men are reading this and getting irked, then it doesn’t mean you, and good for you.
But there is also the saying, “A man may work from sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.”
Folks who feel there is nothing good about marriage and that it is an undue financial and emotional burden with nothing in return, shouldn’t get married. Hire a maid, a cook, a babysitter and date your fuck buddy.
Marriage is a unique partnership which is why there is such contention regarding the dissolution, or in fact, the legality of what constitutes a marriage.
I guess after seeing my dad divorce 4 times, marriage doesn’t seem to hot to me. I would never even consider creating the chance for half my assets to be taken away. I told my mom the other day that there was a good chance I would never be married, and she freaked out. I’m not sure why marriage is such a big deal to women. I highly doubt it is because they are actually religious. It’s kind of lame when your only time ever spent in a church is during your baptism and your marriage.
Frank Burns said it best, “I’ll kill her before I divorce her.”
Wood chipper!
Frank Burns said it best, “I’ll kill her before I divorce her.”
Wood chipper!
she gets the gun before she gets half
[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I guess after seeing my dad divorce 4 times, marriage doesn’t seem to hot to me. I would never even consider creating the chance for half my assets to be taken away. I told my mom the other day that there was a good chance I would never be married, and she freaked out. I’m not sure why marriage is such a big deal to women. I highly doubt it is because they are actually religious. It’s kind of lame when your only time ever spent in a church is during your baptism and your marriage. [/quote]
I agree for the most part. Marriage is seen as a status symbol to some degree. This is why so many rush into it when they’ve only known each other for less than a year.
I don’t even understand doing this today without a pre-nupt…unless the guy is dead broke and she is the one with the bank account.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I guess after seeing my dad divorce 4 times, marriage doesn’t seem to hot to me. I would never even consider creating the chance for half my assets to be taken away. I told my mom the other day that there was a good chance I would never be married, and she freaked out. I’m not sure why marriage is such a big deal to women. I highly doubt it is because they are actually religious. It’s kind of lame when your only time ever spent in a church is during your baptism and your marriage.
I agree for the most part. Marriage is seen as a status symbol to some degree. This is why so many rush into it when they’ve only known each other for less than a year.
I don’t even understand doing this today without a pre-nupt…unless the guy is dead broke and she is the one with the bank account.[/quote]
In my case we both started as poor college pukes. Lived together for 7 years before marrying for 10 more. Prenup would have been a BIG joke. What was I gonna write in that I got to keep my comics, old love letters?
Now today, I still would not go with a prenup. To me that shows you are not in it for the long haul…BUY…BUT…if I had serious bank, then maybe.
Can a prenup include “YOU GET NOTHING IF YOU CHEAT?”
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I guess after seeing my dad divorce 4 times, marriage doesn’t seem to hot to me. I would never even consider creating the chance for half my assets to be taken away. I told my mom the other day that there was a good chance I would never be married, and she freaked out. I’m not sure why marriage is such a big deal to women. I highly doubt it is because they are actually religious. It’s kind of lame when your only time ever spent in a church is during your baptism and your marriage.
I agree for the most part. Marriage is seen as a status symbol to some degree. This is why so many rush into it when they’ve only known each other for less than a year.
I don’t even understand doing this today without a pre-nupt…unless the guy is dead broke and she is the one with the bank account.
In my case we both started as poor college pukes. Lived together for 7 years before marrying for 10 more. Prenup would have been a BIG joke. What was I gonna write in that I got to keep my comics, old love letters?
Now today, I still would not go with a prenup. To me that shows you are not in it for the long haul…BUY…BUT…if I had serious bank, then maybe.
Can a prenup include “YOU GET NOTHING IF YOU CHEAT?”
[/quote]
I think it can.
Also, I can completely understand if your girl has been there from the beginning and stuck with you through it all. Then I could see ignoring a pre-nupt. However, at this point, I think it would be silly to do that.
I think getting the government involved in marriage is just stupid.
And if you think men aren’t getting the raw deal… Paul McCartney anyone?
There is nothing good about marriage when one party has a pretty sweet deal to break the contract. Assets accrued during the course of the marriage should be split in two.
Alimony makes no sense to me either. Can someone explain that one to me?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Folks who feel there is nothing good about marriage and that it is an undue financial and emotional burden with nothing in return, shouldn’t get married. Hire a maid, a cook, a babysitter and date your fuck buddy.[/quote]
Alternatively, they could follow that whole “til death do you part” schtick. Men and women.
EDIT: That doesn’t include murder. Or hiring assassins. Unless they’re ninjas.
Ninjas.
Awesome.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I think getting the government involved in marriage is just stupid.
And if you think men aren’t getting the raw deal… Paul McCartney anyone?
There is nothing good about marriage when one party has a pretty sweet deal to break the contract. Assets accrued during the course of the marriage should be split in two.
Alimony makes no sense to me either. Can someone explain that one to me?
OctoberGirl wrote:
Folks who feel there is nothing good about marriage and that it is an undue financial and emotional burden with nothing in return, shouldn’t get married. Hire a maid, a cook, a babysitter and date your fuck buddy.
Alternatively, they could follow that whole “til death do you part” schtick. Men and women.
EDIT: That doesn’t include murder. Or hiring assassins. Unless they’re ninjas.
Ninjas.
Awesome.[/quote]
I do love it when you guys start these “why women are evil” threads.
In many cases during a marriage when there are children the wife may have to quit her job in order to take care of the child. This means she is out of the work force, not accruing retirement savings, experience, or being available for opportunities. Alimony is often used to offset this circumstance. Sometimes a spouse is asked to quit the job to be available to a spouse who may want a house-spouse. Again, this means the spouse is not accruing retirement savings, experience or job opportunities.
I hate adding that I actually don’t care one way or the other. Becareful who you marry. I just think you guys need to get over the victim mentality. A woman faces more obstacles on a career path then men do sometimes just because it is the fertile years, and women do get paid less on the dollar than men. Perhaps it shouldn’t be the burden of men to step up because a woman may be out of the job market due to birth and child rearing but what is the solution? Should women be poorer due to the biology of being the woman?
I dunno… it is just exasperating that you men think women are just using you for money. Do you average joes really think you would be worth it?
and if you are so outraged, get off your butts and do something. Call your representative, start a petition, call your CongressMAN, get a bill initiated, go on fella, the system is yours to work with.
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should also only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I think getting the government involved in marriage is just stupid.
And if you think men aren’t getting the raw deal… Paul McCartney anyone?
There is nothing good about marriage when one party has a pretty sweet deal to break the contract. Assets accrued during the course of the marriage should be split in two.
Alimony makes no sense to me either. Can someone explain that one to me?
OctoberGirl wrote:
Folks who feel there is nothing good about marriage and that it is an undue financial and emotional burden with nothing in return, shouldn’t get married. Hire a maid, a cook, a babysitter and date your fuck buddy.
Alternatively, they could follow that whole “til death do you part” schtick. Men and women.
EDIT: That doesn’t include murder. Or hiring assassins. Unless they’re ninjas.
Ninjas.
Awesome.
I do love it when you guys start these “why women are evil” threads.
In many cases during a marriage when there are children the wife may have to quit her job in order to take care of the child. This means she is out of the work force, not accruing retirement savings, experience, or being available for opportunities. Alimony is often used to offset this circumstance. Sometimes a spouse is asked to quit the job to be available to a spouse who may want a house-spouse. Again, this means the spouse is not accruing retirement savings, experience or job opportunities.
I hate adding that I actually don’t care one way or the other. Becareful who you marry. I just think you guys need to get over the victim mentality. A woman faces more obstacles on a career path then men do sometimes just because it is the fertile years, and women do get paid less on the dollar than men. Perhaps it shouldn’t be the burden of men to step up because a woman may be out of the job market due to birth and child rearing but what is the solution? Should women be poorer due to the biology of being the woman?
I dunno… it is just exasperating that you men think women are just using you for money. Do you average joes really think you would be worth it?
and if you are so outraged, get off your butts and do something. Call your representative, start a petition, call your CongressMAN, get a bill initiated, go on fella, the system is yours to work with.
[/quote]
That’s why it should be a case-by-case determination. A woman who is raising the children, especially if she had a career the couple decided she should give up to do so, is making much more of a contribution to the marriage [and the family] than a woman in a childless marriage who doesn’t worked, never worked, never wanted to work, and does little else besides.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that. [/quote]
But the Courts aren’t determining what constitutes cheating, as I think you know??? Some folks have an open marriage but what if one wants a change? Is flirting cheating? Are you going to legislate whether cheating is only intercourse or are you going to include oral or what about aural sex, or text sex?
And, heaven forbid, what if someone lies and says their spouse cheated? Folks lie about conduct during a disso.
I dunno… this is what makes marriage so unique.
Courts do take cases as a case by case basis.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.
But the Courts aren’t determining what constitutes cheating, as I think you know??? Some folks have an open marriage but what if one wants a change? Is flirting cheating? Are you going to legislate whether is intercourse or are you going to include oral or what about aural sex?
And, heaven forbid, what if someone lies and says their spouse cheated? Folks lie about conduct during a disso.
I dunno… this is what makes marriage so unique.
Courts do take cases as a case by case basis.
[/quote]
It’s cheating if it violated the understanding the couple had. At least if it violates the understanding going into the marriage. That’s an issue of proof and fact-intensive inquiry. But that’s what courts do.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I guess after seeing my dad divorce 4 times, marriage doesn’t seem to hot to me. I would never even consider creating the chance for half my assets to be taken away. I told my mom the other day that there was a good chance I would never be married, and she freaked out. I’m not sure why marriage is such a big deal to women. I highly doubt it is because they are actually religious. It’s kind of lame when your only time ever spent in a church is during your baptism and your marriage.
I agree for the most part. Marriage is seen as a status symbol to some degree. This is why so many rush into it when they’ve only known each other for less than a year.
I don’t even understand doing this today without a pre-nupt…unless the guy is dead broke and she is the one with the bank account.
In my case we both started as poor college pukes. Lived together for 7 years before marrying for 10 more. Prenup would have been a BIG joke. What was I gonna write in that I got to keep my comics, old love letters?
Now today, I still would not go with a prenup. To me that shows you are not in it for the long haul…BUY…BUT…if I had serious bank, then maybe.
Can a prenup include “YOU GET NOTHING IF YOU CHEAT?”
[/quote]
Yes. It can.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I agree with whoever said it said if the spouse is an active supporter and a true partner to the prime financial earner, it’s appropriate. It should be on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket determination. This might make divorces take longer and be more complicated but they are often so messy and intensive anyway that it shouldn’t really matter. I think that kind of alimony should only be available in no-fault, irreconcilable difference divorces too. The spouse who is at fault [ie. cheated or something] shouldn’t be able to get that.
But the Courts aren’t determining what constitutes cheating, as I think you know??? Some folks have an open marriage but what if one wants a change? Is flirting cheating? Are you going to legislate whether is intercourse or are you going to include oral or what about aural sex?
And, heaven forbid, what if someone lies and says their spouse cheated? Folks lie about conduct during a disso.
I dunno… this is what makes marriage so unique.
Courts do take cases as a case by case basis.
It’s cheating if it violated the understanding the couple had. At least if it violates the understanding going into the marriage. That’s an issue of proof and fact-intensive inquiry. But that’s what courts do.[/quote]
That would be true if it weren’t marriage which the Courts assume will evolve and change according to the lives and directions of the partners. This again… makes marriage unique. How do you quantify love. What if I say, my spouse doesn’t love me enough. I am going to sue. Is the Court going to decide, “yes he does” or is the Court going to say, “he has failed in his obligation” you win.
How do you prove love? Maybe you can prove infidelity but again that is subject to the understandings of the parties which during the course of the marriage will change as a marriage is a living contract, constantly evolving.
See… this is why I got out of family law. There is no bad guy usually. Just folks in a bad situation.
My wife makes serious coin; otherwise, I would never gotten married.
Women want to trap men into a marriage, pop out a couple of babies, and play mom - which means hiring a nanny, shopping all day, and driving a Range Rover.
For most men, marriage is a total scam. But it’s something men fall for.
Women can be really deceitful. So it’s a slow process how you get stuck. First, the girl is like, “We’re always together. It’s silly we pay two rents.”
Being a man, you fall for the logical argument and move in together. But then it’s one “logical” move after another until you’re stuck.
The end game is them having babies and not working. If you recognize this, as a man, you’ll be ahead of the game.
I’m actually happily married; but I made sure I found one who makes as much or more than I make; and who will want to continue working, even if we do have children.
If your wife makes as much as you do, you can’t get taken to the cleaners during a divorce. If your wife doesn’t, your financial life is in ruins from a divorce.
Oh, and if you have kids that you love. LOL! They will be pawns in a divorce battle. You won’t get to see them, even if your wife is a total piece of shit. The law favors women. It’s astounding, and most men cannot even understand what is happening to them in divorce court. It’s that unfair.
And, as a criminal guy, I’ve seen more than a few cases where the mom puts their kids up to falsely accusing their dads of child abuse or sex abuse in order to extort a greater divorce settlement. Think your kid would never do that? Oh, believe me, I’ve seen a Father of the Year type accused of this. (And the kid later admitted the whole thing was a lie her mom put him up to.)
Talk to some lawyers. Most will tell you they will NEVER do family law. The women involved in family law are so disgusting. I would rather represent O.J. Simpson than the average female divorcee.
Again, if you think I’m jaded or whatever, ask around. No need to take my word for it, lol.