Tiger Woods, Anti-Marriage Posterboy

Off Topic
401

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

October Girl just answered that question. They pay alimony until the wife gets remarried.

402

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[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]

In retrospect would you say they were relationships that really had a chance? I see a lot of people especially young women who will have ‘no chance’ relationships until they are ready. For example my wife’s two LTRs before me were with a drug dealer and a struggling rap artist. I’d say they were no chance relationships. When she reached a point in her life when she was ready she sought out someone who was more compatible. It’s a different angle but it goes back to my point on timing.

403

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
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.

[/quote]

If my wife and I split I’d want her to have the kids. I love my kids but I know they are better off with her. Also, I don’t know how any man would want to be primary for a child under 2. That would be a nightmare.

404

[quote]Professor X wrote:
October Girl just answered that question. They pay alimony until the wife gets remarried.[/quote]

…in the state of California. In Illinois, spousal support (it’s not called alimony any more) is entirely negotiable. After a 10 year marriage, a woman who was previously a homemaker may get 2-4 years of support, traditionally terminated upon cohabitation or remarriage.

YMMV

405

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

Seems to me that this sort of thing just moves with the times rather than undergoing total reform. The compensation culture has grown to the point that you don’t even need to get married to get stung for a cut of your earnings (alimony has spawned palimony). Is it ideal? Not even close.[/quote]

It can’t move forward when even discussing it brings out all of the self righteous married people who act like everyone not thinking like them has a mental problem. Look at this thread. You had people from the start acting like I needed to be attacked personally based on what was stated.

From that site:

Which means alimony was instigated because women were seen as INFERIOR and needed a man to support them. There is no way in hell in the year 2010 that any woman who can work and has an education (I will cut some slack for “home makers” who for some reason avoided ever entering the work force) should be given this shit unless it is based on something like the wife helping the husband to build a business that makes him a substantial income. If he had funds when she came in, he should keep them on her way out.

However, if you even mention putting a monkey wrench ion that system with a prenupt, all of a sudden you are a materialistic man whore who can’t ever have a relationship because he doesn’t trust his wife…as if the lawyer in a divorce won’t push his client to go for as much as possible especially if they leave on bad terms.

I think this thread is a great example of how ass backwards some people are on the issue that you can’t even mention this without being judged in a negative light.[/quote]

I brought up “the inability to move forward” because I believe that this is the cause of most of the problems we have to deal with in the modern world (too many to list and I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, as I don’t like to discuss politics). Most, if not all of them are related because they originate from the same source (that source being the twisting of politics and religion over time to fit society ).

I deliberately posted the Wikipedia link on alimony laws because it is an example of how now outdated religious teachings - specifically the idea that the church wouldn’t grant a divorce -had a knock-on effect that influenced law (alimony), which in turn influences politics (through economical gain from settlements or trying to one-up opponents by swaying public opinion, partly through agreeing with or influencing the mainstream press). In other words, society has become used to it and, for that reason, reform will be nigh on impossible.

I realize that that was a snore-inducing post for many, but it had to be said.

406

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

October Girl just answered that question. They pay alimony until the wife gets remarried.[/quote]

I also posted about women who pay alimony and how courts are changing and how most men do not want full custody of their children.

407

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[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]

In retrospect would you say they were relationships that really had a chance? I see a lot of people especially young women who will have ‘no chance’ relationships until they are ready. For example my wife’s two LTRs before me were with a drug dealer and a struggling rap artist. I’d say they were no chance relationships. When she reached a point in her life when she was ready she sought out someone who was more compatible. It’s a different angle but it goes back to my point on timing.[/quote]

They were both good guys, though the first guy wouldn’t have been a suitable long term match for me. But it wasn’t the timing. When I found someone who had the qualities I valued in each of the first two guys I grabbed on tight.

408

What it really boils down to, Doc, is that you’re just terrified of ending up like this.

409

[quote]on edge wrote:
In retrospect would you say they were relationships that really had a chance? I see a lot of people especially young women who will have ‘no chance’ relationships until they are ready. For example my wife’s two LTRs before me were with a drug dealer and a struggling rap artist. I’d say they were no chance relationships. When she reached a point in her life when she was ready she sought out someone who was more compatible. It’s a different angle but it goes back to my point on timing.[/quote]

How old were you and her when you two were married?

410

Dianab, october girl and emily Q…
thanks for your replies. I’d just like to clarify that I believe any man should equally contribute towards the welfare of his children- and that means with his time, love and obviously money.

Now for the bashing, and yes I will bash marriage as its an easy target and the facts of course can’t lie, women will defend it and continue to push for marriage because its win win for them in terms of money- no wonder the majority of women want to get married!

Whether a man wants to keep his children or not (lets assume both parents are equal in their parenting abilities, obviously there are a LOT of bad parents, male and female) the law is on the woman’s side 99% of the time, most women given the choice would rather keep the children, house and welfare that goes with it, plus they then don’t have to work etc, and thats if the husband is a broke assed mother, rich husband-wow! thats their lifestyle maintained plus time to find a new man during school hours, or on weekends whilst their out partying whilst ex hubby’s babysitting.

Once a piece of paper is signed for marriage, stay or leave, divorce or remain married, half those assets are the women’s. period. Society is on her side, her mum, her friends, the law, the system, remind me who always pushes for marriage? oh yes its the women, America’s richest women acquired their wealth through divorce. Men have to pay divorcee’s alimony until their re married and some other sucker takes financial responsibility for their blood sucking asses, do you think divorce rates would be so high if this wasn’t the case?

I’m not saying all women are motivated by money,as they are most certainly not, I think the financial incentive for women actually encourages them to marry for the wrong reasons, and obviously divorce. I’m not saying all divorces settle in the women’s favor, just the majority.

As far as children are concerned well you don’t even need to be married for the women to get a decent pay out, once a woman gets pregnant by a wealthy man he legally has to support his children- as he should and her sorry ass. there’s wealthy men writing monthly 5 digit cheques to whores they only new for a few drunken hours who singled them out and got 'accidentally pregnant" funny, rich men seem to be involved in more accidental pregnancies.

I KNOW a guy, who lived with a famous model for about 5 years, she lived rent free in his apartment and spent most of her money on coke (he was no angel but ran his own business and paid his bills, or ‘their’ bills. When they split he had to pay her off (no kids) as his common law wife, 5 years rent free and that whore gets paid of as his common law wife? WTF?

I KNOW a guy who was married a year, his wife was fucking someone before he even knew the relationship was over, and she was pregnant with the other guys baby (they had no kids) before they were divorced and on top of her years of rent free living he had to pay her $50.000 WTF?

Pre nup’s are virtually null and void when you have children, the law is on the woman’s side 99% of the time. Tiger woods was fucked the moment that paper was signed, that pre nup meant fuck all, half his money was hers moment they were married. period.

Moral of the story, don’t get married unless your prepared to give half (more if you have kids) your net worth to your partner.

I wonder how gay marriages settle, with no woman to side with?

I’l get my fire extinguisher…

411

I know I’m resurrecting an old thread but I just saw this article title and almost died laughing.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/sports/ci_18053602?source=rss

Woods pulls out of Players after 9 holes

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. – Tiger Woods limped off the golf course and into a future that is murkier than ever Thursday when he withdrew with leg injuries after his worst nine holes at The Players Championship.

“I’m having a hard time walking,” he said.

Woods shot a 42 on the front nine of the TPC Sawgrass, including a triple bogey on the fourth hole when he didn’t clear a water hazard 30 yards in front of him. He constantly walked some 20 yards behind his playing partner, holding his golf club for support, limping noticeably after each hole…

412

It is like people like seeing him fail.

The general public seems to act the same with most celebrities though. They build you up real high just for that.

413

[quote]postholedigger wrote:
I know I’m resurrecting an old thread but I just saw this article title and almost died laughing.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/sports/ci_18053602?source=rss

Woods pulls out of Players after 9 holes

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. – Tiger Woods limped off the golf course and into a future that is murkier than ever Thursday when he withdrew with leg injuries after his worst nine holes at The Players Championship.

“I’m having a hard time walking,” he said.

Woods shot a 42 on the front nine of the TPC Sawgrass, including a triple bogey on the fourth hole when he didn’t clear a water hazard 30 yards in front of him. He constantly walked some 20 yards behind his playing partner, holding his golf club for support, limping noticeably after each hole…[/quote]

I do not get it, what is so funny?

414

^ i think once someone hits a certain high, people want to see them fall.

415

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]postholedigger wrote:

Woods pulls out of Players after 9 holes

[/quote]

I do not get it, what is so funny?[/quote]

Still no?

416

He’s not attacking Tiger, he’s laughing about how the article is written, lol sex jokes and what not.

Having trouble walking after pulling out of 9 holes guys.

417

[quote]red04 wrote:
He’s not attacking Tiger, he’s laughing about how the article is written, lol sex jokes and what not.

Having trouble walking after pulling out of 9 holes guys.[/quote]

I get that…I just think it may ahve been funnier about 8 months ago.

If people are still making fun of the guy over this issue specifically, they are likely just haterz.

But yes, I do get the joke.

418

Tiger Woods, Anti- “being a prick” Posterboy more like. Take him to the cleaners and teach him how to treat people with respect.

419

[quote]Johnotiger wrote:
Tiger Woods, Anti- “being a prick” Posterboy more like. Take him to the cleaners and teach him how to treat people with respect.
[/quote]

Someone really just made an account to post this ironically after what PX just said? Or am I giving him too much credit…

420

I hope he gets his game back. He was the only thing that ever made golf worth watching for me.