Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Agnostic007 on April 01, 2015, 10:36:18 AM
-
Co worker recently retired after 25 yrs of service on a police department. Wife falls in love with another guy and files for divorce. She got half of HIS retirement.. I think that is backwards thinking and wrong on many levels. She didn't go to work in a tough job for 25 yrs, he paid the bills while she watched Oprah and went to the gym. I just don't see that as earning half...
-
People know this going into the marriage but always seem shocked when it ends and get hit with the bill.
-
Where the courts are really medieval is in paternity charges. A guy doesn't want to father a child. He just wants to have a good cum. Women do have birth control, and abortion available. If they give birth, then it's their idea, and problem, but the courts blame the guy.
That needs to be changed.
-
This country is a sexist state in favor of women.
Should have had a prenup.
She deserves nothing.
8)
-
Always sign a PRENUP!!!
the fact that SHE left him, should exclude her from his pension.
-
Is there more to this story? Was he physically or emotionally abusive which was the reason she left him? Are you providing all the facts?
-
This country is a sexist state in favor of women.
-
I'd move to another country if a bitch tried to trap me. Problem solved. Well, not on the retirement situation.
-
Co worker recently retired after 25 yrs of service on a police department. Wife falls in love with another guy and files for divorce. She got half of HIS retirement.. I think that is backwards thinking and wrong on many levels. She didn't go to work in a tough job for 25 yrs, he paid the bills while she watched Oprah and went to the gym. I just don't see that as earning half...
went to the gym? she did her part then. she deserves it
-
i loved in MAD MEN when they were getting divorced, he asked to get the fuck out of his house or start paying rent
AHHHH the 60's , the good ol days of America
-
Usually feel bad about such stories.....this time, not so much.
-
Always sign a PRENUP!!!
the fact that SHE left him, should exclude her from his pension.
Prenups get thrown out all the damn time based on how the judge feels. Its incredible how the justice system is stacked against men.
Getting married? why?
-
Co worker recently retired after 25 yrs of service on a police department. Wife falls in love with another guy and files for divorce. She got half of HIS retirement.. I think that is backwards thinking and wrong on many levels. She didn't go to work in a tough job for 25 yrs, he paid the bills while she watched Oprah and went to the gym. I just don't see that as earning half...
Remember that next time you pigs eagerly arrest another guy based on nothing but a woman's allegations, while you let women walk free for all sorts of shit.
-
Where the courts are really medieval is in paternity charges. A guy doesn't want to father a child. He just wants to have a good cum. Women do have birth control, and abortion available. If they give birth, then it's their idea, and problem, but the courts blame the guy.
That needs to be changed.
I don't agree with this. If the man doesn't take care of his kid then the rest of us will have to. Don't have sex or be responsible for your own birth control if u don't want to pay child support
-
I don't agree with this. If the man doesn't take care of his kid then the rest of us will have to. Don't have sex or be responsible for your own birth control if u don't want to pay child support
Not have sex with women? Clearly those "men" posting such nonsense, don't have normal heterosexual sex drives. Having sex, as consensual adults, doesn't mean the male gave his consent to father a child. If a woman doesn't use birth control, or has an "accident," and doesn't terminate the pregnancy, by abortion, then at that point, it is the woman, who should under the law, have to accept full responsibility for the child, that she, and she alone chose to bring into this world. She shouldn't have the legal right to shake down the male, that she victimized, by her own irresponsible actions. And the courts shouldn't be helping commit this fraud to steal money.
-
If your married for over 7 years or so depending on the state the wife normally gets half or more. So many women get the house, alimony and child support payments. The only way she can get less than half is if she makes more money than the guy. So many guys give the wife the house so the kids won't get uprooted from school and the neighborhood. Let the wife have the house and all the equity in it so his payments can be reduced. Lawyers in the NJ the first thing they want to know is all your assets. They will stall the divorce in so many cases until the money for them runs dry. They know when to finish the divorce because they know everything about your finances. Also if your wife is a house wife you will be responsible for paying for her attorney.
That's why so many long time married divorced guys live like bums. They lose their house. 50 plus percent of their income go to the ex wife and kids. In NJ even if you had no plans to send your kids to college the courts always side with payment for college. The attorneys of wives know this and almost 100% ask for payment through the college years. Think you're done paying the ex wife child support at age 18? No, you have college to pay for.
-
Since I have a little experience in this matter, I need to chime in.
If she did commit adultery and wants the divorce, he should not be liable for any pension splitting.
I don't know the specifics here, but the phrase " she filled for divorce" got my attention.
The problem is HE allowed her to be first to the lawyer and file.
Did he at least get his own lawyer to fight her claim and make her admit her cheating in front of a judge?
I doubt he took it to court and just signed and said wtf.
Divorce isn't a moral matter, it's a LEGAL matter.
It doesn't matter what she deserves, it what the law allows her to have that counts.
Once you know a divorce is coming, you lawyer up, keep calm and don't give an inch.
Spoken like a true student of the game. A pro's pro.
-
Not have sex with women? Clearly those "men" posting such nonsense, don't have normal heterosexual sex drives. Having sex, as consensual adults, doesn't mean the male gave his consent to father a child. If a woman doesn't use birth control, or has an "accident," and doesn't terminate the pregnancy, by abortion, then at that point, it is the woman, who should under the law, have to accept full responsibility for the child, that she, and she alone chose to bring into this world. She shouldn't have the legal right to shake down the male, that she victimized, by her own irresponsible actions. And the courts shouldn't be helping commit this fraud to steal money.
i have a normal sex drive plus. if u have sex with a woman u run the risk of fathering a child. we are not animals. abortion is a sin in my book. how many white babies have been killed by the hook nosed abortionists?i pride myself on being a responsible, white, Christian male
-
i have a normal sex drive plus. if u have sex with a woman u run the risk of fathering a child. we are not animals. abortion is a sin in my book. how many white babies have been killed by the hook nosed abortionists?i pride myself on being a responsible, white, Christian male
The secular courts, shouldn't be colored by religious nonsense. Neither yours, nor anyone's ignorant superstitions, should be the basis for determining individual responsibility in a case. It's called separation of church and state. You can believe your dopey bible morals drivel, but you're not allowed to inflict your views upon others.
-
So who is responsible let for the unwanted kids? the taxpayers
-
The secular courts, shouldn't be colored by religious nonsense. Neither yours, nor anyone's ignorant superstitions, should be the basis for determining individual responsibility in a case. It's called separation of church and state. You can believe your dopey bible morals drivel, but you're not allowed to inflict your views upon others.
listen Eric we know now you are a Nurd Book Worm who comes on a Bodybuilding Forum and tells us all about diet, training and now religion.
-
So who is responsible let for the unwanted kids? the taxpayers
That's why there should be mandatory abortion, for all women who can't afford to pay for the children, that they, and no one else, are responsible for getting pregnant with. Let's think of the Taxpayers first, before garbage children being born, to dirtball women who can't pay their own way through life.
-
That's why there should be mandatory abortion, for all women who can't afford to pay for the children, that they, and no one else, are responsible for getting pregnant with. Let's think of the Taxpayers first, before garbage children being born, to dirtball women who can't pay their own way through life.
really ? getting upset now eric? your moral ethics are below intelligent although at the same time you try to be a teacher of fitness and diet ?
-
Is there more to this story? Was he physically or emotionally abusive which was the reason she left him? Are you providing all the facts?
Based on the lack of her making any claims of that, I would assume he wasn't. In Texas, it almost doesn't matter it's a community property state... I tend to agree a little bit about dividing property and such but waiting for a dude to retire then leaving for another guy and taking half his pension.. seems completely overboard.
-
you my friend are Joke.
-
Usually feel bad about such stories.....this time, not so much.
I can relax .. reading your comment I know the world is as it should be... ;)
-
Remember that next time you pigs eagerly arrest another guy based on nothing but a woman's allegations, while you let women walk free for all sorts of shit.
Right?! Amen Brother!
-
really ? getting upset now eric? your moral ethics are below intelligent although at the same time you try to be a teacher of fitness and diet ?
My ethics are superior. The inferior don't like that. Religious beliefs that encourage inferior people to reproduce, without any controls, is a disservice to society, and an unnecessary burden to the Taxpayers.
-
Since I have a little experience in this matter, I need to chime in.
If she did commit adultery and wants the divorce, he should not be liable for any pension splitting.
I don't know the specifics here, but the phrase " she filled for divorce" got my attention.
The problem is HE allowed her to be first to the lawyer and file.
Did he at least get his own lawyer to fight her claim and make her admit her cheating in front of a judge?
I doubt he took it to court and just signed and said wtf.
Divorce isn't a moral matter, it's a LEGAL matter.
It doesn't matter what she deserves, it what the law allows her to have that counts.
Once you know a divorce is coming, you lawyer up, keep calm and don't give an inch.
Howard, Texas is common law. A spouse could blow the attorney in court in front of the judge and it would be unlikely to change the outcome.
-
I don't agree with this. If the man doesn't take care of his kid then the rest of us will have to. Don't have sex or be responsible for your own birth control if u don't want to pay child support
How about the other side of the coin? A woman wants an abortion but the man wants to keep the kid. He gets ZERO say in it. However, if she wants to keep the kid and he doesn't want her to, he is still stuck for 18 yrs paying for it. I think there is a disparity in the system
-
Where the courts are really medieval is in paternity charges. A guy doesn't want to father a child. He just wants to have a good cum. Women do have birth control, and abortion available. If they give birth, then it's their idea, and problem, but the courts blame the guy.
That needs to be changed.
It takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. Birth control is available for men as well as women. Some folks don't believe in abortion for religions reasons.
If a guy just wants a good cum, that's the risk he takes, just as with the woman who wants a good fuck.
There is nothing medieval here but your thinking.
-
My ethics are superior. The inferior don't like that. Religious beliefs that encourage inferior people to reproduce, without any controls, is a disservice to society, and an unnecessary burden to the Taxpayers.
like i wrote before you are just a young kid.. a nerd who sits on his pc after school
-
After screwing the taxpayers for 25 years of worthless service, this dipshit probably thought retirement was going to be great.....lol.
In the meantime, when Sgt. Sucker was depriving people of their freedom and money, his old lady was screwing another man. A man who will get to screw the wife in the house that taxpayers paid for, and piggy will be holed up in a hotel.......
(http://www.chicagonow.com/class-act-comedy/files/2011/08/jackie-martling-head-shot.jpg)
-
After screwing the taxpayers for 25 years of worthless service, this dipshit probably thought retirement was going to be great.....lol.
In the meantime, when Sgt. Sucker was depriving people of their freedom and money, his old lady was screwing another man. A man who will get to screw the wife in the house that taxpayers paid for, and piggy will be holed up in a hotel.......
(http://www.chicagonow.com/class-act-comedy/files/2011/08/jackie-martling-head-shot.jpg)
I have to say, I find your outlook, interesting.. on a clinical level.
-
How about the other side of the coin? A woman wants an abortion but the man wants to keep the kid. He gets ZERO say in it. However, if she wants to keep the kid and he doesn't want her to, he is still stuck for 18 yrs paying for it. I think there is a disparity in the system
You are right in that there is a disparity in this. Some would argue that the guy has no say so because he's not going to carry the child for nine months and go through childbirth which has some risk to one's health and well-being.
-
It takes both a man and a woman to make a baby. Birth control is available for men as well as women. Some folks don't believe in abortion for religions reasons.
If a guy just wants a good cum, that's the risk he takes, just as with the woman who wants a good fuck.
There is nothing medieval here but your thinking.
Women are making the choice, and you suffer because, they chose to get pregnant, give birth, and sit on their ass, while the man picks up the tab, for their self indulgence. No justice there.
Religion is ignorant superstition. Medieval is too good to describe religion, it's really late stone age, delusional brain dysfunction.
-
You are right in that there is a disparity in this. Some would argue that the guy has no say so because he's not going to carry the child for nine months and go through childbirth which has some risk to one's health and well-being.
they do say that, but I disagree. If a woman chooses to have the baby against the "fathers" wishes, she should also be willing to sign a release stating she won't hold him financially responsible. If not, he should have input
-
Women are making the choice, and you suffer because, they chose to get pregnant, give birth, and sit on their ass, while the man picks up the tab, for their self indulgence. No justice there.
Religion is ignorant superstition. Medieval is too good to describe religion, it's really late stone age, delusional brain dysfunction.
Your world is apparently pretty narrow. My wife and I together chose for her to get pregnant and produce two wonderful children. We also both worked and thus jointly picked up the tab for this decision. Neither of us sat on our asses for 18 + years. Our children grew up married and chose together to have children of their own. I just found out today that my granddaughter and her husband are excited that their choice to have a child has taken hold, so to speak. In eight months my wife and I will be great-grandparents.
I am not a religious person, but I allow that many people are and have the right to be so. If it brings them comfort, who am I to argue?
-
Your world is apparently pretty narrow. My wife and I together chose for her to get pregnant and produce two wonderful children. We also both worked and thus jointly picked up the tab for this decision. Neither of us sat on our asses for 18 + years. Our children grew up married and chose together to have children of their own. I just found out today that my granddaughter and her husband are excited that their choice to have a child has taken hold, so to speak. In eight months my wife and I will be great-grandparents.
I am not a religious person, but I allow that many people are and have the right to be so. If it brings them comfort, who am I to argue?
Then why are you complaining about my post? It wasn't about you and your wife, it was about irresponsible women, who sent someone else the bill for the choices that they have made. And, of religious people, allowing that dishonest and parasite behavior, because of the idiotic and hypocritical things in their religious beliefs.
-
they do say that, but I disagree. If a woman chooses to have the baby against the "fathers" wishes, she should also be willing to sign a release stating she won't hold him financially responsible. If not, he should have input
I am not sure what you disagree with. The statements I made regarding the risks involved in carrying and having a baby are fact. -Nothing to disagree with here.
Are you saying that if the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she refuses for whatever reason, that this should terminate any responsibility he has for the pregnancy and the child? I find this interesting since there is no way the woman got herself pregnant. The man play a big role in this.
It is fortunate that the law has a different view of who is responsible in the event of a pregnancy and for the child. Act like a man and take every precaution to avoid fathering children if you don't want them. It is weak and unmanly to blame pregnancy on solely on the woman.
-
It is weak and unmanly to blame pregnancy on solely on the woman.
No it's not! It's totally factual that a woman can end her pregnancy via abortion. If she chooses not to get an abortion, then the pregnancy is all on her. As agnostic007 pointed out before. If the man doesn't want her to get the abortion, and she does, well she gets the abortion, regardless of what the potential father wants. So, if she alone want to give birth, then let her pay for the little bastard, that she alone wanted.
-
Here's a novel idea and possible solution: Don't get her pregnant in the first place...withdraw before firing in the hole.
Today there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant, and carry to full term, and birth, except that she wants too. If she wants too, and the guy doesn't, then she should pay for what she wants, not charge him. He wanted consensual sex, nothing more.
-
I am not sure what you disagree with. The statements I made regarding the risks involved in carrying and having a baby are fact. -Nothing to disagree with here.
Are you saying that if the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she refuses for whatever reason, that this should terminate any responsibility he has for the pregnancy and the child? I find this interesting since there is no way the woman got herself pregnant. The man play a big role in this.
It is fortunate that the law has a different view of who is responsible in the event of a pregnancy and for the child. Act like a man and take every precaution to avoid fathering children if you don't want them. It is weak and unmanly to blame pregnancy on solely on the woman.
My issue is the disparity in rights. Again, the man has ZERo say in whether the baby is aborted or not. Yet he is held financially responsible if she decided to have it. If the woman wants the right to say she wants an abortion, when the father is adamant he will take the baby and raise it, I think it's only fair it work both ways. I don't have the answer as to how that would even work in reality, but as it is now, the system is unfair. I'm not blaming the pregnancy solely on the woman, but when the woman retains the sole right of making a choice to abort or not, we are essentially looking at it that way.
-
Today there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant, and carry to full term, and birth, except that she wants too. If she wants too, and the guy doesn't, then she should pay for what she wants, not charge him. He wanted consensual sex, nothing more.
You make some good points.
There is a huge inequality in rights of men & women
When it comes to pregnancy & having the child.
The woman has all the say.
Either way she wants to go she wins.
Clearly that is wrong.
-
You make some good points.
There is a huge inequality in rights of men & women
When it comes to pregnancy & having the child.
The woman has all the say.
Either way she wants to go she wins.
Clearly that is wrong.
I may need to rethink my position, I agree with you, which causes me concern that I may be wrong
-
I may need to rethink my position, I agree with you, which causes me concern that I may be wrong
You do that....
Sometimes the truth hurts.. :)
-
The secular courts, shouldn't be colored by religious nonsense. Neither yours, nor anyone's ignorant superstitions, should be the basis for determining individual responsibility in a case. It's called separation of church and state. You can believe your dopey bible morals drivel, but you're not allowed to inflict your views upon others.
IDIOT.
The current issues we are having with police and court are completely secular in nature. Modern PC morality.
-
Women are making the choice, and you suffer because, they chose to get pregnant, give birth, and sit on their ass, while the man picks up the tab, for their self indulgence. No justice there.
Religion is ignorant superstition. Medieval is too good to describe religion, it's really late stone age, delusional brain dysfunction.
Eric, are you from Northern Europe? I pathetic modern nord?
-
When it's divorce time, it's a true blood sport.
I never had kids, and my ex's said they wanted the divorce.
Ok fine, then we both leave with what we came in with and go our separate ways.
trust me, having kids makes it near impossible to do what I did every divorce.
What if there were millions in assets and multiple properties? It's not just kids that make divorces complex.
-
When it's divorce time, it's a true blood sport.
I never had kids, and my ex's said they wanted the divorce.
Ok fine, then we both leave with what we came in with and go our separate ways.
trust me, having kids makes it near impossible to do what I did every divorce.
I've read that you've been married a number of times. Were these marriages so brief that you never accumulated assets? Minus a prenuptial agreement that states otherwise, in community property states, what you go out with is spit between the two of you.
-
100% agree, good post!
I never climaxed inside a woman when their was a chance she could get pregnant.
If you show some dick control, you can have sex and never risk knocking her up.
Interesting. This is ancient birth control. Pulling out prior to orgasm was something our grandparents did. There is always the risk of pre-cum carrying some sperm that magically impregnates the woman. And of course, if you don't quite get out fast enough, you could deposit some impregnating sperm before you leave.
When my son and son-in-law along with their wives decided they'd had all the babies they wanted, they had vasectomies. Most of the time this takes care of future unwanted pregnancies. Have you considered a vasectomy? You've made it clear that you didn't want children.
How about all these dudes that want to fuck ladies unprotected and don't want children go get a vasectomy before they screw around?
-
No it's not! It's totally factual that a woman can end her pregnancy via abortion. If she chooses not to get an abortion, then the pregnancy is all on her. As agnostic007 pointed out before. If the man doesn't want her to get the abortion, and she does, well she gets the abortion, regardless of what the potential father wants. So, if she alone want to give birth, then let her pay for the little bastard, that she alone wanted.
So I take it from this, that should said woman be unable to support the child/children, it is acceptable to you that taxpayers do rather than the impregnating father(s). I don't feel like looking up the stats but the bulk of single women who are on ADC are single mothers who for various reasons the father(s) of their child/children have taken a hike.
If I got a woman pregnant, it seems fair that I participate in the support of that child verses anonymous tax payers who likely had nothing to do with her getting pregnant.
Let me take a guess here, since you are championing men shucking their responsibility, you also are against ADC. News flash! In most, if not all developed countries, unwanted children are not just left to die of starvation because their parents screwed and then screwed up.
-
So I take it from this, that should said woman be unable to support the child/children, it is acceptable to you that taxpayers do rather than the impregnating father(s). I don't feel like looking up the stats but the bulk of single women who are on ADC are single mothers who for various reasons the father(s) of their child/children have taken a hike.
If I got a woman pregnant, it seems fair that I participate in the support of that child verses anonymous tax payers who likely had nothing to do with her getting pregnant.
Let me take a guess here, since you are championing men shucking their responsibility, you also are against ADC. News flash! In most, if not all developed countries, unwanted children are not just left to die of starvation because their parents screwed and then screwed up.
If a woman doesn't want to pay for a baby, for its whole childhood, then there should be a mandatory abortion, so the taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill, and society isn't stuck with another garbage baby, from a mentally inferior mother. And, everyone on government assistance should have their tubes tied, before they get any government handouts, of any kind. Caring about shit people, just gets you more shit people being born.
-
If a woman doesn't want to pay for a baby, for its whole childhood, then there should be a mandatory abortion, so the taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill, and society isn't stuck with another garbage baby, from a mentally inferior mother. And, everyone on government assistance should have their tubes tied, before they get any government handouts, of any kind. Caring about shit people, just gets you more shit people being born.
There's a problem with your ideas, it is called compassion, which obviously you are totally lacking. Another barrier to your ideas is that in free countries, humans have rights. You seem to have no problem violating those rights. Even third world countries have laws which prohibit enacting your ideas.
Maybe we should just cut off a man's penis who impregnates a woman and then takes no responsibility for it. Seems brutal, but so do your ideas.
-
There's a problem with your ideas, it is called compassion, which obviously you are totally lacking. Another barrier to your ideas is that in free countries, humans have rights. You seem to have no problem violating those rights. Even third world countries have laws which prohibit enacting your ideas.
Maybe we should just cut off a man's penis who impregnates a woman and then takes no responsibility for it. Seems brutal, but so do your ideas.
Your "compassion" is just an excuse to allow irresponsible behavior. Someone's human rights, don't include the right to infliction upon other humans, the results of their irresponsible behavior. In order for there to be better society, society must have minimum standards of acceptable behavior, with no exceptions, meaning no "compassion" for shit people who ruin everything, for everyone else.
You want to cut off the penises of men who get women pregnant. But you refuse to hold women who get pregnant, against the will of the man who was only intending to have consensual sex, and not make a baby, to own up to her responsibility and get an abortion, or keep the child entirely at her expense, as she is the only one who wants the little bastard.
-
Your "compassion" is just an excuse to allow irresponsible behavior. Someone's human rights, don't include the right to infliction upon other humans, the results of their irresponsible behavior. In order for there to be better society, society must have minimum standards of acceptable behavior, with no exceptions, meaning no "compassion" for shit people who ruin everything, for everyone else.
You want to cut off the penises of men who get women pregnant. But you refuse to hold women who get pregnant, against the will of the man who was only intending to have consensual sex, and not make a baby, to own up to her responsibility and get an abortion, or keep the child entirely at her expense, as she is the only one who wants the little bastard.
I never said I wanted to cut off anyone's penis. That was merely an example of how barbaric your ideas are.
I don't know where you live, but get real! There are not going to be laws requiring women have their tubes tied or that they get abortions. What is real is that anonymous taxpayers will continue to support the "mistakes" of irresponsible men and women because the options (you suggest) are unthinkable and grossly repugnant to the majority of the population.
With rare exception a women cannot get pregnant against the will of a man. Consensual sex carries the inherent risk of resulting in a pregnancy which is the responsibility of both the man and the woman. The only way a man could be held harmless is if the woman raped the man with the intention of getting pregnant.
-
I never said I wanted to cut off anyone's penis. That was merely an example of how barbaric your ideas are.
I don't know where you live, but get real! There are not going to be laws requiring women have their tubes tied or that they get abortions. What is real is that anonymous taxpayers will continue to support the "mistakes" of irresponsible men and women because the options (you suggest) are unthinkable and grossly repugnant to the majority of the population.
With rare exception a women cannot get pregnant against the will of a man. Consensual sex carries the inherent risk of resulting in a pregnancy which is the responsibility of both the man and the woman. The only way a man could be held harmless is if the woman raped the man with the intention of getting pregnant.
Consensual sex, is for sexual pleasure and nothing else. If a women gets pregnant, and refuses to have an abortion, how can that possibly be the man's fault? Honestly, grow a brain already.
Reality is unthinkable, and grossly repugnant to the majority of the population, because we have allowed so many mentally inferior people, to reproduce, to the detriment to society in general. And, that will only lead to the down fall of our society, because morons, such as you have "compassion" for shit people.
-
Consensual sex, is for sexual pleasure and nothing else. If a women gets pregnant, and refuses to have an abortion, how can that possibly be the man's fault? Honestly, grow a brain already.
Reality is unthinkable, and grossly repugnant to the majority of the population, because we have allowed so many mentally inferior people, to reproduce, to the detriment to society in general. And, that will only lead to the down fall of our society, because morons, such as you have "compassion" for shit people.
When a man and a woman have sexual relations with the intent of procreating, it is consensual sex. Hopefully, there is some pleasure involved as well.
I think you have consensual sex confused with casual sex. When two people engage in casual sex, unless they are idiots, they use protection. This is not just to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it is to avoid catching or spreading STD's. Obviously, there are a lot of idiots, both male and female who choose to ignore the risks.
Abortions should not be considered a contraceptive measure. The time to think about unwanted pregnancies is before they happen. The responsibility to make sure they don't happen fall to both the man and the woman.
-
Abortions should not be considered a contraceptive measure.
It's the ultimate contraceptive measure, when all else has failed. When a man doesn't want the baby, but the woman does want it, and doesn't get an abortion, then at that point she is the only one responsible for bringing that child into the world, and no one else should be penalized for her stupid decision.
-
Every woman I married had her own career, assets, credit, $$$, car, etc.
I'm just a middle class schmoe, so they had as much to lose as I did.
In my last marriage we had a townhouse and she was working 55 miles from it.
It was only 6 yrs into a 30 yr mortgage, and I offered to let her have it .
She refused as it wasn't practical for her.
I lived there for a couple years and eventually sold it and moved.
Ok, the real issue with this is, that men traditionally produce more $$ and assets in the typical marriage.
The woman raises kids and lets the man be the bread winner.
Nothing wrong with that, UNLESS one wants a divorce.
THEN, when things get split up, the man feels cheated.
Solution :
1. BOTH partners work and make a decent living. That way BOTH husband and wife equally contributed to the household assets.
2. No kids ;)
I totally agree with part 1. Marriage is a partnership. My wife worked throughout our marriage. She made decent money too. We're both retired now. Each of us has a decent retirement income. If one of us out lives the other, they will be fine financially.
As for not having children, I don't see where having children is a problem. It certainly was not for us.
-
Bottom line... the courts will NEVER be fair towards men. The laws will always be skewed in favor of the woman.
For 100% protection of your wealth and assets:
1. NEVER get married (gay or straight).
2. NEVER get any woman pregnant.
3. NEVER shack up with her.
-
I totally agree with part 1. Marriage is a partnership. My wife worked throughout our marriage. She made decent money too. We're both retired now. Each of us has a decent retirement income. If one of us out lives the other, they will be fine financially.
As for not having children, I don't see where having children is a problem. It certainly was not for us.
Good reply and it's obvious you were meant to be parents.
In my opinion, some were meant to be parents and others aren't.
Both types are needed to have a stable world.
-
For YOU that may be the best course of action and I obviously agree with #2. :)
The one major flaw in your thinking is that the man will always be one the greater money and assets.
My current wife is a banking executive and makes a LOT more then me.
Before we moved to the Mts and downsized ,we lived in her 5 Br home on 5 wooded acres.
That was recently sold and she put the equity into her retirement account.
Plus, she has two resort rentals that do pretty well for a supplemental income.
I sold my smaller place before we got married when we agreed that was the sensible thing to do.
I'm no bum, but she came into the marriage with more wealth and assets them me.
My ex wife was a board certified psychologist and made slightly more then me.
When we divorced 9 yrs ago, she was happy to leave and go on with her life "as is".
I did the same and things went smoothly with no fighting or hard feelings.
My point is too many men marry a woman without a career .
They agree to be the bread winner and TAKE CARE OF HER.
At that point she's a DEPENDENT, instead of an equal partner.
If you get divorced, her and the courts, have an expectation that you will continue to take of her.
Moral to the story: Go into marriage as equal partners and have BOTH contribute to the household.
You forgot to mention waiting until you are older. I had no clue in my mid 20's that I would be in a position to make the kind of money I eventually made. Also you have not had kids. If you had you might have made the choice to have your wife remain home with the child/children.
If there were millions in assets and multiple properties do you think your wives would have still parted amicably? As I stated before money can complicate things.
-
You forgot to mention waiting until you are older. I had no clue in my mid 20's that I would be in a position to make the kind of money I eventually made. Also you have not had kids. If you had you might have made the choice to have your wife remain home with the child/children.
If there were millions in assets and multiple properties do you think your wives would have still parted amicably?
Good reply and excellent food for thought.
No idea what would have happened had I been wealthy or had kids.
-
they do say that, but I disagree. If a woman chooses to have the baby against the "fathers" wishes, she should also be willing to sign a release stating she won't hold him financially responsible. If not, he should have input
Right on. The one who has to pay out vast sums for more than 2 decades has no say and the one who can choose to sit and collect has the only say.
The incubation period argument doesn't wash either. He's not making her do it. She's an informed adult choosing to have a baby instead of an abortion. But never mind that. Once these 'dangerous' 9 months are over and the kid is born, how does that my body/my risk/ my decision logic translate into 18-22 years of financial responsibility? If it's because it's 'his child too' then he had an equal right to kill it early on, no? Which, of course, he didn't and we're back to the 'my body' argument. Yes, that's your body and this is my wallet. This is not your wallet because that's your body.
Come on now. Can we admit that at least some women are less than angelic and see getting pregnant as a lotto win? They are going to be taken care of and not have to work or worry about money any more. There are at least as many deadbeat moms out there as deadbeat dads.
-
Getbiggers should just marry each other. Since all getbiggers are millionaires, even if there is a divorce, no one will walk away poor.
-
I remember a time when being single in your 30's was a big no no, it was better to say you were once married and divorced now than to say you never got married (I am talking late 90's till -2005 or so). Now if you get married normal people under the age of 45 think you went insane. The divorce rate is climbing like crazy, and the shocking part is that even people who have been married for decades all of a sudden want a divorce lol.
What annoys me most is the same people who went through nasty nasty divorces sometimes multiple times are the ones pushing everyone to get married ASAP.
I do appreciate the nice show married young people put on in public as to how happy they are, I find it disrespectful that they think everyone is stupid enough to not know the fighting and police calling going on in their sloppy stinky household.
For those of us who have friends that are hooked on anti depressants we know all to well one of the sides is they become these hopeless romantic fools, falling in love eery 6 minutes with someone they are going to married right away.
This is not about courts or whatever, right now, there is no upshot in a man getting married, 0! The only benefit I see is the entertainment they seem to provide to everyone that knows them.
-
For YOU that may be the best course of action and I obviously agree with #2. :)
The one major flaw in your thinking is that the man will always be one the greater money and assets.
My current wife is a banking executive and makes a LOT more then me.
Before we moved to the Mts and downsized ,we lived in her 5 Br home on 5 wooded acres.
That was recently sold and she put the equity into her retirement account.
Plus, she has two resort rentals that do pretty well for a supplemental income.
I sold my smaller place before we got married when we agreed that was the sensible thing to do.
I'm no bum, but she came into the marriage with more wealth and assets them me.
My ex wife was a board certified psychologist and made slightly more then me.
When we divorced 9 yrs ago, she was happy to leave and go on with her life "as is".
I did the same and things went smoothly with no fighting or hard feelings.
My point is too many men marry a woman without a career .
They agree to be the bread winner and TAKE CARE OF HER.
At that point she's a DEPENDENT, instead of an equal partner.
If you get divorced, her and the courts, have an expectation that you will continue to take of her.
Moral to the story: Go into marriage as equal partners and have BOTH contribute to the household.
I agree with the concept of marriage being a partnership. There are all sorts of partnerships. If a couple agrees to an arrangement where one of them maintains the home while the other one works, this is a partnership too.
As for what happens should the partners decide to dissolve the marriage, this is often unfortunately a very negative process where no one really wins....kind of like when a business partnership ends. Occasionally, when partners separate, each just goes their own way. My parents did this. No one paid the other alimony or child support. Whichever parent I lived with supported me.
-
Good reply and it's obvious you were meant to be parents.
In my opinion, some were meant to be parents and others aren't.
Both types are needed to have a stable world.
It is totally fine for people to choose to not have children. I know married people who made this choice and seem very happy with it. Obviously, they do other things which enrich their lives.
-
25 years married to a cop the woman should be in a padded room. The amount of abuse a lot of these women put up with. Starting out, most cops work all hours of the day/night for years. I also believe cops were rated #1 for adultery...I've never met a cop that wasn't rumored to have a side piece...A lot of chicks throw themselves at the uniform. If there's one job where the wife should get half, it's a cop...Especially married 25 years to one of these animals...
-
25 years married to a cop the woman should be in a padded room. The amount of abuse a lot of these women put up with. Starting out, most cops work all hours of the day/night for years. I also believe cops were rated #1 for adultery...I've never met a cop that wasn't rumored to have a side piece...A lot of chicks throw themselves at the uniform. If there's one job where the wife should get half, it's a cop...Especially married 25 years to one of these animals...
I've never met a cop married man that wasn't rumored to have a side piece...A lot of chicks throw themselves at a the uniform man wearing a wedding ring.
-
25 years married to a cop the woman should be in a padded room. The amount of abuse a lot of these women put up with. Starting out, most cops work all hours of the day/night for years. I also believe cops were rated #1 for adultery...I've never met a cop that wasn't rumored to have a side piece...A lot of chicks throw themselves at the uniform. If there's one job where the wife should get half, it's a cop...Especially married 25 years to one of these animals...
oh jeeezus...