[quote]pushharder wrote:
In some states cohabitation by the spouse receiving the alimony payments will not, repeat, not end the alimony payments. Trust me, I know this for a fact.
In fact, this particular woman is far better off financially right now then before she left her husband of many years. She and her new partner own homes in three or four different states, travels extensively with him and yet she continues to collect alimony payments from her ex husband.[/quote]
I believe it’s something that can be negotiated into the divorce settlement as a reason for him to petition for ending or reducing payments.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In some states cohabitation by the spouse receiving the alimony payments will not, repeat, not end the alimony payments. Trust me, I know this for a fact.
In fact, this particular woman is far better off financially right now then before she left her husband of many years. She and her new partner own homes in three or four different states, travels extensively with him and yet she continues to collect alimony payments from her ex husband.[/quote]
Do you think lifestyle issues can impact or muddy divorce settlements?
This can all be avoided by not marrying a shitty person and not being a shitty person yourself. People usually don’t just turn into pieces of shit, they either are or they aren’t. Don’t marry a piece of shit and the chances of getting fucked are a lot lower.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
This can all be avoided by not marrying a shitty person and not being a shitty person yourself. People usually don’t just turn into pieces of shit, they either are or they aren’t. Don’t marry a piece of shit and the chances of getting fucked are a lot lower. [/quote]
You’ll need to decide between worrying that you’re going to be stuck supporting the conniving bitch AND her loser boyfriend or worrying that she’ll live frozen in amber if that’s what it takes to keep her claws on the $9,600 a year she’s getting from you.[/quote]
Is there a point being made here?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
3. Actively navigating the legal system. . . how? I was responding to a poster that launched a vigorous “fuck her!” at the very idea of having to “risk everything” while she presumably risks nothing. [/quote]
It’s not just about financial risk, men take on. By getting married, men are also forced to muzzle their primal desire of sexual variety. Marriage largely favours women and children. Women get the commitment they desire, children get a stable home. This is difference of men seeking variety vs women’s need for commitment is a difference in the sexes. Even when women do make more than their men they still want their man to pay for them.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
From what I can tell he actively navigates the legal system by getting wet when it’s raining sluts, then bemoaning that women have loose morals. Have I misread something?[/quote]
The majority of men do not want to get into long term relationships with women who’ve been with several men.
It’s kinda like buying a baseball glove. If you’re playing pickup, any used beat up glove will work, but if you’re buying one, you want to break it in yourself.
[quote]The chance of a marriage ending in divorce was lower for people with more education, with over half of marriages of those who did not complete high school having ended in divorce compared with approximately 30 percent of marriages of college graduates.
So 70% of marriages between college educated people seem to succeed. I think we can imagine that “college educated” is representative of traits that can be found in successful people who never set foot on a college campus. This would seem to contradict “its” assertion that women are drawn to bad boys and CHASE shiftless types. Not healthy women! Which brings us back to Comus3’s excellent post:[/quote]
That’s great, here are some links for you:
excerpt from this book:
Single women had their brains scanned as they looked at photos of men. The pictures had been subtlely altered to make the menâ??s faces more or less masculine.
The more masculine faces won out in terms of attraction â?? but the areas of the brain that were activated indicated these faces were also ones the women found most threatening.
Let that sink in. Brain scans prove that women are attracted to threatening men.
women find nonresponsive men more attractive than responsive men. non-responsive men = bad boys/jerks
women choose badboys.
What’s even funnier is if you look at the number of children men in prison have, it’s about the same as men who never go to prison. Funny, how guys who have spend many of their reproductive years behind bars are having just as many children as those who spend their whole lives as free men.
Oh and if that doesn’t convince you: Our resident relationship expert AngryChicken is an EX-CON.
[quote] If you are afraid of trying an institutional relationship with a woman because you fear losing your things or are worried about her potential for sanity, loyalty, friendship or propensity to gain 110 pounds, (I won’t even mention coming to the relationship as a 30 year old virgin) then women, who are in general not stupid and can read people emotionally, will pick up on your fears and world view and will stay away from you. Not necessarily because they wanted your things but because it implies to them that you, at least by current society standards, are dysfunctional and a risky bet. For them your $114,000 a year or medical degree or STEM blah blah just isn’t worth it, marriage or non marriage. (And God help you the woman who is impressed by $114,000 a year)
Then your choice is insane, dysfunctional and duplicitous partner in relationship, marriage or non-marriage, or whacking it to Internet porn.[/quote]
Question: What is the advantage of marriage over cohabitation when the couple has no interest in children?
[quote]StevenF wrote:
This can all be avoided by not marrying a shitty person and not being a shitty person yourself. People usually don’t just turn into pieces of shit, they either are or they aren’t. Don’t marry a piece of shit and the chances of getting fucked are a lot lower. [/quote]
such a revelation… how has no one thought of this before??
[quote]therajraj wrote:
By getting married, men are also forced to muzzle their primal desire of sexual variety.
[/quote]
No, they are not forced to do anything. Marriage is voluntary in these here United States. [/quote]
What I’m saying is, that’s one of the tradeoffs for men getting married.
[/quote]
Not to mention when that trade off does exist it is done knowingly by the man. He isn’t “tricked” into muzzling that urge. It’s his choice to make and he makes it.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
By getting married, men are also forced to muzzle their primal desire of sexual variety.
[/quote]
No, they are not forced to do anything. Marriage is voluntary in these here United States. [/quote]
What I’m saying is, that’s one of the tradeoffs for men getting married.
[/quote]
Not to mention when that trade off does exist it is done knowingly by the man. He isn’t “tricked” into muzzling that urge. It’s his choice to make and he makes it. [/quote]
why did you put quotes around ‘tricked’… he never said tricked… he said forced. strawman doesn’t get much more obvious than that lol. you really are lacking
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I once read, as an argument against pre nuptial agreements, that the woman you’re marrying should be worth more than any future wealth you may have. I agree with that statement, and I think it’s a good question any man should ask himself before popping the question, regardless of one’s feelings about prenuptial agreements.
[/quote]
I don’t understand this argument. Most people don’t go into marriages thinking he/she is going to cheat on me, or assault me, or develop a drug habit. But in most cases you can’t really know what your future spouse is “worth” until tested by years of marriage. If you are correct that she is “worth more than any future wealth you may have,” then you don’t need a prenup. But if you erred in your assessment, that is exactly when you need one.[/quote]
Well, I didn’t say marriage was something to be taken lightly. And I don’t think most people, men or women, put as much thought into it as they should.
That doesn’t mean it’s a stupid move for everyone.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
marriage really does not offer any real benefit to a man (besides some tax benefits), but it poses a very high number of life-altering risks.
[/quote]
While CA is a spousal support nightmare, it’s certainly not like that everywhere. In Cook County, IL (of which Chicago is part) spousal support is typically 2 years, although it can be extended. For example, a couple owns a business and decides to divorce. The man decides he’d like to keep running the business rather than sell it. The wife might agree and settle for a longer period of spousal support. Then people hear about how he’s paying spousal support for 10 years and complain about how the system is fucking men, when then wasn’t what happened at all.
Additionally, spousal support is tax deductible for the payer and taxable for the receiver. So it may be a good way to transfer assets over time to a low earning spouse while allowing the higher-earning spouse use of those assets. For example, a divorcing couple is sitting on $1MM in cash after everything is split up. The man is in a business where liquidity is paramount. The wife might agree to take very little now in exchange for a prolonged period of spousal support. Not only can the guy keep working, but he gets to deduct the support from his very high income (at very high tax rates) and she gets to pay very little in income tax because she may have little to no income outside of the support she’s receiving.
The moral of all this is, you (the general, “you”) have no idea what the divorce decree looks like. You can’t say that spousal support for 10 years is or is not fair without knowing all the other aspects.
Next, please, please, please stop saying that %50 of all marriages end in divorce. This falsehood started years ago when someone reported that there were 2.4MM marriages that year and 1.2MM divorces, but completely ignored the 54MM existing marriages.
