[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Really? I’m sorry to hear that Steely. Not long ago I offered the same to my banker and he was all for it…
[/quote]
That must be one of the banks that went under because of poor lending practices.
Or, unless you mean when you said ‘love’ you meant ‘blow job’.[/quote]
Well…yes. It was meant to be a joke. A sex joke. Was it not funny?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Really? I’m sorry to hear that Steely. Not long ago I offered the same to my banker and he was all for it…
[/quote]
That must be one of the banks that went under because of poor lending practices.
Or, unless you mean when you said ‘love’ you meant ‘blow job’.[/quote]
Well…yes. It was meant to be a joke. A sex joke. Was it not funny?
[/quote]
Blowjobs always make me smile.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess no one wants to discuss the topic when pesky facts get in the way.
[/quote]
Sorry man, I just can’t have a serious discussion with your hair like that.
All I can add is, 3 out of 4 women marry for money over love, and soul glo has been proven to attract gold diggers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]dianab wrote:
Was the topic the choice to get a pre-nuptial agreement or to bash marriage?
[/quote]
Wait…so even though from the very beginning HIGHER INCOME HUSBANDS GETTING DIVORCED FROM WIVES WITH WAY LESS INCOME was distinguished, you and others still thought this thread was made to bash all marriage?
How does that even make sense to you?
The issue has always been wives taking more from husbands during a divorce especially when the guy is pulling in way more money.
This has now been proven through the history of the law itself, the experiences of several people on this site, and clear knowledge that men pay way more to women nationwide during a divorce.
The point was also that this woman has no problem tarnishing her children’s father’s name even further all while claiming that same publicity caused her HELL.
This was all explained in much detail…so why did you have such a problem following?
Most of the people responding do NOT make that much more than their spouse yet they keep arguing.
[/quote]
So, if two people meet in college, graduate with the same degree and have similar earning power for a couple of years then have children, she stays home for the next 15 or 20 years raising them (as a mutual choice) while he continues to grow his career, they divorce and she should get nothing?
I’m not universally in favor of alimony. If it’s been a short marriage, if she’s maintained her career, if she destroyed the marriage (I hate the ‘no fault’ shit) then I say no. In an ideal world there is a place for alimony.
[quote]on edge wrote:
So, if two people meet in college, graduate with the same degree and have similar earning power for a couple of years then have children, she stays home for the next 15 or 20 years raising them (as a mutual choice) while he continues to grow his career, they divorce and she should get nothing?
I’m not universally in favor of alimony. If it’s been a short marriage, if she’s maintained her career, if she destroyed the marriage (I hate the ‘no fault’ shit) then I say no. In an ideal world there is a place for alimony.
[/quote]
Reading comprehension.
This was written by me on the previous page:
See there where I mentioned stay at home wives?
The problem is, just like with those NFL players, many women ARE in it for the money and will tell you whatever it takes to get hitched. A marriage with someone like that will doubtfully last 20 years because their plan is to bail at the first sign of anything that will get them some money in a divorce.
You see, that is the main reason I keep mentioning income, because most of you are not making enough to experience that from women yet you think your experiences are the same.
It doesn’t matter if you aren’t a fan of alimony. Without that prenupt, chances are great you will be paying it no matter what if you make significantly more…and like was said, some of these women can remarry 10 times and pull the same shit.
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
I haven’t had time to read this entire thread but I get the jist.
I’m not married, haven’t been and don’t intend to be.
I believe that the laws which are so heavily in the woman’s favor need to be reformed asap, I’ve seen tons of my friends screwed over children.
Time to throw the cat amongst the pigeons LOL
Here’s some facts taken from ‘the professional bachelor’ by Dr Brett Tate (the asset protection chapter)
Fact: the NFL had to give players deception training to stop money grabbing whores getting into their wallets by suing them for rape after sex, for getting 'accidently pregnant after a one night stand etc
Fact: there were 1,182,000 divorces in the US in 2001, approximately 45 billion dollars were transfered from men to women (more than any other industry, and divorce sure is an industry, plenty of women will never have to work after a divorce, nor did they work during their marriage and can continue to remarry and divorce at will.
Fact: women initiated 75% of these divorces
Does ANYONE KNOW a man who has left a divorce with more than he went in with?
Let the flaming begin… [/quote]
Hey there Budda =)
I used to work in a Family Law firm and yes, I do know of a circumstance where a woman was being asked to pay for a husband during divorce proceedings.
Actually, there have been famous cases of this, Liz Taylor, the writer of “Stella Got Her Groove Back” Terry McMillan, and Zsa Zsa Gabor. Just off the top of my head.
In regards to personal experience, I was working on a case where the woman was a CFO of a very large corporation and her husband was an artist (not a good artist). The husband waited until 10 years and 6 months to file for divorce. This made the marriage a marriage “of long duration” in California. This means the lower wage earning spouse is entitled to alimony until death or remarriage. The even uglier thing about this situation is the husband told the wife that he was gay, always had been gay, and his best friend (who they had been giving money to pay rent) was actually his lover. We were going for something different than divorce. We were hoping for an annulment based on fraud. I unfortunately left that law firm before that all finished out but I sure hope she got her annulment. The husband wanted $10,0000 a month.
Also in regards to modern alimony, many times it is based on marital debt. It amazes me that people will spend as much as they make or more, no matter how much they make. So in a divorce, many times the debts are split. Sometimes spouses are awarded specific debts, but sometimes it is split down the middle. Now imagine you have been a housewife for 15 years, not working, raising kids and suddenly you are divorced and you need to be paying out $2000.00 or more a month in credit card debt alone. You haven’t worked, you have no recent job history, you need first and last month’s rent and you have to pay for day care. So just to put it out there, many times alimony is based on the couples debt. So many people are stupid with money.
This thread is so goofy. The title is inflammatory and doesn’t actually lend to what Prof X was tying to discuss at least from what he says.
If you want to discuss a prenup, use that as the title. “Tiger Poster Boy for Prenup.” tah daaaah
Tiger was an adult man, a big boy, who entered into a contract with counsel and was fully aware of the repercussions. Tiger is an idiot. I am not going to say whether or not she deserves the money because that is not the issue. It isn’t. The issue is, Tiger entered into a contract with counsel, voluntarily, fully aware of his own predilections. Tiger agreed to this. Tiger agreed to paying her this money. Why should anyone else care?
For all you that keep banging on the court system, they actually are getting up to speed. They are even taking in to account if a divorced spouse is living with a lover instead of marrying in order to keep getting alimony. I have worked Family Law. I gotta tell yah, most of the men did not want the kids. They only wanted them when they found out they would have to pay more in child support. THEN, then they wanted the kids 50% of the time. And then they usually left the kids on weekends with their parents or with some girlfriend most of the time. I am not saying all the men did this, but really… most of them did. They did not want the hassle of getting kids up for school, fixing meals, doing laundry, doing homework, and being a private chauffeur for their kids.
So, this is a muddled thread but men need to stop thinking they are victims. Tiger made this decision as a big boy. Get over it.
Also, to whoever wrote that if the man owns the home prior to marriage the wife has no entitlement, yes and no. If the house is owned free and clear, yes to some extent. If the house is being paid by mortgage, yes to some extent.
Really did your lawyer friend not explain this to you?
Ask him about co-mingling of community funds in payment for what was a separate property, including repairs, additions, or restorations. If both spouses are paying into an account that is used to pay mortgage or for work on the house, you better ask your lawyer friend to hit the books.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Also, to whoever wrote that if the man owns the home prior to marriage the wife has no entitlement, yes and no. If the house is owned free and clear, yes to some extent. If the house is being paid by mortgage, yes to some extent.
Really did your lawyer friend not explain this to you?
Ask him about co-mingling of community funds in payment for what was a separate property, including repairs, additions, or restorations. If both spouses are paying into an account that is used to pay mortgage or for work on the house, you better ask your lawyer friend to hit the books.[/quote]
We spoke briefly, didn’t really go into detail. Also this is Canadian Law. He doesn’t need to “hit the books”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Also, to whoever wrote that if the man owns the home prior to marriage the wife has no entitlement, yes and no. If the house is owned free and clear, yes to some extent. If the house is being paid by mortgage, yes to some extent.
Really did your lawyer friend not explain this to you?
Ask him about co-mingling of community funds in payment for what was a separate property, including repairs, additions, or restorations. If both spouses are paying into an account that is used to pay mortgage or for work on the house, you better ask your lawyer friend to hit the books.[/quote]
We spoke briefly, didn’t really go into detail. Also this is Canadian Law. He doesn’t need to “hit the books”[/quote]
Well he does, or you do, if you are going to be posting how things “are” when they aren’t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
I haven’t had time to read this entire thread but I get the jist.
I’m not married, haven’t been and don’t intend to be.
I believe that the laws which are so heavily in the woman’s favor need to be reformed asap, I’ve seen tons of my friends screwed over children.
Time to throw the cat amongst the pigeons LOL
Here’s some facts taken from ‘the professional bachelor’ by Dr Brett Tate (the asset protection chapter)
Fact: the NFL had to give players deception training to stop money grabbing whores getting into their wallets by suing them for rape after sex, for getting 'accidently pregnant after a one night stand etc
Fact: there were 1,182,000 divorces in the US in 2001, approximately 45 billion dollars were transfered from men to women (more than any other industry, and divorce sure is an industry, plenty of women will never have to work after a divorce, nor did they work during their marriage and can continue to remarry and divorce at will.
Fact: women initiated 75% of these divorces
Does ANYONE KNOW a man who has left a divorce with more than he went in with?
Let the flaming begin… [/quote]
I guess no one wants to discuss the topic when pesky facts get in the way.
[/quote]
Here are some facts taken from Men’s Health, which helpfully cites its studies rather than simply stating “Fact:” which requires a leap of faith. I was under the impression that leaps of faith were not the done thing here in the anti-marriage poster boy thread, but I guess it depends whether the “facts” in question are of the satisfyingly negative sort or the other kind. But at any rate, facts:
Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.
Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.
Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.
Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.
Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.
Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
So, if two people meet in college, graduate with the same degree and have similar earning power for a couple of years then have children, she stays home for the next 15 or 20 years raising them (as a mutual choice) while he continues to grow his career, they divorce and she should get nothing?
I’m not universally in favor of alimony. If it’s been a short marriage, if she’s maintained her career, if she destroyed the marriage (I hate the ‘no fault’ shit) then I say no. In an ideal world there is a place for alimony.
[/quote]
Reading comprehension.
This was written by me on the previous page:
See there where I mentioned stay at home wives?
The problem is, just like with those NFL players, many women ARE in it for the money and will tell you whatever it takes to get hitched. A marriage with someone like that will doubtfully last 20 years because their plan is to bail at the first sign of anything that will get them some money in a divorce.
You see, that is the main reason I keep mentioning income, because most of you are not making enough to experience that from women yet you think your experiences are the same.
It doesn’t matter if you aren’t a fan of alimony. Without that prenupt, chances are great you will be paying it no matter what if you make significantly more…and like was said, some of these women can remarry 10 times and pull the same shit.[/quote]
Not reading comprehension. Do you think I catch every post on these pages? I’m glad you can make at least some concessions in your otherwise inflexible world.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Here are some facts taken from Men’s Health, which helpfully cites its studies rather than simply stating “Fact:” which requires a leap of faith. I was under the impression that leaps of faith were not the done thing here in the anti-marriage poster boy thread, but I guess it depends whether the “facts” in question are of the satisfyingly negative sort or the other kind. But at any rate, facts:
Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.
Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.
Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.
Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.
Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.
Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.
[/quote]
Yeah, the first two on the list were already discussed when I mentioned that society views public figures as having something wrong with them unless they are married. The same holds true in many job positions simply because we live in a society that views married people as being more “stable”…yet another reason why there needs to be change.
The rest need a lesson in correlation vs causation.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Not reading comprehension. Do you think I catch every post on these pages? I’m glad you can make at least some concessions in your otherwise inflexible world.[/quote]
??
What is “inflexible” about what has been written here? You are the one who keeps calling me out specifically over matters that have already been explained in detail. Why?
Why are you so focused on me and not the topic?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
I’d also like to say I don’t see what’s so hard about loving someone. I don’t mean faking it, I mean genuinely loving them. I mentioned I’ve have 7 long term relationships and I’d say I could have been perfectly happy with 5 of them. My wife is the best of them all but that was luck. The main reason I’m with her is timing. If the order had been shuffled I’d be with whoever i met after about the age of 25-26.
Everybody has flaws as well as good qualities. If you dwell on the flaws you end up hating them. If you focus more on their good qualities you keep loving them. All i need is someone who is smart, affectionate, good looking, generally a good person and respects me, and I will be happy. I don’t think it’s very hard to find those qualities in a woman.
People end up destroying each other over the silliest things that escalate to irreparable rifts. Very sad.[/quote]
Really, you consider them interchangeable? Wow. I had two long term relationships before meeting my husband, at which point I ended the other two, which were still somehow bubbling along as they had been off and on since I was 15 and 17 (one of them lived in my father’s state and one of them in my mother’s).
I would be long divorced if I’d married either of them, though I liked them both very well for different reasons.
[quote]
Interchangeable is a bad choice of words.
Two lTRs at once! Nice.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Not reading comprehension. Do you think I catch every post on these pages? I’m glad you can make at least some concessions in your otherwise inflexible world.[/quote]
??
What is “inflexible” about what has been written here? You are the one who keeps calling me out specifically over matters that have already been explained in detail. Why?
Why are you so focused on me and not the topic?[/quote]
Hahaha 90% of the posts on here are wise cracks. I’m one of the few who has stayed mostly on topic. Mentioning that you are not exactly a flexible person is hardly going off topic.
Here’s a semi off topic question. Is it really wrong for a woman to be a gold digger?
By ‘gold digger’ I mean a woman who is interested in finding a man who is or will be a high wage earner because she wants to be a stay at home mom AND enjoy a comfortable life style. In return she has trophy looks, carries on well socially and is a good mother. It seems to me there are a lot of men who want this out of a woman so I see it as a win win and am not really bothered.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
I’d also like to say I don’t see what’s so hard about loving someone. I don’t mean faking it, I mean genuinely loving them. I mentioned I’ve have 7 long term relationships and I’d say I could have been perfectly happy with 5 of them. My wife is the best of them all but that was luck. The main reason I’m with her is timing. If the order had been shuffled I’d be with whoever i met after about the age of 25-26.
Everybody has flaws as well as good qualities. If you dwell on the flaws you end up hating them. If you focus more on their good qualities you keep loving them. All i need is someone who is smart, affectionate, good looking, generally a good person and respects me, and I will be happy. I don’t think it’s very hard to find those qualities in a woman.
People end up destroying each other over the silliest things that escalate to irreparable rifts. Very sad.[/quote]
Really, you consider them interchangeable? Wow. I had two long term relationships before meeting my husband, at which point I ended the other two, which were still somehow bubbling along as they had been off and on since I was 15 and 17 (one of them lived in my father’s state and one of them in my mother’s).
I would be long divorced if I’d married either of them, though I liked them both very well for different reasons.
[/quote]
Interchangeable is a bad choice of words.
Two lTRs at once! Nice.[/quote]
Off and on! One was casual (his choice before I “blossomed,” probably my choice after but I didn’t recognize that at the time) and the other was serious, but I broke up with him a lot. It wasn’t the right relationship for either of us but I had a hard time pinpointing the problem and I was very, very attached to his family.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Here’s a semi off topic question. Is it really wrong for a woman to be a gold digger?
By ‘gold digger’ I mean a woman who is interested in finding a man who is or will be a high wage earner because she wants to be a stay at home mom AND enjoy a comfortable life style. In return she has trophy looks, carries on well socially and is a good mother. It seems to me there are a lot of men who want this out of a woman so I see it as a win win and am not really bothered.[/quote]
This is your first real contribution to this thread.
I have no problem with that…as long as they don’t assume they get financially compensated for the rest of their life if the marriage ends.
In cases of stay at home wives with no education, I would think a good compromise is alimony for a LIMITED time period…like 4 years, long enough for most people to get some sort of education.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Here are some facts taken from Men’s Health, which helpfully cites its studies rather than simply stating “Fact:” which requires a leap of faith. I was under the impression that leaps of faith were not the done thing here in the anti-marriage poster boy thread, but I guess it depends whether the “facts” in question are of the satisfyingly negative sort or the other kind. But at any rate, facts:
Increase Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.
Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.
Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married.
Satisfy You in Bed
In 2006, British researchers reviewed the sexual habits of men in 38 countries and found that in every country, married men have more sex.
Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than married men.
Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people in generally excellent health were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period if they were single.
[/quote]
Yeah, the first two on the list were already discussed when I mentioned that society views public figures as having something wrong with them unless they are married. The same holds true in many job positions simply because we live in a society that views married people as being more “stable”…yet another reason why there needs to be change.
The rest need a lesson in correlation vs causation.[/quote]
I don’t know. This is a few years old, but here’s a research brief noting that contrary to previous assumptions healthy men delay marriage, but it still confers health benefits, and divorced men with poor health improve once remarried. That indicates causation. As for the sex and violent crime, sure, you can recreate the conditions that improve odds of the former and decrease odds of the latter outside of marriage. That’s why the institution is not best for everyone. Because if you’re not particular about the sort of woman you sleep with, she’ll probably give it up in booty calls for years before she gets tired of it and moves on. And then you can just find a new hopeful however many years older (because your own marketability will decrease unless you’re making serious bank, which isn’t going to be in the low six figures). And so on. It’s totally workable. I agree with you!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Here’s a semi off topic question. Is it really wrong for a woman to be a gold digger?
By ‘gold digger’ I mean a woman who is interested in finding a man who is or will be a high wage earner because she wants to be a stay at home mom AND enjoy a comfortable life style. In return she has trophy looks, carries on well socially and is a good mother. It seems to me there are a lot of men who want this out of a woman so I see it as a win win and am not really bothered.[/quote]
This is your first real contribution to this thread.
I have no problem with that…as long as they don’t assume they get financially compensated for the rest of their life if the marriage ends.
In cases of stay at home wives with no education, I would think a good compromise is alimony for a LIMITED time period…like 4 years, long enough for most people to get some sort of education.[/quote]
Does anyone have stats on alimony? My friend who got divorced had to pay alimony for only two years if I remember right. He is a Chiro, she looked after the kids shortly out of high school. My hunch is alimony doesn’t usually last 4 years.
I don’t know specifics but I’m pretty sure in California alimony is based off a chart. Years and income dictates exactly what gets paid and for how long, period. Gender is not accounted for.