gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 07:44 PM
ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Realy, we read this board DAY after DAY after DAY with men asking "How much will I have to pay?" And women asking, "How much will I get?"

Yeah, sometimes its th other way around, but lets be honest, mostly women collect alimony.

So tell me WHAT a WORKING man or woman gains by getting married? What is the UP side for men OR women, being the main wage earner, to being married?


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 09:00 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I think its an important step in sharing your life with someone.

But.....btdt, don't know if I'm in a big rush to ever do it again.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 09:05 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I think its an important step in sharing your life with someone."

And that would be great if we/they were SHARING. But when the laws are written so that one partner, usully the woman, can COMPLETELY destroy the relationship, then PROFIT from it, well, we can "share" our lives without the paperwork from the state.

And honestly, the ONLY reason someone would INSIST on marriage, is so they can use the laws to screw ove the other party later. There is NO protection for the wage earner, therefore NO reason to marry.


DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/01/11 09:23 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Divorce law has taught me to disqualify any potential marriage partner by their income (or low income potential) and their ability to co-parent, which is really sad.

Beyond that, my current girlfriend shares custody of her children with their father, and has shown she will not deny the children the other parent, even though it has financially cost her. She also has a good job and is well educated.

She's the first I've been with in over 10 years of dating that really fits what I would consider to be safe as possible from being financially exploited by her and the system. She believes in shared parenting unless there is severe neglect/abuse, abhors most folks that get alimony, and promotes self-responsibility.

We really have the same beliefs on these issues. If I was ever to remarry, she's the one.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 09:30 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

That's the same approach I took when I got married. I married a highly educated woman, with a solid career, who had joint custody of my SD with her ex, and had no child support going between households, and splits extras 50/50.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 09:46 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It's nice that you have it planned out so well.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 09:54 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Honestly, as a woman seeking $35,000 from a guy for a 13 month marriage, I really think you have NO business in this conversation. It is women like YOU who we are talking about AVOIDING.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:00 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"And that would be great if we/they were SHARING. But when the laws are written so that one partner, usully the woman, can COMPLETELY destroy the relationship, then PROFIT from it, well, we can "share" our lives without the paperwork from the state."

****************************************************

I don't disagree.

Hearing things like MTMom's SO's story sadden and disgust me.....the ending is just so WRONG.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:04 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"And honestly, the ONLY reason someone would INSIST on marriage, is so they can use the laws to screw ove the other party later. There is NO protection for the wage earner, therefore NO reason to marry."

***************************************************

I disagree with that part. I don't believe the ONLY reason someone would want to marry is because they are planning to screw over their partner.

And if you really DO believe that, then I have to add.......How stupid were you to get married 3 times ?!?!?


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:05 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]Honestly, as a woman seeking $35,000 from a guy for a 13 month marriage, I really think you have NO business in this conversation. It is women like YOU who we are talking about AVOIDING. [/quote]

**************************************************

And now we are back to I agree with you.....


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:07 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Wait, didn't you proclaim a resolution to not bring up topics prior to the current post and time? What is it, January 1?

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:09 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Gr8, you were married 3 times?!!! And you bash me for making one bad choice?????

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Now keep in mind I said the only reason someone would INSIST on marriage, not just GET married.

And I was married twice, not three times.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]It's nice that you have it planned out so well. [/quote]

How hard is it to marry someone with an education, a solid career and an ethical parenting approach? Isn't that the whole premise behind making good vs bad choices in life? Generally the more effort you make into making good decisions tend to produce positive effects.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:13 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I was referring to insults, fights etc. A person's BACKSTORY is directly relevent to the situation at hand.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I NEVER criticized you for your bad choices. I criticized you for expecting SOMEONE ELSE to pay for YOUR bad choices.

Yes, I made bad choices in wives. But I never even filed for bankruptcy, when EACH of my divorces left me devastated financially. I climbed out ON MY OWN. You know WHY? Because they were MY choices and I was reponsible for those choices. Can you say the same? Oh yeah, you "survived", but now you expect HIM to pay for it. You are the EXACT women we are talking about that makes REAL, INDEPENDENT, STRONG women pay for their gender. You should be ashamed, yet not only AREN'T you ashamed, you actually feel ENTITLED to the money.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:34 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"How hard is it to marry someone with an education, a solid career and an ethical parenting approach? Isn't that the whole premise behind making good vs bad choices in life? Generally the more effort you make into making good decisions tend to produce positive effects."

It's not really that hard at all. What you fail to recognize is that sometimes the best laid plans go askew. But, of course, that will not ever happen to you. I hope that is the case.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:38 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I was referring to insults, fights etc. A person's BACKSTORY is directly relevent to the situation at hand."

Huh? Maybe you need to clarify your resolution. What insults and fights do you mean? Does your resolution cover just one or two posters and situations? Why does a "BACKSOTRY" exclude insults and fights?


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:40 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I NEVER criticized you for your bad choices."

Do you really want me to copy and paste your comments again????!!!!

Honestly, Gr8, I think you are having a problem with recognizing what's real.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:46 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Your back story is that you are seeking $35,000 for a lousy 13 month marriage, which is EXACTLY the kind of women we are talking about that are causing men to NOT want to get married. One MIGHT be able to make a case for alimony is certain situation, long term marriages, spouse paid for education, etc. Yours is NOT one of those, and that is a FACT. Not a SINGLE person on this entire site feels that you deserve or should get it. You are trying to collect something based on the idea that YOU, ALONE, made a series of REALLY bad choices, and feel someone else should pay for it. It is that mentality that is the problem with women like you.

Of course, had you 13 month husband been a financial WRECK, and the ONLY things to come out of the marriage was, say, $70,000 in debt, you KNOW you would not be looking to split THAT, now would you.

Grow up, stand on your own two feet and be a productive member of society, of continue to be the leech that you are and give up the rights you get for being an "equal".


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:47 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Paste what you want. If you had moved downthere, quit your job, married him, got divorced and went home, I would never had said a WORD. Its your filing for alimony based on those choices, and the expectation tha HE should pay for YOUR choices that is wrong.

Of course, if you are going to cut and paste, make sure you paste the WHOLE thing.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 10:49 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I can't predict anything, but I can make a best effort to lessen the chances of problems happening. In general, people who make sh1t choices end up with sh1t results. Good choices result in good results...as a whole. Nothing is 100%, but trends tend to exist for a reason.

Marriages that begin before age 25 tend to fail at a much higher rate than people who get married at 30+. Doesn't mean 100% of each will go in their respective directions, but most will because there is common point to each which lead to success and failure.

Marriage to people of divergent educational backgrounds tends to run into bigger issues than those who don't. Same with religion, fiscal approaches, child rearing etc...

It's not rocket science, it's mostly common sense.

We all make sh1t choices at times, but you try and mitigate their effect by limiting them and hopefully making them a minor vs major point in your existence and not compounding them one after another.

It's not by primarily luck that I have a successful marriage and others have failing ones. It's not by primarily luck that I have a successful career while others wallow in ones they hate. Most of the success lends itself to working hard and making good decisions, with a small portion to circumstances. My sisters and I didn't decide to get our asses beaten by my stepfather for years. I didn't choose to be adopted into a family which saw the parents divorce less than a year after coming into it. I didn't choose to have to live with a mother who lived off alimony and our child support. But I learned to deal with it, become an adult, and move on in life and make something of it. I guess I could have spent the rest of my life using those circumstances to be a failure, and create a self fulfilling prophecy of repetitious poor decision making. But I had one thing that allowed that not to happen. It's called having common sense, and using it so that you don't continue to make piss poor decisions till the day you die. The whole point is to not keep on repeating mistakes and make better decisions as you get older. Not regress into make the crappy ones you do earlier on in life.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"If you had moved downthere, quit your job, married him, got divorced and went home, I would never had said a WORD. Its your filing for alimony based on those choices, and the expectation tha HE should pay for YOUR choices that is wrong."

Whatever. I thought you were not going to argue past situations. This is a prior post/situation.

You are not living up to your resolution.

I will let you know what the judge decides just as soon as I have the info. It is not up to you, Gr8 one, to decide this.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:40 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yeah. whatever...your standard response when you HAVE NONE.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:47 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]Now keep in mind I said the only reason someone would INSIST on marriage, not just GET married.

And I was married twice, not three times. [/quote]

**************************************************

Sorry for the miscount......I thought I just read that you had three.

I think your choice of the word 'insist' might need clarification. Yes, I know what the word means......but if one person wants to just live together and the other says "only if we are married" they have just insisted on a condition. Doesn't mean they want to screw the other person financially.....just means they aren't going to screw unless the relationship is 'official'


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:52 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Not a SINGLE person on this entire site feels that you deserve or should get it. "

Wrong.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:55 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You REALLY think she deserves THIRTY FIVE GRAND for a 13 month marriage?

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, I guess they would have to explain to m WHY the piece of paper was so important to them, and we would go from there.

Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/01/11 11:58 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"You REALLY think she deserves THIRTY FIVE GRAND for a 13 month marriage? "

From what I understand, her ex was supposed to be paying her during the separation. He didn't. Yes, she should get that money and whatever she is owed for the property settlement.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:00 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The amount she is asking for is $53,000, of which $18,000 is property settlement, $35,000 is ALIMONY.

Two things here. One, I take back my statement that EVERYONE is against it. Two, you have just lost a LOT of my respect.


googledad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:02 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

From what I understand, her ex was supposed to be paying her during the separation.

>>>>>>>>> She requested temp alimony , the judge denied her request due to the SSCRA , she is NOW asking for the temp alimony that MAY have been awarded THEN .


googledad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:05 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Realy, we read this board DAY after DAY after DAY with men asking "How much will I have to pay?" And women asking, "How much will I get?"

>>>>>>> This board is an extremely small subset of reality .

Yeah, sometimes its th other way around, but lets be honest, mostly women collect alimony.

>>>>>>>> True , not many as a percentage of the population .
I'd assume the numbers of men receiving will increase now that more women are the primary " bread winners " .

So tell me WHAT a WORKING man or woman gains by getting married? What is the UP side for men OR women, being the main wage earner, to being married?

>>>>>>>>> There are plently of benefits to marriage , it's divorce that's the problem .


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:07 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Two, you have just lost a LOT of my respect. "

Oh, how will I sleep tonight...


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:08 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

">>>>>>>>> She requested temp alimony , the judge denied her request due to the SSCRA , she is NOW asking for the temp alimony that MAY have been awarded THEN ."

Was he not under an obligation to support her because he was in the AF, but didn't?


googledad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:08 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Not by the courts .

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:12 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]">>>>>>>>> She requested temp alimony , the judge denied her request due to the SSCRA , she is NOW asking for the temp alimony that MAY have been awarded THEN ."

Was he not under an obligation to support her because he was in the AF, but didn't? [/quote]


*********************************************************

No, she waited over a year to file and when she finally did, he was being deployed so he was protected by the SSCRA


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:18 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, he paid the house note and bills while deployed, but she decided to run to New York. So is it his fault she wasn't THERE? I think not.

Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:21 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Not by the courts ."

Pretty sure there were some rules regarding support he was supposed to have followed and didn't. Maybe english can clarify.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:24 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Not according to the story she has presented thus far

Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:11 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"Not by the courts ."

Pretty sure there were some rules regarding support he was supposed to have followed and didn't. Maybe english can clarify. [/quote]

No, courts are not bound by AFI's.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:32 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The SCRA has absolutely nothing to do with a deployment. It is in effect for every member of the military on active duty at all times, and can be requested by that member at any time. The act only provides that the member is protected against default judgements when they can not particpate in the proceedings. The court does not have to allow that, some do it automatically, others require the member ask for it. Documentation can be required by the courts, or it may not be required, it is at the doscretion of the court. It does not put amounts on hold, or a stop to the clock. It only delays the proceeding until the member can particpate.

Neither of them filed, and one of them delayed participating during the year prior to a deployment. Both waited, one filed, one delayed after that filing. I do not know the exact length of the marriage, but there is a difference between the amount of time they were together, and the amount of time they were married but seperated. So are we talking about a 13 month marriage only, or a 13 month marriage and a seperation.

Take away all the other issues, and if you only look at the length of the marriage, the AF support requirement, property division for the state, what do you have.

You have a judge who is going to rule on support during the marriage/seperation, and on property for a couple (yes together) that was making a substantial income (to me) . It is an equitable distribution state, and no one has asked what the ex is getting from the marriage. Alimony and spousal support are being made to sound like it is support after the divorce, when the only thing this is looking at it during the marriage/seperation. I agree the time they were together should not come into play, only the time they were seperated.

What was their income together, what does each get in the property settlement, and how much would he have had to make, in order for the amount requested to be fair.

If he was making 200K and she was making 40K would it be equitable, would it be fair. Where is the perspective from what he is getting.

The abuse, I am not even looking at that as an influence on the settlement. She could have left for any reason whatsover, that happened to be it. So seperate that, and then figure out which spouse should get nothing, or something that is not equitable, and apparently the only requirement for dividing these things, and supporting a spouse during seperation is the fact that a divorce is happening.

How long does one have to be married to deserve equitable distribution and support when they leave a marriage, regardless of the situation.

When you go into a marriage, you have no idea how long it will last, and people join their lives, it is a compromise, houses get sold, people move, people agree on certain things, either verbally or through their actions, and when it ends, at what point does someone say, well, property and support laws do not apply, because even though you were married, it doesn't matter, you did not put enough into it. How many times have we wished that were the case.....

I can see where the numbers came from, and they do not seem high, in the context of everything. But from what I understand, it is the requested number, and it may come it anywhere in between.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:36 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The AF is bound by the courts decisions, but the courts are not bound by the AF's. The problem with that is the discretion of the judge, the judge take whatever he wants, and say, it was not enough, and more is being awarded, even though the AF said it was sufficient.

The only thing the military does in that regards is show that they do require support in some form, the amounts vary and the only person bound to that is the member. Her ex could have been 100% in compliance with the AF, or not, either way it is the AF's call. But a judge can take it for what he wants......


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:47 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yeah, and WHY did she need money during the separation? Oh yeah, she quit her JOB, and left the STATE.

Of course, some women feel that they have NO responsibility.

End of story.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:00 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I never even addressed need. From what I gathered, she survived with what he did send, and this is not about need, but about a property division and a divorce. Maybe that is what sucks about divorce, it costs both parties, and no one looks at who deserves what, so they came up with a zero tolerance policy, because peopel are not smart enough, or decent enough to do the right thing, so we have judges that order what they see as the right thing.

I do not know what the judge is thinking, hopefully it will be equitable, and not about who he likes more......


BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:02 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Without coming down with an opinion on whether E7 deserves/should get/is entitled to support --

It was my understanding, when she first started posting here, that she was getting slightly over $300 per month from her ex -- whether that represents the difference in BAH or whatever, that's what I recall.

What she's asking for now is something else.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:21 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"it costs both parties"

Really? What did it cost HER? She got quite a few months of free room and board when she was not working and living there. She used her savings to pay off HER pre-marriage debt, and now is expecting $35,000 for a lousy 13 month marriage.

Say what you want, twist it anyway you want, claim "the rules" or whatever. Again, for the MAIN wage earner, the ONLY thing a marriage license does is give the NON main wage earner legal grounds to FVCK the main wage earner and get supported for longer than they deserve.


GettingNervous
(recently joined)
01/02/11 09:30 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well said.

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:45 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The 300.00 represents what she got. I have no idea if it is any different than what she asked for or not. I will guess it was not considered enough by her.

So what would be a fair settlement. Do salaries have anything to do with it, joint income, properties, investments, etc. What would make the amount she asked for seem reasonable. Right now it all seems to be based on her actions, the action of leaving. I know if I marry again, I will keep everything premarital, and have no problems combining post marital things. In this case it seems it was not kept seperate, it was joined.


What did it cost HER? She got quite a few months of free room and board when she was not working and living there.

I thought she was working, and he was depositing her checks, and you said that was not the best decision she made....I don't know the exact timelines, but I do believe she was working during the marriage.


She used her savings to pay off HER pre-marriage debt, and now is expecting $35,000 for a lousy 13 month marriage.

I agree, it was lousy by all accounts, but how long was the actual marriage and seperation. One could apply to property, and one could apply to support......

It is not being twisted, you are acting like she put in a number, and the judge said sure you deserve it. cut the check. I do not think anyone knows what is equitable at this point, if only because no one knows the extent of the property, or the incomes while married.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:37 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Red, you are correct about everything. And I was working while we lived together. Gr8 knows that b/c he keeps harping about me quitting my job after the assault. And yes, he did deposit my paychecks. My lawyer made sure the judge knew about that.

But you know what? There are some spouses who stay at home, take care of the center of the family, put in lots of physical labor in the home (judge called that sweat equity) and their labor is not considered to have any monetary value. I worked for wages and took care of him and added value to his home. Just because he was the higher wage earner doesn't mean he worked harder than I did. Not by a friggin long shot.

The actual length of the marriage and separation was 3 yrs, 7 months.

The 300 was the BAH difference for having a dependent. It was not money coming out of his pocket. Even if it were, it took him 5 months to cough it up to help me. He figured it was doing better in his bank account. My lawyer was livid that he only gave me that amount from his large income.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:52 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"And I was working while we lived together. Gr8 knows that b/c he keeps harping about me quitting my job after the assault. And yes, he did deposit my paychecks. My lawyer made sure the judge knew about that."

Yes, you were working, PER YOU, PART time. So, a PART TIME teacher makes enogh to pay a fair amount of board for your expenses? Nope.

"I worked for wages and took care of him and added value to his home."

I never denied that you should get whatever equity was created or gained during the marriage. It is the $35,000 that, PER YOU is SOLELY for alimony that is a problem.

"The 300 was the BAH difference for having a dependent. It was not money coming out of his pocket."

So you GOT money while separated, you are just GREEDY and want MORE. Keep digging the hole...


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:54 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I think we proved in court who the greedy one is.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:58 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Really? How much of YOUR money does he want to take?

Goodmom
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 11:03 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The marriage ending wasn't on my mind when I got married. My future with my ex was. Had I known that he had no control over his temper and thought that it was okay to throw things at me and twist my arm, I would have ran the opposite direction instead of getting married.

Unfortunately, none of this behavior showed up until after the first child was born. And I was already a SAHM through mutual choice.

There are benefits to being married, but trying to tell someone who doesn't beleive that they exist is pointless.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:07 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

So tell me, a 41 year old guy, with custody of three kids, renting a house, driving an old truck, and working a 40 hour week, ONE benefit of marriage?

spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:14 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You marry, she dies quickly, and you inherit all her assets. That's about the only one I can think of.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:20 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Really? How much of YOUR money does he want to take?"

It's both what he already took and what he wants to take now. I don't have the exact figure, but it's several thousand.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:22 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

53 of them ?

Goodmom
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 11:22 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]So tell me, a 41 year old guy, with custody of three kids, renting a house, driving an old truck, and working a 40 hour week, ONE benefit of marriage? [/quote]

As I stated before, attempting to tell someone who doesn't beleive any exist is pointless.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:27 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

He took NONE of your money. You worked PART of the marriage, PART TIME. You did not make enough, as a PART TIME teacher to pay for your OWN expenses. So if he took your ENTIRE paycheck, and left you with NOTHING, not a DIME to spend (which he didn't, because you ADMITTED he had a problem with your spending habits, so you DID spend SOME money), you still had a roof over your head and food on the table.

If he is asking for money NOW from you, that would be the FIRST time you have mentioned that, and if it is less than the $35,000 in alimony YOU are asking for, you are still the greedy one.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:29 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"As I stated before, attempting to tell someone who doesn't beleive any exist is pointless."

So you only believe in telling people stuff they already know? You must be a blast at parties. Maybe there is something I am not seeing. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to a benefit to me from getting married that I am not aware of? If not, you could AT LEAST admit that in MY situation, there is none.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:33 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"He took NONE of your money."

And YOU don't know what you're talking about.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:35 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yes, I do, you TOLD us that you used your savings to pay off your pre marital debts, and that you worked part time, for part of the marriage. Guess what, sweetie, a HOUSE and FOOD and UTILITIES cost MONEY, and they cost more than what a PART TIME teacher makes. So IF (and a BIG IF) he took ALL of your paycheck, it still was less than if you had to support YOURSELF with a full time job.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:35 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I do not know what the judge is thinking, hopefully it will be equitable, and not about who he likes more...... "

I wish I knew what he's thinking. For all I know, he forgot about it! I'm hoping it will be equitable--for both of us. I was told he favors military guys and does not rule in favor of women. That doesn't sound equitable to me.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:37 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

LOL! It's so good of you to inform me of such things, sweetie.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:41 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, someone should, because you seem to think you are entitled to be supported by someone. As evidenced by your insistance that you made NO bad choices in the ENTIRE marrage (yes, you said it in the other thread), and that you were ENTITLED to the close to THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH you think you should get for each month you were married to him.

SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 11:45 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

“Not a SINGLE person on this entire site feels that you deserve or should get it.”

----->I’m not sure how you could be enlightened while you think you have everything and everyone all figured out. Oh, and if they dare disagree, than respect is lost. It doesn’t appear that you have any respect for anyone to begin with, really.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:49 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I retracted that statement earlier. And yes, I do lose respect for someone who advocates alimony for such a short term marriage, to a person with a MASTER'S degree.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:50 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"The SCRA has absolutely nothing to do with a deployment. It is in effect for every member of the military on active duty at all times, and can be requested by that member at any time"

**************************************************

Red....got it, but E7's ex DID NOT stop the divorce/legal procedings when she left him when he was active duty.....he did it a year later when he was being deployed. Those are just the facts of her story as she has told them.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:05 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Well, someone should, because you seem to think you are entitled to be supported by someone. As evidenced by your insistance that you made NO bad choices in the ENTIRE marrage (yes, you said it in the other thread), and that you were ENTITLED to the close to THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH you think you should get for each month you were married to him."

Now you're just making stuff up. Are you so paranoid that somebody might not agree with you that you have to do that? You lose respect for a long-time poster b/c she disagrees with you? You bully people who challenge you and think a few posters in here are taking over the board from you, and you want everyone to gang together and TAKE IT BACK.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:09 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"but E7's ex DID NOT stop the divorce/legal procedings when she left him when he was active duty."

What does this even matter? He didn't START the divorce until a year after I left. He couldn't. We had to wait a year. He filed from Iraq.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:14 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"She requested temp alimony , the judge denied her request due to the SSCRA , she is NOW asking for the temp alimony that MAY have been awarded THEN ."

Correct. We do not know how much would have been awarded. My lawyer told me I should have been receiving between 1-2K a month. He said that's usually what his clients get for temp orders with a similar set of incomes.

">>>>>>> This board is an extremely small subset of reality"

That is so very true.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Red....got it, but E7's ex DID NOT stop the divorce/legal procedings when she left him when he was active duty.....he did it a year later when he was being deployed. Those are just the facts of her story as she has told them.

I agree, and I would have done the exact same thing, if I could not be there speak on my own behalf(SCRA). What makes no sense is the length of the marriage...

3 yrs, 7 months.

How smart is the guy who, having already been ordered through the air force to pay support, delays it for 30 plus months. He had to know it was going to cost more... The only thing I have said all along is that I can understand where the numbers came from. It is not solely alimony, she did work during the marriage, they both contributed, and they will both come out with probably less than they had.

I do not think any spousal support should be awarded past the divorce, but I certainly could understand why a judge would order it on the past 40+ months.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:19 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Now now, english, haven't you been here long enough to know that not only am I NOT paranoid about people "agreeing" with me, I really don't care WHAT people think about me.

You were married 13 months, you are asking for $35,000 in alimony, that is $2692 for each month you were married. So, almost $3000 a month for each month you were married.

"You lose respect for a long-time poster b/c she disagrees with you?"

No, because of her stance on this situation an alimony.

"You bully people who challenge you and think a few posters in here are taking over the board from you, and you want everyone to gang together and TAKE IT BACK."

I have bullied NO ONE, and I am the LAST person anyone would rally behind. Tell ya the truth, if ANYONE is paranoid, its YOU, LOL.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:23 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

That is the TOTAL time, including the 13 month marriage. He was deployed for five years, during which he had to pay the HOUSE payment, as well as any OTHER bills. Plus he was paying her $300 a month. The reason she thinks she should get MORE money (like close to $3000 a month while he was deployed) is because she was, apparently, SO afraid of him, that she couldn't live in the marital residence while he was DEPLOYED TO IRAQ. Sorry, not buying it. He PROVIDED a place to live, she chose to live back in New York, and now wants to PROFIT from it. Its disgusting.

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:26 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

He was deployed for five years,

I did not know he was deployed for 5 years.....


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Sorry, typo, my bad, TWO years...

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"That is the TOTAL time, including the 13 month marriage. He was deployed for five years, during which he had to pay the HOUSE payment, as well as any OTHER bills. Plus he was paying her $300 a month. The reason she thinks she should get MORE money (like close to $3000 a month while he was deployed) is because she was, apparently, SO afraid of him, that she couldn't live in the marital residence while he was DEPLOYED TO IRAQ. Sorry, not buying it. He PROVIDED a place to live, she chose to live back in New York, and now wants to PROFIT from it. Its disgusting."

You are making stuff up again. He was not deployed for five years. Do you just make up things to fit your "reality"?

I couldn't live in the marital residence b/c he wouldn't let me! He changed the locks and the security code. He lived there for several months before he deployed with his girlfriend. Once he was deployed, my lawyer told me I could move down there and use his vehicles. I had begun working up in NY and finally got myself an apartment, so that wasn't feasible. Nor did I think it fair to him.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:37 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It was a typo, I already said that.

"Once he was deployed, my lawyer told me I could move down there and use his vehicles. I had begun working up in NY and finally got myself an apartment, so that wasn't feasible. Nor did I think it fair to him."

Oh, so you thought it was "fairer" to let the house sit empty, and sue him for alimony later, huh? Yeah, your are SUCH a humanitarian.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:39 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The house did not sit empty. Sorry your imagination is incorrect again. His girlfriend lived there for awhile, then he rented it to someone else. He hired a property manager to handle things and to make sure I did not come around his property.

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:40 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Ok, two years, so anywhere from 12-24 months out of 40 plus months. minus the 12 for the waiting period, I mean what was the guy thinking....He could have gotten a temporary order of support, which would have ended all the suspense about what was fair in the interim. I am not even talking about what anyone should be awarded, or have to pay, only where the numbers are coming from.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:42 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"He could have gotten a temporary order of support, which would have ended all the suspense about what was fair in the interim."

The reason he did not do that was b/c he continued to pressure me to sign his separation agreement which would not only give me nothing whatsoever, but would also have me pay him. Nothing else was in his plans.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:44 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

So it was a conscious choice to not pursue it on his part, and he already knew he was ordered to pay some support through the AF. He was rolling the dice on having to pay less. Someone did not blink, and here we are......

SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 12:45 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

The marriage was not 13 months. It was 3 yrs, 7 months.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:47 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I mean what was the guy thinking..."

Not sure, maybe he was distracted by the WAR ZONE he was deployed to...who knows.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:51 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yup Red. He was holding out in hopes I would weaken. He told me he would not give me more than the AF BAH b/c I would not sign his sep. agreement (which gave me less than nothing). That's his logic. He thought he could fool me. He even had his lawyer send me a threatening letter telling me to sign his agreement. I've saved it.

I believe he enjoyed putting me through all that while he shacked up with the exotic dancer.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:53 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

But WHY should a person with a MASTER'S degree, and a JOB, have to get PAID for a separation? Oh yeah, she WANTED to move back to New York, where she KNEW (as she has admitted she could not find work, as she was no longer qualified) she could not find work. SO you feel that the SPIRIT of the law is to reward a person who leaves a place where she is employed, moves to a place where she cannot BE employed, and she gets PAID for that? What about HER concious decisions?

SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 12:56 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Why are you incapable of looking at his decisions?

spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well techincally, you left him, so I'm not sure there is really an issue with him living with someone else since you decided to leave the state.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:58 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

His decison to WHAT? TO make her quit her job? Didn't happen. To make her run back to New York? Didn't happen.

EVERY justification she has for the amount of alimony she is asking for is based on decisions SHE made.

Oh, and to correct you, the marriage was 13 months, the ENTIRE thing was 3 yrs and 7 months.


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 12:59 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

My goodness... this is still going on lol? Gr8... honestly... why are so hung up on this situation? Are you the one who will be paying english or do you just enjoy kicking her around again...

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:01 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

But she HAD to, cause he showed up at her job, and she claims the police told her to QUIT her job. Sorry, NOT buying that her stbx showed up at the school she was working at, she called the police, and they told her to QUIT her job. Just NOT buying it, BTDT with a DV call, they would NEVER EVER EVER do that. He was TRESSPASSING on the school grounds, they MIGHT have told him to leave and dropped it, yeah, I could see that, but the response, "Well, maam, I know he was tresspassing, but if you want him to stop, well, I guess you will have to just quit your job..."

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:02 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Oh yeah, she WANTED to move back to New York, where she KNEW (as she has admitted she could not find work, as she was no longer qualified) she could not find work."

Another convenient misinterpretation, Gr8. Where have I admitted that I "KNEW" I "could not find work" in NY when I left him? I had not applied for full-time work in NY since I was hired up here years ago, so I did not know the requirements had changed.

And I did not have a job for 7-8 months after I left him. I made very little that year.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:03 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It was MY thread, SHE came on here and started crap, I am simply responding. I said NOTHING about her situation until SHE came into a thread that a few of us were discussing why a guy would get married.

But again, she's not big on personal responsibility, so I expecting paperwork asking me to pay her alimony any day now.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 01:03 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

He was receiving more BAH due to being married to her. So, you think it's ok for him to benefit from that, while not holding up to his responsibilities in receiving those funds. Got it.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:03 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Well techincally, you left him, so I'm not sure there is really an issue with him living with someone else since you decided to leave the state."

Technically, it was adultery.


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"It was MY thread, SHE came on here and started crap, I am simply responding."

Just can't help yourself, can you...


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"He was receiving more BAH due to being married to her. So, you think it's ok for him to benefit from that, while not holding up to his responsibilities in receiving those funds. Got it."

He was giving her the extra BAH, in the amount of $300 a month. She wants MORE.


BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:10 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

FYI -- again, without venturing any opinion whatsoever --

In Virginia, if you are divorcing someone with whom you have had no children, the waiting period is six months, not 12. And if someone wants to say that they committed adultery, you can file immediately, with no waiting period, unless there are minor children.

I'm just saying....


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:10 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Why the HELL should I HAVE to? I DID ignore her for quite a few posts, she kept it up, so I responded. Of course, I am in the wrong. Blow it out your ass.

Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:10 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]My goodness... this is still going on lol? Gr8... honestly... why are so hung up on this situation? Are you the one who will be paying english or do you just enjoy kicking her around again... [/quote]


Huh? English7 again brought this into a thread.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I get the BAH. I don't get anything beyond that. She quit her employment of her own volition. She wasn't fired. She opted to move elsewhere with no employment. Why isn't she responsible for supporting herself with her own job?

Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"It was MY thread, SHE came on here and started crap, I am simply responding."

Just can't help yourself, can you... [/quote]


Can you? Good gawd.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"My goodness... this is still going on lol? Gr8... honestly... why are so hung up on this situation? Are you the one who will be paying english or do you just enjoy kicking her around again..."

Sherron, I think he can't let it go b/c he hasn't been successful at bullying me into submission. I've tried very hard to answer all questions, from him and everyone else. It amazes me how frequently some people use twisted logic to try to force their stance.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 01:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I really think you have NO business in this conversation. It is women like YOU who we are talking about AVOIDING."

----->Sherron, you're right, no, he can't.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

There is no requirement that an AF member has to send his BAH to a spouse. NONE.

And no one in the AF is deployed for two years. That would be a PCS.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:14 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"Sherron, I think he can't let it go b/c he hasn't been successful at bullying me into submission. I've tried very hard to answer all questions, from him and everyone else. It amazes me how frequently some people use twisted logic to try to force their stance. [/quote]

He can let it go and you can quit bringing in up all the time too. That would be a good start to letting the issue die.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:17 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"But she HAD to, cause he showed up at her job, and she claims the police told her to QUIT her job. Sorry, NOT buying that her stbx showed up at the school she was working at, she called the police, and they told her to QUIT her job. Just NOT buying it, BTDT with a DV call, they would NEVER EVER EVER do that."

That's b/c it did not happen that way. Again, you are filling in with your imagination. I did not call the police when he showed up at my school. Would you please stop making stuff up about me? Two co-workers told me over email that he was coming around looking for me. I never called the police about that. Why would I? Later, a female detective told me I should not go there. Of course they did not tell me to quit my job. Why would you even imagine that? Oh, I know.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 01:20 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Miranda, English posted one post to Spinner. Gr8Dad brought this up in his very first post to English. I don't see that as English bringing this into this thread.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:20 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Later, a female detective told me I should not go there. Of course they did not tell me to quit my job. Why would you even imagine that?"

What the hell did you think would happen if you STOPPED going to your JOB? And why the HELL would a detective tell you to STOP going to your JOB? Especially in the middle of a separation?


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:21 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Can you? Good gawd. "

I didn't enter this thread until he decided he was speaking for the entire board, Miss Board Monitor.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:23 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"Can you? Good gawd. "

I didn't enter this thread until he decided he was speaking for the entire board, Miss Board Monitor. [/quote]

Sherron really? you say gr8dad can't let it go and you are what? A "do gooder". I say YOU can't let it go and I am the board monitor? Really?


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:26 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

That's funny, YOU telling ME what not to post, and then calling someone a "Board Monitor" for criticizing you for it. I knew there was a reason you were on ignore.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:28 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Beach:
"Under each ground for an absolute divorce, there is a provision for when you can bring the lawsuit against your spouse to the court.. . In a claim of desertion, however, you may have a time-limit problem. Whether the desertion was actual or constructive, you must wait a year after the event of desertion before you file for an absolute divorce. For a voluntary separation, you must have been voluntarily separated for at least 6 months if you have a valid separation agreement and there are no minor children. If you don't have a separation agreement and there are minor children, you must wait one year.

The closet the Commonwealth of Virginia has to a "no fault" divorce is known as voluntary separation. It usually means that you and your spouse have separated after mutually and voluntarily agreeing that you no longer wish to live together as husband and wife and that there is no hope for reconciliation. Your spouse cannot threaten or black mail you into leaving on this ground; you separate because you want to. To get a divorce on this ground you have to be separated for one year if you have minor children and or no separation agreement; or six months if you do not have minor children and you have a valid separation agreement. In Virginia you can be living separate and apart under the same roof, but this is difficult to prove, and you will have to prove it at the hearing."

We did not have a sep. agreement. He planned to sue for grounds of desertion. He later went for the no fault.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 01:30 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I think it's not really wise to speak for everyone on this site. Retracted or not, people will be offended by it.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"There is no requirement that an AF member has to send his BAH to a spouse. NONE.

And no one in the AF is deployed for two years. That would be a PCS."

True, but if he doesn't support his dependents wit it, and it is brought tot he attention of CO, then he will have it removed from his pay.

He deployed twice, with 30 days between.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"We did not have a sep. agreement. He planned to sue for grounds of desertion. He later went for the no fault."

Why didn't YOU file on the grounds of ABUSE?


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Sherron really? you say gr8dad can't let it go and you are what? A "do gooder". I say YOU can't let it go and I am the board monitor? Really? "

He said he spoke for everyone when he did not. So I disagreed and dropped it when it was obvious he was not interested in understanding. Hardly not letting it go. You're right though, my comment today wasn't necessary... just an expression of amazement that the "beat english up" thread is still being continued.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:33 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Huh? English7 again brought this into a thread."

Scroll up, Miranda. I had no intention of bringing it up again.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:34 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't think it's a beat up approach. I think it's trying to rationalize why support should be paid in a situation where someone voluntarily quit a job, moved to a location where they did not have a job when there was not a need to.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:39 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Why didn't YOU file on the grounds of ABUSE?"

I had no $$ to retain an attorney. When he filed, I counter filed (cross-complaint) with assault as fault ground.


DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/02/11 01:43 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

......................Yawn...................................

I think I'll go to the washroom now.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:45 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yet you quit your job, and had money to relocate...hmmm

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:53 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Yet you quit your job, and had money to relocate...hmmm"

Hmmmm, nothing. I didn't have any place safe down there. I had a little bit on credit card and borrowed from my elderly mother to drive down months later to get my belongings.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 01:55 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

He deployed twice, with 30 days between.

*****************

That is not possible. Once you return from a deployment you get at least 15 days of free leave and you are on a retainable/control roster for usually 179 days. My husband was in Iraq for 15 months. Came back in February of 2009 and then got hit with another deployment the following December. It was retracted and given to a guard unit because he was not back on station for a year after returning.

It sounds to me like he PCSed and extended giving him a free 30 trip back to the states on Uncle Sam.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:04 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't know what you call his time overseas, but this is one of the emails his CO sent me when ex was in Iraq:

English,
Ex is not back yet. He gets back in mid-May and then has about30 days to pack and depart for his next duty assignment, Korea.

M2

And this:

English,

Ex's's assignment to Korea is for one year. The way things are going right now, he will be ripe for another deployment to the desert about the time he is returning from Korea. We are really wearing-out our young guys.

M2


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:06 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Get the HELL out of here. The military has this weird thing called OPERATIONAL SECURITY and NO WAY IN HELL does a CO send out Emails with scheduled deployment information.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:10 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Oh, he wouldn't tell me exactly when he returned. I asked once, and he said he couldn't tell me. LOL, do you think I just made that up? HaHA!

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:13 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yes, I do think you just made that up. Mainly because the RETURN date is made public, we do it here, as many people show up at the airport to greet them.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:19 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I guess it was not a return date. This is the email I was remembering in which he could not give me exact details:

English,
Glad to hear you're out of the crack house...hopefully the start of school has helped with employment opportunities. I can't discuss exactly where Ex is deploying, but he has a month of Army training (Sep) and then he deploys in Oct...initially it was to be for 6 months, but things may change with talk of draw down and new administration.
Ex knows (from me and LtCol ****) that he is to continue providing financial support. If there's a hiccup while he's gone, let me know.

M2


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"but things may change with talk of draw down and new administration"

There is NO WAY a military commander would put something like this in writing. You are just getting DEEPER and DEEPER.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:40 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Hehehehe! I'm not sure why I think it's so funny that you just can't believe me, but it is.

Why wouldn't his Colonel put that in writing? It's not a big deal or a security issue to say that deployments may change with the new administration.

It's hilarious that you can't believe anything I say about my case, and when I give proof of something for someone else, you think I must be making it up. It's bizarre.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 02:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Ok, the Iraq thing was a deployment and the Korea thing was a PCS. That makes perfect sense now.

I don't see any OPSEC violations in the email the CO sent you.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 03:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

No OPSEC whatsover. that is more of a cold war thing, or RDF issue for certain units. DOD even releases the information months ahead of time.......

defense.gov/releases/


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 03:38 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Thanks Red and Miranda. So maybe he HAS to believe just this one thing now.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 04:50 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]Realy, we read this board DAY after DAY after DAY with men asking "How much will I have to pay?" And women asking, "How much will I get?"

Yeah, sometimes its th other way around, but lets be honest, mostly women collect alimony.

So tell me WHAT a WORKING man or woman gains by getting married? What is the UP side for men OR women, being the main wage earner, to being married? [/quote]

Your question appears to me to based on a false premise. At least, what *should* be a false premise. If the only reason a person gets married is for the potential financial rewards, then their approach is one of completing a business contract and it should be treated as such. If the gold-digger spouse reneges on the contract then they pay the financial consequences, just like they would in any other business contract.

However, I think for the most part though a couple gets together for emotional needs rather than financial ones. The benefits in that type of marriage, if it's a successful one, are fairly apparent. Both spouses respect and trust each other, are partners that rely on each other to reach their common goals, and complement each others strengths and weaknesses. For example, in my relationship I'm the planner and he's the spontaneous one. He's the cook and I'm the cleaner. He's the extrovert whereas I can have a panic attack in a roomful of people. I have a short-fuse where he's Mr. Laidback. We level each other out, but have just enough differences to make it interesting.

Financially though? Getting married won't improve my life that much. Our salaries are comparable, with him making slightly more. However, since I haven't haven't had the responsibility of supporting and raising two teenage boys my finances are in better shape. Will I take on part of that responsibility? Sure - I already have. He can't count on the boys mother, whom he shares 50/50 custody to step up, so I do. He (and the boys) reap that benefit from our relationship now. The benefits I'll get.... hmmm... let me think........ just kidding. I'll get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend, who has helped me through rough times, who can lift heavy objects, and can deal with stuff I don't have the tolerance for.

Pardon my getting off the purpose of your question, which if I'm reading between the lines right, is to get someone to come up with valid reasons why marriage isn't an outdated concept. I don't believe that it's outdated, I do however believe it's way TOO EASY to GET married. I believe couples should have to wait a minimum of 1 yr from the date they get their license to hit the altar. I also believe pre-marital counseling should be mandatory and cover everything from finances, to religion, to parenting philosophies. If it was as difficult to GET married as it is to END a marriage, I think we'd see a decline in divorce statistics.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 04:55 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't think we'd see a decline in divorces, I think we'd see a decline in marriages as a whole from ever coming to fruition. If all that was presented as the obstacle to getting married. more people would just say "screw it" and live together, and you'd have a whole lot more bastard children being born than you do now...and there's a hell of a lot now out of wedlock.

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 05:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, we would not want to offend those who forgo the ceremony and choose to parent a child with their SO, or even the children themselves. Lets just refer to them as undocumented. :)

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 05:50 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"If the only reason a person gets married is for the potential financial rewards, then their approach is one of completing a business contract and it should be treated as such."

In divorce, marriage is treated as a financial union. I don't know how else it could be treated.

"lets be honest, mostly women collect alimony."

Why is that?


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:20 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

But isn't "marriage", with the whole license thing, a PURELY financial thing? I mean I can love a woman, live with her, care for her, support her, and she the same in return, without ever getting a marriage license. The only thing the marriage license does is permit health insurance, allow name changes, and tie people together financially.

EVERYTHING emotional can be done without it, not the same financially.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I would imagine to some it is. I can understand that. What I find hard to believe is that you cannot see how someone else may see it differently......and because it is different, and not what you think, it cannot possibly make sense. The truth is that you can still get married and keep 100% seperate, enter into agreements or prenuptials, etc. With the exception of CS, a marriage doesn't have to mean anything financially......

spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:34 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

None of us want to marry Susan's daughter's though and have to sign prenups/postnups, inbetween nups and undernups and then be told that a 1 yr marriage should = lifetime alimony.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:37 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You say that, but honestly, she is hasn't even posted on this thread, yet at least TWO other women are suggesting that a 13 month marriage does deserve alimony.

Interestingly enough, its mostly WOMEN that re in favor of alimony...hmmmm


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:38 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Plus, these days if women want to get married, they need to start giving guys engagement rolexes as a sign of good faith.

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:42 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

inbetween nups and undernups

dang......:) :)


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 06:48 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, with the new economy, the rule is a ring worth three months unemployment...

Arden
(old hand)
01/02/11 08:20 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I could have been awarded lifetime SS. As matter of fact when I finally got it through my attorneys thick skull I was not interested. He pretty much let me know he thought I was an idiot.

SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/02/11 08:21 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I think alimony is support after the marriage. From what English has said, her settlement does not pertain to any support after the marriage. So, I don't think it's called alimony in her case, but I could be wrong.

spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:29 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I can only imagine how much SS I should get if my wife and I split. Married 10+ years, my wife makes 6 figures (and of course she would only be making minimum wage if it wasn't for me, since we all know that no spouse can have a successful career if it wasn't for the presence of the other) I sacrificed a 7 figure annual salary as Peter North's stunt cock to be a SAHSF for 1 week, and as such, I need to be adequately compensated with at least 10 years of alimony of no less than 4k per month. Plus I should get the marital home, both vehicles, 88.2% of the 401k's and all household items aside from her clothing and hygeine supplies. Plus she should pay all lawyers fees and create a trust fund for my dog and cat to ensure they are taken care of in the manner they've been accustomed to. That will require at least another 10k a year on her part. That should leave her with @ 1100/month to live on, plenty for her to thrive on in the midwest.

MrsB
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I've tried staying out if these threads but just wanted to add - I am a woman who is not a proponent of alimony except in certain instances. Mostly those where a spouse stayed at home and didn't work for years and the marriage was very long-lasting. I wouldn't have been awarded alimony or even wanted it after my marriage to my son's father, but I could've been awarded him to pay 1/2 of mystudents loans I took out while we were married and worked part time. I refused to go after that and felt that wasn't his obligation to pay at all.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:36 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"If the only reason a person gets married is for the potential financial rewards, then their approach is one of completing a business contract and it should be treated as such."

In divorce, marriage is treated as a financial union. I don't know how else it could be treated.

++I'm not talking about "in divorce". I'm talking about the reason someone would get married in the first place. If one spouse meets, dates, and marries with a sole focus on the financial rewards of being married, then it is basically a business contract. They should have an obligation to fulfill the contract, and suffer the consequences of not doing so. IE if you're an opportunistic person who married for money, get it, get bored and want out? You shouldn't get a dime.

"lets be honest, mostly women collect alimony."

Why is that?

++I'm assuming you were directing that at another poster and merely forgot to address them in your answer. I didn't make that statement.
[/quote]


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:54 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

" The only thing the marriage license does is permit health insurance, allow name changes, and tie people together financially."

****************************************************

For many people, sanctifying the sexual union for religious reasons is the primary purpose of marrying


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 08:58 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You do not need a state marriage license to be married religiously. My brother is a Wiccan and he did his without a state license. Proof of that? Get divorced and see if the church accepts that as "divorce".

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:07 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You do need a state marriage license to be married in MANY religions.

My church, the Catholic Church, recognizes state decrees of divorce. What churches don't recognize that and how is that relavent ?

Goody for the Wiccans if they do it without a state license.

You don't have to agree that chosing to marry rather than live together for religios reasons is a smart choice, but I'd appreciate it if you would just acknowledge that there are other reasons for getting married rather than JUST to purposely screw your partner financially.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I thought it was so women could show up at work and parade their rings in front of other women who were single to make them jealous.

Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I thought it was so women could show up at work and parade their rings in front of other women who were single to make them jealous. [/quote]

I have a nice rock. If single ladies are jealous that is really not my problem.


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:27 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"But isn't "marriage", with the whole license thing, a PURELY financial thing?"

++It didn't start out that way. Back in our parents generation, and certainly their parents generation, it was more of a religious requirement. "Living in sin" has only become more socially acceptable the last few decades. Our parents and gparents also lived in a time where a wife working outside of the home wasn't acceptable either. The little woman wasn't deemed capable of working for a living, and the husband was obligated to care for her. Society has changed and the laws haven't kept up. Of course, it also doesn't help when some women use the antiquated laws to pad their bank accounts rather than take personal responsibility for their own choices.

"I mean I can love a woman, live with her, care for her, support her, and she the same in return, without ever getting a marriage license."

++Very true. That's basically what my SO is doing, with the caveat that his support is NOT financial in my case.

The only thing the marriage license does is permit health insurance, allow name changes, and tie people together financially.

++All of those things can be obtained without marriage, and at least one of them isn't even advantageous anymore in a lot of cases.

- Getting your spouses health insurance isn't that much of an option anymore. If your spouse has insurance available through their own employer, and they are still added to yours, you pay an add'l fee. For my SO and the boys to go on my ins., I'd have an increase of $130/mo for the family coverage, plus an add'l insured spouse fee of $150. That's not happening.

- You can also get your name changed without marriage. I did it in 94.

- The last thing - tied together financially? Granted my experience is likely different from alot of people, but during my marriage I kept my finances separate, filed taxes separately, my name was on the house, etc. The financial rewards I shared with him were given willingly and I put a HELL of a lot more into his pocket than he did into mine. BUT, it was MY CHOICE, and in as much as my marriage lasted 3yrs, I chalked it up to a life lesson and moved on. Life doesn't come with a money-back guarantee.

"EVERYTHING emotional can be done without it, not the same financially. "

++I agree with you that the emotional attachment can be acheived without a piece of wedding cake, but I respectfully disagree with you that marriage is always a "PURELY" financial transaction.


Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

cake, I love cake

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:49 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"My church, the Catholic Church, recognizes state decrees of divorce."

Finz, you forget, I was raised Catholic. Get a civil divorce, then try and get remarried in the Catholic church, see if they recognize your divorce, or if you have to get an annulment...;)


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 09:56 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I go for the cupcakes first. I have to work up to the cake. ;)

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:09 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It is well worth the work :)

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I thought it was so women could show up at work and parade their rings in front of other women who were single to make them jealous. [/quote]


Definitely, for nurses especially, that's a HUGE factor.

Luckily I got a great ring !

Unfortunately, my marriage sucks......


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:26 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I think alimony is support after the marriage. From what English has said, her settlement does not pertain to any support after the marriage. So, I don't think it's called alimony in her case, but I could be wrong."

SL, it's called pendente lite, temporary support intended to put the divorcing spouses on equal footing so they can take care of themselves and pursue the divorce. It is so one spouse does not have unfair advantage over the other while the divorce is pending and until the court can make a decision. It is not alimony.

Pendente lite is frequently awarded in VA (and probably other states) and has absolutely nothing to do with the length of marriage! Nothing! It is not alimony awarded after the final divorce decree.

If I had it, I could have ended this all much sooner and been able to get on my feet much more quickly. I would have been able to move without incurring debt and begging relatives for help. I would have been able to travel farther for interviews. I would have been able to take the necessary courses to get back up to speed in my profession.

Anyone in here who thinks I just want a free ride does not know me. I have always!!! worked hard and in two marriages, I have outdone my spouses with my efforts (but not wages). I earned nearly as much as them when I was single, though, so marriage definitely brought me down in that respect.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:28 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]"My church, the Catholic Church, recognizes state decrees of divorce."

Finz, you forget, I was raised Catholic. Get a civil divorce, then try and get remarried in the Catholic church, see if they recognize your divorce, or if you have to get an annulment...;) [/quote]

************************************************

I didn't forget.

You don't understand how the Church feels about divorce. They most certainly do recognize civil divorces.....that is exactly why many divorced Catholics could not receive communion for years.

The end of the civil marriage IS recognized, but the religious sacrament is still valid unless there has been an annulmnet.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I would have been able to move without incurring debt and begging relatives for help. I would have been able to travel farther for interviews. I would have been able to take the necessary courses to get back up to speed in my profession."

NONE of which were problems caused by HIM. He didnot force you to move to VA, he did not force you to quit your job in NY, he did not make you fall behind (how far could you be behind, 13 months?), and he did not force you to go BACK to NY.

That is what you cannot seem to wrap your head around. Pendent Lite Alimony is NOT designed so that he can PAY for you making flatout SUCKY choices in your life.

"I earned nearly as much as them when I was single, though, so marriage definitely brought me down in that respect."

So when you got married, why would you earn LESS? There is only ONE way I could think of, you were either WORKING less, or not working at ALL, because I have YET to see an employer who said, "Well, Mrs. Smith, now that you are married, we are going to pay you less..."


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I hope so Red. If you're wrong I'm going to have to hit you up for alimony. heh heh heh

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:44 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"NONE of which were problems caused by HIM. He didnot force you to move to VA, he did not force you to quit your job in NY, he did not make you fall behind (how far could you be behind, 13 months?), and he did not force you to go BACK to NY."

Wrong. He should have been charged with assault. He was not b/c he's an AF officer. The police promised me an emergency protective order. That did not happen, so yes, his actions did force me to leave. Would you have had me stay? And if he assaulted me again, you would then tell me how stupid I was to stay, right? You sound so much like him. I have not doubt you are a lying abuser, too. No doubt.

Just so you know, Gr8, I will not answer any more of your comments about my case. I've gone way overboard trying to answer your every challenge. People are getting tired of it. Just know, that doesn't mean you are right, just that I'm tired of trying to talk to a wall.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:49 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I'm not getting tired out it.....I'm getting popcorn !

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:50 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Oh stop the whiney baby crap. he PUSHED you. He didn't HIT you, SLAM your head against the wall, cut you, shoot you, he PUSHED YOU. And THAT only happened after you REPEATEDLY went back to him after he showed his rage AGAIN and AGAIN.

So you know what, the FIRST time he raged at you, you were a VICTIM, the SECOND time, and EVERY time after that, you were a WILLING PARTICIPANT.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 10:58 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Wrong, but you aren't able to comprehend. You choose what you want from what happened to me and imagine the rest. There is so much you refuse to absorb.

You are sick. JL and finz can coddle you all they want, but they are not helping you.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:13 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I call them like I see them.

In this very thread, I have pointed out where gr8dad is wrong on some issues. But....when he's right, I'll back him up on that.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/02/11 11:24 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You need a new pair of glasses.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/03/11 12:03 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Mine work just fine, thanks......

Luckily, I'm not oblivious to facts the way you seem to be.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/03/11 12:08 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I can see why you would say that you treat the women in your life like princesses and you have "White Knight Syndrome." Apparently you have found the cure. Good Luck with that.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/03/11 12:13 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

LOL, you've proved my point perfectly with that reply. "Facts"? Good one, finz. You sound like a teenager.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/03/11 01:03 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yes, facts.

I am quite clear when I agree with someone or when I disagree. I have indeed agreed AND disagreed with gr8dad on different points in this thread. Those are FACTS and not subject to your interpretation.

If you can't read and comprehend basic facts, I can't really help you with that. It does explain a lot about your difficulty with finding employment though.....


MrsB
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/03/11 06:54 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Agreeing with some of his points isn't coddling him. He may not exprss them well but he has some valid points. I made one general statement in this thread about alimony - not directed At you OR him. :) Not sure why you brought my name up.

hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/03/11 10:57 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]So tell me WHAT a WORKING man or woman gains by getting married? What is the UP side for men OR women, being the main wage earner, to being married? [/quote]

Wow I didnt read this whole thread, but the answer is obvious. By today's laws leeches can and do use marriage for financial gain. Women in particular prefer to be financially dependent on men, and the courts are bent in their favor.

THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO MARRIAGE. It is legally nothing more than a business contract and will always screw over the more responsible, educated, intelligent and hard working partner. According to the IRS 98% of all alimony is paid by MEN who get screwed by lazy greedy WOMEN.

21st century marriage is a SCAM.


yregna
(veteran)
01/03/11 06:06 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I'm getting married, but only because she makes and has more money than me, so if anything goes wrong, I'll come out either EQUAL or BETTER than I am now moneywise.

There is no other reason to marry. It is and always has been all about the money. Everything you hear from women and see in the media is all BS. It is all about the money, and when 50% of women end up paying alimony, marriage will be obsolete. Say about year 2088.


yregna
(veteran)
01/03/11 06:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Sherron,
You need to pay alimony to understand how we feel. You can send me money if that will help you to emphathise. Otherwise you'd be better off shutting the Fu@& up about it...


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/03/11 06:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I would say that there is little to no FINANCIAL benefit to marriage. Other than taxes, health insurance, etc. And I doubt that is more than the potential loss for a higher wage earner.

However, there are other reasons to marry that may or may not be valid for you. For starters - religious reasons.

That said - even as a religious person - it is unlikely I would ever marry again if my husband died or divorced me. I have no desire to create half-siblings (i.e. competing interests that could conflict) for my kids. So these are my kids, he is their father, and that's it. I would (I think) want to share my life with someone since I don't enjoy being alone, but I doubt that would include marriage.

I think the main benefit of marriage is the creation of a family unit for children - so if that is not your intention I can see saying - forget it. I can also see how if you have already gone through those motions and had it end in divorce - the words might seem hollow to you. But for me, for now, I really meant it. Better, worse, forever. And so far, haha, so did he. That to me is very powerful and gratifying in an almost indescribable way.


hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/04/11 10:25 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I would say that there is little to no FINANCIAL benefit to marriage. Other than taxes, health insurance, etc. And I doubt that is more than the potential loss for a higher wage earner.

However, there are other reasons to marry that may or may not be valid for you. For starters - religious reasons.

That said - even as a religious person - it is unlikely I would ever marry again if my husband died or divorced me. I have no desire to create half-siblings (i.e. competing interests that could conflict) for my kids. So these are my kids, he is their father, and that's it. I would (I think) want to share my life with someone since I don't enjoy being alone, but I doubt that would include marriage.

I think the main benefit of marriage is the creation of a family unit for children - so if that is not your intention I can see saying - forget it. I can also see how if you have already gone through those motions and had it end in divorce - the words might seem hollow to you. But for me, for now, I really meant it. Better, worse, forever. And so far, haha, so did he. That to me is very powerful and gratifying in an almost indescribable way. [/quote]

Women are hypocrites. 68% of all U.S. divorces are filed by women yet they like to opine about family values and children and religion. why dont they walk the walk instead of just talking the talk? why are they out screwing every guy they meet on facebook while they are married with children?

Same thing goes for alimony. They talk all day about being independent hard working women. Lies. All lies. 98% of all alimony is collected by women. Its a scam.

It's all lies.


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 10:43 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I am in my first marriage to the father of all of my children. So I will opine about religion and family values as I like.

Kindly look up the definition of hypocrite and add the word "some" to that statement. I have no control over what some people choose to do. Male or female. Nor do I speak for the people who choose to do those things.

My Dad married a woman who waited to marry him until she finished collecting her 6 years of 8500/mo from her first husband. And in spite of the lifestyle he provided she HATED him and did spiteful things to him with the kids. And now they are divorcing after 3 years of marriage and SHOCKER she is trying to bankrupt him. I feel bad for him, but part of me wonders WTF he was thinking. She didn't hide her true colors - he deluded himself into believing HE would be different and it was all the other guys fault because he was an a-hole. This just in - decent people don't screw people over period. Even those who deserve it.


yregna
(veteran)
01/04/11 02:36 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

ElliesMom,
Sometimes people change during the marriage, you've heard of people changing.

What we are saying is if the woman changes during the marriage, she has the law on her side to get all the money. The man DOES NOT. Simple as that...


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 02:59 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I understand that. The laws grossly favor women in divorce. Won't argue that point in the least.

This article has even got me thinking about how this has indirectly affected our society:
[censored]://[censored].fathersandfamilies.org/?p=11816


But truly - I have found very few people change that much. The people around them delude themselves into thinking "she won't do that to me" or "she's the best that will take me so I better accept it." Or the fact that she is a liar/lazy malingerer etc. won't matter much since she is going to be a SAHM so she won't have to work in our marriage. Character flaws should not be overlooked. You are better off alone. It bothers me when people make blanket statements regarding "women" or "men" while accepting no responsibility for choosing them in the first place.

Though granted - men suffer alot more for their bad choices in women.

Both financially and violently...e.g.

[censored]://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html


1966Gal
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 03:42 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Though granted - men suffer alot more for their bad choices in women.

Both financially and violently...e.g.

||||||||

Seriously, Ellies? Do you really believe that??


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 04:10 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Uh I do.

elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 04:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

If I am a woman - and my husband leaves m after a 20 year marriage I am all but guaranteed a judge will award me spousal support if my spouse makes more than I did.

Heck - this woman my father married will probably get some for their THREE YEAR marriage just because he makes SO MUCH more than she does. Men collecting spousal support is still rare. So yes I believe that.

And - if my husband beats me up - I can go to a womans shelter and get free legal advice. Statistics show that women perpatrate DV just as often as men, yet most DV serviec providers won't serve men. They have nowhere to go. And since women get custody 85% of the time - men are also faced with if they leave - they will most likely lose their kids. Women don't have to worry about that for the most part. If you can prove he smacked you - supervised visitation. Your wife smacks you - whatever.

This woman my father is divorcing came after him with scissors and injured him during an argument. He was able to get a restraining order. He will still most likely pay spousal support. THere is NO WAY that would happen if you reversed the sexes.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 04:17 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Plus women can go and bang some guy, not tell her husband, let him think that it's his child, and then get him to pay for child support for years for a child that wasn't his even after he finds out.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 04:37 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It sounds like you see most women as behaving like your father's wife. But anyway, let's say she does get sp. support for a year. What happens to her after that? What happens to his financial state after that? In the long run, men fare better financially.

"This woman my father is divorcing came after him with scissors and injured him during an argument. He was able to get a restraining order. He will still most likely pay spousal support. THere is NO WAY that would happen if you reversed the sexes."

If he did that to her with the scissors, she got a RO, they went to court, they would look at what each spouse makes (in most states) to determine who pays sp. support, if any is paid at all. If she made much more and he asked for support, I can easily see a court giving it to him.

"Statistics show that women perpatrate DV just as often as men, yet most DV serviec providers won't serve men."

I don't know; I've read many statistics that disagree. Individual studies are biased.

You are right that DV shelters do not serve men (most don't). That is wrong.


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 06:27 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I wouldn't say most women behave like my fathers wife. Some do. And men have no recourse when they do.

I am well aware that some women are also like my mother. She was married to my father for 14 years, worked (as did he) to put him through college and a masters program. Stayed home part of the time to care for my sister and I. She refused alimony when he cheated and left, because in her words "my pride is more important than money - I don't want anything from him." And she also said that - 1. She didn't want to go to college so she didn't lose anything there. She benefitted financially from his college education while they were married in that she got to do what she wanted - stay home when we were babies. In her mind - what he owed her was not something you could put a price on and not worth trying. He gave her our home so we didn't have to move and she knew he would always take care of us. That is all she really cared about. And when doing that - her attorney did all but say she was stupid and the judge asked her several times and made sure she understood that if she didn't get it now she never could. The JUDGE tried to get her to at least ask for $1 a year in case she changed her mind. She refused. No man would get that kind of care in a courtroom.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 06:50 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

That's what I find interesting. When my parents married, my father had just finished his medical residency, and she had a masters degree. Neither put the other through school. He chose a well paying profession, she chose a useless paying one (writing poetry and plays and teaching creative writing). When they divorced of course he was going to have a better financial future, but that was of his own accord, having structured that through his own efforts. She on the other hand, was going to have a crappy financial future, again through her own doing by choosing a career which didn't pay. She wasn't a SAHM, she didn't sacrifice. In effect she benefited by not having to work near as hard as him during the marriage because there was no impetus for her to support her children financially, she had someone doing it already. So when they split, there was little logic for her to get alimony. She hadn't given anything up financially, because she never had any financial potential in the first place. She chose a crappy financial future by virtue of picking a poor field to work in. That wasn't his fault, nor should it have been his problem to fix. Now she got alimony, but stupidly remarried 3 years later to an equally inept moron when it came to making money. Her miserable financial doing was all of her own choosing.

yregna
(veteran)
01/04/11 07:26 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

English,
You are missing the point deliberately. Some women behave well, many behave badly, but the legal system gives recourse to women who choose men who behave badly. The legal system gives NO RECOURSE to men who choose women who behave badly.

The legal system gives huge incentive to women to exit the marraige, and huge punishment to men for the exact same behavior. Where are all the women gettin' their children taken away ? Where are all the men collecting alimony ? Where are all the men who are " disabled " and unable to work after being married 15 years ? Where are the women paying those " disabled " men alimony for the rest of their lives ?

English, I don't have a problem with you usin' your c#nt to get by, but I do have a problem when you expect to be " treated equal to a man " in the workplace. You should be shunned and denigrated as the disgusting user you have shown yourself to be...

At least next time, target a non-military man. God knows the military guys all have targets on their backs from women like YOU !


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 08:07 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I take it your mom was able to support herself...? Lots of spouses can't do that for some time after divorce. He was pretty good to her, too, in giving her the home.

In my first divorce, I agreed to take a low support amount, believing that I would soon be able to work full time. I was awarded the house, which had quite a bit of mortgage due. Of course, I couldn't pay for it. My ex told me a few times that he would have given me more b/c he knew I wouldn't be able to make it. I ended up filing bankruptcy, which often happens to the lower-wage spouse unless things turn around quickly.

I guess my point in all this is that women are more often the lower-wage spouse. Unless spousal support is enough to help them get more education or a better job, they are the ones to suffer. Both my ex's bought new (much nicer) homes and cars after the divorce. So from my experiences, men do not suffer more.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 08:15 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Isn't that by choice though english? Why is it up to their spouse for them to have chosen a better career path, a better education prior to, and while married? Last I checked my wife is...lo and behold a female. When she divorced her ex, she was the one making a lot more than him, and contiues to do so to this day. Is it her fault that he didn't get a college degree prior to them marrying and she did? Is it her fault that he didn't try and pursue any education during the marriage and she did? Of course not. Each person makes those choices. So why would it be any different flipping it around and holding these female accountable for their own career/educational aspriations regardless of whether the person they marry makes more/less or the same as them.

elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 08:48 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yes my mom supported us on her high school education and CS from my dad based on his income being 35k per year, which it wasn't pretty much as soon as a year after their divorce he had doubled his income. My dad has had boats, lakefront homes, has always had at least 3 cars, etc. She never even asked for a CS increase. If there was something we wanted and she couldn't afford and she thought was worthwhile - she sent us to him and I can't ever remember any request being refused. My mother still lives a modest lifestyle compared to my father. But that was all she expected to have without a huge career and college - things she didn't particularly want. my father would have been THRILLED if she had - he likes "things" and would have appreciated someone else who could/would contribute more. This difference was a part of what led to their split.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/04/11 10:32 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Okay, am I the only one JUST ABOUT SICK of hearing your whiny assed BS stories?!? This is your SECOND run at marrying someone and getting support?!? You have a MASTERS DEGREE, if you cannot find work, it is because you don't WANT work, not because you aren't qualified.

SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/05/11 01:38 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Really Gr8Dad, you are going there so easily with English again? I guess it doesn't take much....

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/05/11 03:37 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

And you are REALLY going to support a woman who has gotten alimony for ONE ex, and is now suing a SECOND ex for MORE alimony, despite her having MOE than enough of an educatin to support herself? Show some PRIDE in being a woman and stop supportng these LEECHES.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/05/11 09:31 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

LOL, yes he is going there again, but without me this time. :)

yregna
(veteran)
01/05/11 10:34 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

English has shown what kind of person she is, she deserves respect for working the system. Just like any welfare mom, or drug addict, or trust fund baby. We've all seen that type of person.
I guess you religious types would say she'll get her comeuppance in heaven or from Karma or whatever, I've never seen evidence of that, unless it was delivered by me in this life. Jes' Sayin'...

Next time you see me on here sayin' " Hey, I was born white and lower middle class and above average intelligence and health, but that didn't give me any advantages in life at all... " you can just shove me right in the same category as English.

English, you LIE TO YOURSELF ABOUT YOURSELF. And if I were YOU, I'd do the same thing. The truth is kinda ugly, but you probably aren't on the OUTSIDE.


hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/05/11 10:41 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]And you are REALLY going to support a woman who has gotten alimony for ONE ex, and is now suing a SECOND ex for MORE alimony, despite her having MOE than enough of an educatin to support herself? Show some PRIDE in being a woman and stop supportng these LEECHES. [/quote]

Impressive track record:

1 leech off parents
2 leech off 1st husband
3 leech off 2nd husband
4 ???

pretty obvious her life pattern. Her next target will be a man or the taxes men pay in order to pay her welfare. She is a parasite and will never contribute to her own pointless existence.


yregna
(veteran)
01/05/11 01:18 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I disagree, her existence has an extremely valid point, she will reproduce more users like herself. Evolution at its best. The world needs roaches, possums, vultures, ants and more people like English.

DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/05/11 01:37 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

She could have multiple children with several $100K earners, and have a career as a child support collector.

hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/05/11 05:42 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

If legislation was passed requiring 100% of all couples to have a prenup with agreed alimony amounts in order to get a marriage license, the cover would be blown off these greedy parasites. The guy would look at the demands, than laugh as he drives off at full speed. None of these leech women would have a prayer of marriage.

Unfortunately they wait till the wedding ring is on the finger before they reveal their true character (or lack of it).


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 03:40 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

douche bag!!!

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 05:07 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I would guess that a douche bag is about the ONLY thing that has been up your vagina that you DON'T feel owes you alimony...

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 06:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

<sigh> Now that one was beneath you, Gr8. Is this argument really worth it? Really....?

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 06:44 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Sorry, the alimony she is seeking THIS time is bad enough, when she announced that she should be given some kinda COOKIE cause the LAST time she got alimony, she took less than she COULD have gotten, all bets are off. She is a LEECH, and will get BOTH barrels.

I had to pay alimony to a woman that BEAT my children to the point that CPS took them, and cheated on me multiple times. And STILL, I think in SOME cases, it is warranted. NOT in her case, and NOT on ANY 13 month marriage, especially when the reciever has a MASTERS degree.


Miranda
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 06:47 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I would guess that a douche bag is about the ONLY thing that has been up your vagina that you DON'T feel owes you alimony... [/quote]

While that comment is vulgar and in poor taste, it did make me laugh in the back of my mouth a bit.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 06:54 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Well, I would agree it was vulgar if I had been the one to bring up the word, however since it was in response to HER calling someone ELSE that, I feel relieved of responsibility.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:09 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I know you won't believe this Gr8, but that comment was made by my niece. I had her read some of the nastier comments in here, and she asked me if she could type "douche bag" to reply to yregna. I couldn't say no. I take responsibility for it.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Of course, cause even though YOU were logged on, and YOU gave permission, SHE actually typed it, so it was HER fault.

Maybe you should sue her for alimony.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:23 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Read my post again. I said I take responsibility for it. I would not type such a thing, myself, but I allowed her to do it.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:29 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I would not type such a thing, myself, but I allowed her to do it."

Yeah, you would call someone an "azzhole", but "douche bag" is off limits?

Listen, I realize that you are not real bright, but YOU were logged on, she asked YOU if she could type it, YOU said yes, so she had NOTHING to do with it, YOU were COMPLETELY responsible.

And what kind of a DUMBAZZ tell someone to post something under their name that they would NEVER post themselves? Why not tell her, "Yeah, post it, but say it was YOU, not ME..." Because you WOULD post something like that, as you DID when you gave her permission.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:34 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I'm more comfortable with azzhole than douche bag.

And I am COMPLETELY responsible. Not sure why that is so important to you. Have fun with it.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Because by even SAYING that your "niece" did it was an attempt to shift some of the blame from you.

Oh, and for the record, I think you are FOS.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 07:46 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

LOL.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 11:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]Sorry, the alimony she is seeking THIS time is bad enough, when she announced that she should be given some kinda COOKIE cause the LAST time she got alimony, she took less than she COULD have gotten, all bets are off. She is a LEECH, and will get BOTH barrels.

I had to pay alimony to a woman that BEAT my children to the point that CPS took them, and cheated on me multiple times. And STILL, I think in SOME cases, it is warranted. NOT in her case, and NOT on ANY 13 month marriage, especially when the reciever has a MASTERS degree. [/quote]

I'm not arguing that point - but she's going after the $$ no matter how much logic or how many insults you throw at her. Do what you want, but why waste your energy?

Jus' sayin....


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/06/11 11:16 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

It takes no energy, and I want to make sure that anyone ELSE who DOESN'T know her backstory and comes on here, takes her advice with the knowledge that she IS a leech.

english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/07/11 06:50 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Gr8, what you are doing in interpreting my backstory in your own way. It seems that each time you post, you add more of what you think to it. No, actually, I have to say, what you are doing is lying.

I want people to know that you do not know my story. Some in here do.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/07/11 06:52 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

What I'm "going after" Java, is not alimony and the length of marriage does not come into play with it. Gr8 doesn't want to hear that, though. b/c he'd rather call me a leech.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/07/11 01:52 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Whatever you call it, and whether you believe or the judge believes or SANTA believes its earned or not, it does point out one undeniable fact:

You're putting getting that money over your personal safety.

If he's as bad as you say he is, I hope it's worth it to you.


english7
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/07/11 07:49 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I'm not as afraid as I once was. He has moved far away, I've kept my physical address secret, and the military and court now know about his behavior.

Edited to correct subject-verb agreement error. Sorry, it's a habit. ;)


hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/10/11 06:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I know you won't believe this Gr8, but that comment was made by my niece. I had her read some of the nastier comments in here, and she asked me if she could type "douche bag" to reply to yregna. I couldn't say no. I take responsibility for it. [/quote]

Next generation parasites are being trained as we speak. she probably has a huge list of $$entitlements$$ she expects to receive in exchange for her female anatomy. Don't worry, my son is only 12 and he is fully trained to detect leeches from a mile away. The next generation of men will not be scammed into alimony so easily.


Maury
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/11/11 04:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Hanz - are you attempting to be ignorant or were you born that way?

BeckaLeigh
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/11/11 11:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

TBH, I didn't marry H for money or so he would take care of me. I married him because I loved him and will always love him. He was, by far, the main wage earner but he also knows without even asking that I would never ask him for a dime. We both decided the marriage was over, a bit more me than him, but he doesn't owe me anything. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did that. I barely care for the $150 I get a month in CS for 2 kids.

yregna
(veteran)
01/12/11 12:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Miranda,
If you see the humor in that remark, there may be hope for you. I take back 50% of the bad things I said/thought about you.


hanzblinx
(enthusiast)
01/12/11 03:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]Hanz - are you attempting to be ignorant or were you born that way? [/quote]

It's actually an increase in generational knowledge. Fact is marriage rates in the US are plummeting to new lows. Look at the graphs. Why is that? Because the boys are finding out from dad's and uncles how they got raped by the courts to the benefit of the "entitlement" generation of females and the invention of no-fault divorce that "entitles" a woman to be financially rewarded for her infidelity.


Maury
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:18 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I see, if you have no actual information, you can just make it up. That is convenient.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:31 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote][quote]Hanz - are you attempting to be ignorant or were you born that way? [/quote]

It's actually an increase in generational knowledge. Fact is marriage rates in the US are plummeting to new lows. Look at the graphs. Why is that? Because the boys are finding out from dad's and uncles how they got raped by the courts to the benefit of the "entitlement" generation of females and the invention of no-fault divorce that "entitles" a woman to be financially rewarded for her infidelity. [/quote]

Its more likely that women decide that they don't need marriage to be successful in life, or that they'd rather play for the same team than hook up with one of the petulant little tantrum throwing mama's boys that won't take responsibility for their own choices.

But yeah, sure, your idea is probably right too.


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:34 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

All I know is there's a lot more illegitimate children floating around now that people have kids outside marriage.

Maury
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:38 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't believe they are called "illegitimate" anymore. I believe they are just called "children." I also don't know that they "float around." It seems to me they still live with parents.

javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:39 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yep. So? Kids who's parents have that piece of paper don't necessarily have a better life than the ones without it.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 02:00 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

" petulant little tantrum throwing mama's boys that won't take responsibility for their own choices"

See, now this is wrong. Their approach may not be the best, but what they are complaining about is women who want to be PAID or their choice to not be prepared to live life alone. The successful independent women don't ASK for alimony. We have a few of both on this board.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 07:09 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I don't believe they are called "illegitimate" anymore. I believe they are just called "children." I also don't know that they "float around." It seems to me they still live with parents. [/quote]



You and your rules Maury......Does this mean we can't call them bastards anymore ?


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:12 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]" petulant little tantrum throwing mama's boys that won't take responsibility for their own choices"

See, now this is wrong. Their approach may not be the best, but what they are complaining about is women who want to be PAID or their choice to not be prepared to live life alone. The successful independent women don't ASK for alimony. We have a few of both on this board. [/quote]

I have no argument with their complaint at all. Any adult, irregardless of gender, who abdicates their personal responsibility to someone else because of a piece of paper and then cries about the consequences of THEIR CHOICE, shouldn't be rewarded for it.

However, blinxie with his nonsense about teaching his kid to be a hateful judgemental jerk like he is, rather than teach the kid how to look for a responsible woman, is mildly annoying. I guess though since he obviously can't pick a woman for crap, he really can't model it for his kid.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/13/11 11:30 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"However, blinxie with his nonsense about teaching his kid to be a hateful judgemental jerk like he is, rather than teach the kid how to look for a responsible woman, is mildly annoying."

Actually, what I got from it was that the boys SEE the fact that their Dad's, uncles, etc are getting raped by the system. I don't see it him TELLING them anything. Or should he tell them to IGNORE the fact that these things are happening around him?

I have not advised my boys to NOT get married, just to realize the commitment and the downside they will get if they get divorced.


yregna
(veteran)
01/14/11 10:28 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

You don't need to " teach your boys to be ugly judgemental jerks ". Let them find it out for themselves. My son has already run the internet dating test, and found out the ugly truth about women in general. Here is the simple test:

Goto Match.com, eHarmony, [censored] Personals ( I spent the $ to do all three ) or any online dating site, create a MALE profile. Put in the kind of stuff you'd like, good looking guy, has a decent job/career, likes to travel and watch movies, loves to stroll on the beach, will make you laugh, goes to nice restaurants sometimes, wants a family and kids, works out sometimes but not fanatic about it, goes out dancing at clubs sometimes, but also likes quiet romantic dinners at home, anyway, just make up a male profile that is bound to be attractive to the ladies.

If you want to be brutally honest, put in everything about yourself, except the one key sentence. The test works either way, the latter just takes longer and thus costs more.

Once you are finished creating the first MALE profile, add a couple nice pics. Then COPY that first profile to another profile, call the first one Profile1 and the second one Profile2.

Add ONE sentence different to profile 2, only ONE sentence different. Don't make any other changes. Add this new sentence into profile 2:

1. In a relationship, I want to share all expenses equally. Make sure this sentence is OBVIOUS AND PROMINENT. Women are great at overlooking what they don't want to see...

The above sentence will be the only difference between profile1 and profile2. Now Post profile1 for a 3 month period, and keep track of the type of matches you get, how many, how attractive they are, etc...Rate the women 1 to 10 on looks or something.

Take it down and post profile2 for 3 months, keep track of the type of matches you get, how many, how attractive they are, etc....

You will see a DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE between the response from Profile 1 versus Profile 2. An attractive women who responds to profile 2 most likely overlooked the key sentence, so on the first date, just propose to share the cost equally, that will smoke out the fakers. You most likely won't hear from her again.

It is possible an attractive wonderful woman will respond to profile 2, especially after a long, long time. It is possible to win the lottery also...


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/14/11 10:31 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I have not advised my boys to NOT get married, just to realize the commitment and the downside they will get if they get divorced. "

Thats a very responsible thing to do, but I hope you're also giving them some advice on the character traits to look for in a spouse. Look, I'm not denying there are money grubbers out there, but somehow I think ingraining it in a young boys mind that ALL women are evil, money-grubbing wenches does the kid more harm then good. I'm not saying YOU are doing that, but that seems to come up a lot around here recently. Warn the boys about "WOMEN". How about warn the kids about the *wrong type* of woman instead, and maybe demonstrate what a successful relationship looks like by not picking a woman who crawled out from under a rock/bar stool?

Yregna, I don't doubt the results of that experiment. You might consider the fact that if you swapped the Male for Female genders, you'd end up with the same results. Of course, if you're relegated to looking on the internet to find a spouse (and not just a FWB) you've got issues in your life to begin with. On second thought, if a woman posted that sentence about 'sharing expenses equally', she'd get different results....

Either the guys looking for a mommy to pay the bills will come out of the woodwork and they'll all be 50+ with lousy hygiene, OR the decent looking guys will respond and ask/insult about the aggressive attitude and want to know what her problem is that she's so closed off and hasn't ever experienced Real Love, lol.

There are users in BOTH genders gentlemen. I'm not going to argue about who has more users, or how its paybacks, etc, etc. My issue with some of these posts, and why I come out of lurkdom on this subject is because of the generalization. Complain, be mad, hate your ex, but damn.... don't let your poor choices in spouse warp you on the whole damn gender.

I've gotta go harvest some crops... 'Nite all.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/14/11 10:47 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"I hope you're also giving them some advice on the character traits to look for in a spouse. Look, I'm not denying there are money grubbers out there, but somehow I think ingraining it in a young boys mind that ALL women are evil, money-grubbing wenches does the kid more harm then good."

Of course I teach them to look for character traits, but SOCIETY paints the non working feamle as a "homemaker" and the non working male as a BUM. Look at your OWN statement to angry, "Either the guys looking for a mommy to pay the bills will come out of the woodwork and they'll all be 50+ with lousy hygiene, OR the decent looking guys will respond and ask/insult about the aggressive attitude and want to know what her problem is that she's so closed off and hasn't ever experienced Real Love, lol."

Even YOU have the attitude that anyone who EXPECTS that a woma would want to share EQUALLY in the dating process is somehow less than a man, or will judge the woman. And lets be honest, as the RECIPIENT of the flowers, the dinners, the jewelery, etc, women in general are NOT going to push for a change in the current system. We had this discussion on here a few months ago. It started OUT as women being equal to men, then it turned into a discussion of how a majority of female posters onhere would NOT go out with a guy who didn't PAY for the date.

Like I said, easy to claim, not so easy to back up and put into play in real life.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/14/11 11:34 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't think JJ said that at all.

She is talking about reversing the sexes in yregna's 'experiment'

I'll be honest, I wouldn't respond to an online posting if a guy said he expected to go dutch all the time. That does not mean I have any problem with going dutch.....it does mean that I think talking about finances when you are supposed to be putting your best side forward is rather tacky.

I think it would be gross if either sex posted an online dating request that said "I expect to be pampered and have you pay for eveything" too.

Once you've been emailing back and forth and gotten to know the other a bit, I'd have no problem if I guy said, "I'd love to go out with you, but I'm really leery of being taken advantage of financially or I'm strapped for funds right now, so I'd prefer to go dutch."


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/14/11 11:52 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

So you would ONLY go dutch if the guy was willing to tell you he was strapped for cash? And you don't see a PROBLEM with that? And if he WAS strapped for cash, why wouldn't YOU offer to pay? I mean if its good enough for HIM to pay, why not YOU?

See THAT is the problem. Your comment right here, "I wouldn't respond to an online posting if a guy said he expected to go dutch all the time." So you wouldn't be interested in a guy unless he was willing to PAY for you? Doesn't that seem QUITE "unequal"?

"That does not mean I have any problem with going dutch.....it does mean that I think talking about finances when you are supposed to be putting your best side forward is rather tacky."

So HIM expecting you to pay for your own food is TACKY< but you refusing to date a guy who treated you as an EQUAL is NOT tacky?


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 12:00 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

If I understood finz correctly... and I have not doubt she will correct me if I didn't lol... it's the timing of the comment. Personally, it's not something I care to hear in the introduction... "Hi, my name is Fred and I expect us to go dutch".

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 12:42 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

So, as is typical of many, many women, you want a man that is honest...just not TOO honest.

finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 01:58 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]So you would ONLY go dutch if the guy was willing to tell you he was strapped for cash? And you don't see a PROBLEM with that? And if he WAS strapped for cash, why wouldn't YOU offer to pay? I mean if its good enough for HIM to pay, why not YOU?

See THAT is the problem. Your comment right here, "I wouldn't respond to an online posting if a guy said he expected to go dutch all the time." So you wouldn't be interested in a guy unless he was willing to PAY for you? Doesn't that seem QUITE "unequal"?

"That does not mean I have any problem with going dutch.....it does mean that I think talking about finances when you are supposed to be putting your best side forward is rather tacky."

So HIM expecting you to pay for your own food is TACKY< but you refusing to date a guy who treated you as an EQUAL is NOT tacky? [/quote]

*****************************************************

Reading comprehension......How do you figure "I'd love to go out with you, but I'm really leery of being taken advantage of financially or I'm strapped for funds right now, so I'd prefer to go dutch." means the same thing as I would ONLY go dutch IF he said he was strapped for cash ?

Why do you think it's okay for you to ASSUME when I would or wouldn't offer to pay for a date ?


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:06 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I didn't assume sh!t, I went by what YOU said. But you want to be EQUAL to a man, so you should want to MAKE SURE that you pay the same as him, right? So one date he pays, one date YOU pay, right? Or don't you want to be THAT equal?

Either way, like I said the Sherron, you women want a man to be HONEST with you, then you hold it against him when he IS honest.

And the GAME goes on,with women like you making up the rules as you go...


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:06 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]So, as is typical of many, many women, you want a man that is honest...just not TOO honest. [/quote]


How about we want a man who is honest AND has some common sense ?

The guy I'm looking for realizes there is a difference between trying to be gentle, yet honest, when answering the question, "Does this dress make me look fat ?" by saying, "That's not my favorite dress on you" and just blundering forward and offering the opinion when he has not been asked, "Jeez, you look fat today"

If you can't see a difference there, maybe your lack of funds isn't the reason why you are alone.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:14 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"How about we want a man who is honest AND has some common sense ?"

"Common sense" being LYING to you when you think we should?

"The guy I'm looking for realizes there is a difference between trying to be gentle, yet honest, when answering the question, "Does this dress make me look fat ?" by saying, "That's not my favorite dress on you" and just blundering forward and offering the opinion when he has not been asked, "Jeez, you look fat today"

Well, maybe if you were smart enough to look in the mirror and realize you ARE fat, and don't have such a low self esteem that you need to fish for UNTRUE compliments from a guy, you wouldn't still be LOOKING for one.

"If you can't see a difference there, maybe your lack of funds isn't the reason why you are alone."

Maybe I am waiting for a woman that doesn't NEED a man to lie to her so she can feel better about herself.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:26 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Where did I say I wanted someone to lie ?

I did not.

It is possible to tell the truth without being rude......unfortunately, some people, and I guess you are one of them, never learned basic manners or common sense.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:31 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]I didn't assume sh!t, I went by what YOU said. But you want to be EQUAL to a man, so you should want to MAKE SURE that you pay the same as him, right? So one date he pays, one date YOU pay, right? Or don't you want to be THAT equal?

Either way, like I said the Sherron, you women want a man to be HONEST with you, then you hold it against him when he IS honest.

And the GAME goes on,with women like you making up the rules as you go... [/quote]

**********************************************

I already wrote out a response to this, then my computer shut down on me....grrrrr

You have been assuming [censored]. First you cut out half of my sentence, then yelled at me for ONLY giving one example when YOU cut off the other half.

Now you are assuming that I have a problem paying for alternating dates. I don't......and I have the dating history to prove it.

I prefer each partner paying for the date they plan over going dutch. That way they can each chose a date that they can afford. Before you make another mistaken assumption.....I have made more than most of my ex boyfriends.


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:36 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Well, maybe if you were smart enough to look in the mirror and realize you ARE fat, and don't have such a low self esteem that you need to fish for UNTRUE compliments from a guy, you wouldn't still be LOOKING for one."

*****************************************************

I am fat......check

I battle low self esteem......check

fishing for untrue compliments ?.......nope

looking for a guy ? ........ ummm, not me, not now


finz
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:49 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[quote]If I understood finz correctly... and I have not doubt she will correct me if I didn't lol... it's the timing of the comment. Personally, it's not something I care to hear in the introduction... "Hi, my name is Fred and I expect us to go dutch". [/quote]


lol

Yes, thank you for getting my point
(which is code for "Thank you for posting that" because I am well aware my point was fairly clear and it is only a few blundering idiots could have possibly mistaken my point)

If you could next explain to gr8dad that saying, "Thank you for getting my point" is NOT a LIE because I AM glad that you got my point because I don't believe you to be a blundering idiot AND because it reinforces that my point was understandable to anyone who wanted to understand it.


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 10:21 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"So, as is typical of many, many women, you want a man that is honest...just not TOO honest. "

Wrong... it's the timing of things, at least for me. There are some things that are not appropriate too early on. For example, when meeting someone, I don't want your financials, I don't want to hear about your crazy ex-wife, and I won't put out either.


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 12:21 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Even YOU have the attitude that anyone who EXPECTS that a woma would want to share EQUALLY in the dating process is somehow less than a man, or will judge the woman. "

Excuse me, but NO *I* DON'T. I have been in the past, still am in the present, and will always be in the future, willing to go dutch on a date. I've GOT REFERENCES TO PROVE IT, lol. I've found that the man that will allow me to pick up the tab are usually the ones that aren't *completely* ego-driven and aren't stuck in the traditional gender roles. When I'm with a man that I respect (ie responsible) I actually ENJOY taking him out and showing him that I can "woo" him. Of course, if I feed him I expect him to put out, lol, but I have zero problems with a man that appreciates my contribution.

The comment I made regarding the 50+ mommas boys with poor hygiene? Those aren't ones who expect a woman to HELP pay for dating, Gr8. Read closer.

Those are the ones who expect to be 100% PAID FOR. The others are ones that don't want to be paid for AT ALL. Its a personal affront to them to know that a woman is CAPABLE and WILLING to contribute. I could expand on that statement to say it's ironic that the man who puts on this big show during dating that he's The Man and He Can Take Care of His Woman, then will get ticked off when he MARRIES HER and she expects him to maintain the status quo. Well - DUH Dr. Frankenstein. But in any case, that's off the subject, but in my examples above there is no expectation of SHARING the expense -- it's all or nothing.

Just like with the princesses who have entitlement issues, or the strident, pro-fems that think allowing a man to pay for anything is an archaic form of ownership of the woman, NEITHER of their male counterparts is attractive either. I travel the road down the middle - dating should be a two way street. If it isn't that way, then you've got a bright, flashing, neon "DANGER" sign that can warn you about marrying the person.

To paraphrase something you've said numerous times on these boards, "You're not a woman. You don't know what its like. You wouldn't understand."

;o)


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 02:11 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Honestly - I would expect whomever ASKED the other person to go spend time with them so they could get to know you better would be the person to pay for the date. When you invite someone like that I think it is a tad rude to expect them to pay unless you tell them before they agree to go. And even then - there is no shame in taking someone someplace inexpensive. If you can't afford a cup of coffee at starbucks you probably need to be working, not dating. Its not wrong, just uncouth to be like "Please have lunch with me - but pay for yourself." I don't even do that with FRIENDS. If I am asking you to go to a restaurant with me and I know you wouldn't ordinarily be going out - I treat.

Since I met my husband out at a club - I was paying for myself. I didn't like to have men buy me drinks - I don't like being obligated to talk to slobbering drunk dudes. He asked me to go out for lunch the next day and he paid. I would say that was when we realized there was a strong attraction (it was a 4 hour lunch date because we couldn't stop talking to each other the waitress probably wanted to KILL us) and probably the last time he paid fully for anything.

Once you get past 1 or 2 dates - I would expect (and did) share the cost of going out and doing things with respect to income. If you are a zillionaire and want to go skiing for weekend - you can't really expect your 30k/yr date to pay half. I actually made more money than DH did when we were first dating so I paid for most things. He was flat-arse broke from his divorce. No big deal. I *liked* him and we were both in it to see where it went - it wasn't about who asked by then.


DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/15/11 03:17 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I have found that women are open to having their date pay for everything, and uncommonly offer to pay. It seems it takes a special occasion like a birthday, and the folks I've dated have made a rather big deal of doing it.

That certainly could vary from person to person. I've dated many, but it would take hundreds to get more accurate perception. It could also be the area I'm from, which is 80%+ loaded with folks of Scandinavian decent, and that may be the tradition there.


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 03:59 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Once you get past 1 or 2 dates - I would expect (and did) share the cost of going out and doing things with respect to income. If you are a zillionaire and want to go skiing for weekend - you can't really expect your 30k/yr date to pay half. I actually made more money than DH did when we were first dating so I paid for most things. He was flat-arse broke from his divorce. No big deal. I *liked* him and we were both in it to see where it went - it wasn't about who asked by then. "

I have the same experience. When SO and I started dating, he asked me out and picked up the tab. The 2nd date I asked him and I picked up the tab. SO and I are about the same when it comes to income. His salary is slightly more than mine, but my bonus income is higher. With that said, to be honest, he's stretching his pay from ck to ck thanks to having two sons. BM's 50/50 financial contribution is a joke, so between the boys medical bills, school expenses, clothing, etc, there have been plenty of occasions where I've willingly picked up the tab for a night out. It's something you just do when you're with someone you care about.

I also have to say that for the first time ever, we've recently put SO on *my* checking account. The one that my paycheck hits. I didn't even do that when I was married. Our money is pooled, so for us the 'who picks up the tab' discussion is moot.


javajunkiee
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 04:05 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I find that sad DD. I won't fall back to the cliche that you're looking in the wrong places or attracting the wrong woman. I don't know those details and that's besides the point.

The fact that, in this day and age, that there are women (and men) that still find it acceptable to not contribute and let someone else do all the work? Is pathetic.

Having a limited income is no excuse for being that way either.


BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 04:22 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I am fortunate enough to have an SO that has a great income. Mine isn't half bad either, mind you -- however, he has always been accustomed to be the one that paid for everything. He feels like it's his responsibility to take care of the people he loves and I'm lucky enough to be one of them.

In general, he picks up the check -- I've done it gladly a few times when I'm the one that got off work later than him and I picked up the take out. I do NOT expect to be paid back, in any way. He spoils me incredibly -- but the things that he spoils me with aren't huge ticket items. However, it's not the THINGS that he gives me that matter.

I can't operate on the same financial scale that he does. I don't make enough money. So, he gets spoiled in myriad other ways -- backrubs when he's sore after throwing steel around all day. Laundry. Small things that I pick up for him in the course of my day that I know he needs. He's at least now started even asking me to do things for him -- but the bottom line is I take care of him and I care a great deal about him. He says he doesn't know how he's ever going to **repay me** for the things I do. Well, there's no repayment needed.

I would happily pay for dates -- if he let me. I've done it before and am happy when I do get to pick up the check. If we end up together permanently? And something happens to break us up? I don't want his money -- I have no need of it.

I know that out there there are some very angry men. Probably rightfully so in many cases. There needs to be more angry women when it's appropriate. Spousal support should be a gender neutral topic, but sadly, it isn't.


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 05:48 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

See, I am going to be honest, I don't know where you guys live, but I have NEVER EVER been asked out by a woman. I have had them FLIRT, I have had them suggest that I could take them out, but NEVER EVER have I had them ask me out or pay.

And I am going to be honest, I have lived in MANY different places in the country, and women who are willing to pay are in the SMALL minority.


DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/15/11 05:57 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

To add, my last girlfriend, who is an RN, paid for 1 date in 4 months.....I probably put out around $4K in that time....I like to do stuff.....skiing, skating, plays, concerts, dining, etc.

This has been the norm for me. I'm not the kind of person that demands I pay either.

I walked away from her....it was clear she is what I seem to find in my area......takers....how I would love to find someone that actually believes in something more than "selective equality."


Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 06:56 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"Honestly - I would expect whomever ASKED the other person to go spend time with them so they could get to know you better would be the person to pay for the date. "

Depends... you ask me out, I expect to pay for my own... I ask you out, I expect to pay for both unless we've discussed differently beforehand. Honestly, I prefer to pay for my own... this way I can order what I actually want regardless of price and not feel guilty lol.


BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 07:59 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

DedicatedDad, that ain't right. I'm an RN -- and we make pretty good money.

Takers are the norm, I was married to one -- and while he was the one that left me, my bank account was glad of it. I'm NOT a taker.....I do what I can with what I have to make life easier for my SO. He bought a new laptop to take on his upcoming extended trip for his job -- I set it up, set up his email, set up his internet security, had a friend of mine work with me to translate a bunch of forms that he needs to do his paperwork -- and now, at the 11th hour, I need to show him what to do and how to do it. I'll also be available every Sunday night when he's going crazy over payroll. **LOL**

My point is that while he could have done most of that, some of it he couldn't. I was glad to do for him, even if it didn't involve money. It took me hours, especially with the forms and figuring out how to work with them.

gr8dad, no woman has EVER asked you out? Really? Wow.....that's hard to believe in this day and age. I hope that someday someone does!


gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 08:08 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Nope, and I assure you, I would say YES in a heartbeat, LOL.

BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 09:14 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

That is just baffling to me -- I don't get it.

spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 09:50 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

[censored]://[censored].parentcentral.ca/parent/newsfeatures/article/920163--cribb-single-dads-have-little-value-in-dating-world

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 10:13 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Right on target, and utterly depressing. Yet just ANOTHER flaw in women that they HAVE, but refuse to admit or justify.

Sherron
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/15/11 10:45 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

"[censored]://[censored].parentcentral.ca/parent/newsfeatures/article/920163--cribb-single-dads-have-little-value-in-dating-world "

Dang, the majority of Canadian women are weird, don't blame you for marrying American, spinner. ;)


spinnerdegrassi
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 06:28 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Believe me Gr8dad, you're spot on. I work with enough "single mom" techs (and what I mean by single mom is girls who get pregnant as single women by multiple guys then decide now that they've gotten to age 25 or so, they want to get married. They think it's no big deal for the guy to accept the fact they'll have to deal with at least one or two or maybe 3 ex's and the hilarity that ensues in visitation/transportation/child support etc...But you even mention them dating a guy who has "fathered" a child...the series of "hell no's" reverberates through the room. Now mind you, this group generally represents what we'd term the "white trash" segment of society for the most part. But the mentality is firmly entrenched none the less.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 07:21 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Honestly, you see it on HERE with quite a few posters. They talk about how they want their ex's to be good Dad's and stand up guys, then they, THEMSELVES, either brag about, or give advice to others to RUN when the chance for a relationship with a guy who has a kid or a difficult ex. As though the difficult ex is somehow the GUYS fault.

Another double standard, defended by women, and ignored as a fault.


BeachBabeRN
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 08:45 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I've got to take exception to this one gr8dad -- but then again, I can speak only for myself.

When I was younger and my kids were younger, I had no issue dating people with kids. None whatsoever. However, at the age of not quite 51, I will shy away from dating someone with YOUNG kids -- young defined as under 10. My kids are 21 & 18. One out of the house, one probably moving out this summer. While I'm not done being their mother, I AM done with the day to day of keeping track of kids, school lunches, driving them here and there -- that part of it is over for me.

I don't have the patience to deal with little ones anymore. I don't want to help raise a small child again. I've done that. My current SO has an 18 and & 14 year old. I'm down for that -- he raises them with their mother. I see them, we can do things together when I'm with their dad, I like both of them a great deal. I don't have to childproof my house, have car seats in my Jeep, can go out for an elegant dinner when we choose to -- you get the picture. And FTR, his ex is NOT difficult at all.

I don't believe that an ex being difficult is the guy's fault unless he's deliberately being hateful, spiteful, etc. simply because he CAN. If there are issues? Something completely different. Would I CHOOSE to deal with a difficult ex? Nope, not from the get go but if it comes up, I wouldn't run either. However, I don't think that guys should have to go into a relationship knowing that there's ex drama.

If that's a fault? Okay, I'm guilty. Have I possibly cut myself off from a large percentage of people to date? Maybe. Am I okay with that? Absolutely.

I've had guys tell me that the reason they weren't taking a relationship further was because they didn't want an instant family. I always asked them why they dated me -- I never hid the fact that I was a single mom, raising two kids alone. They never really had great reasons for it but I respected their choice and didn't make an issue out of it. I'm sure no Susan Smith who was going to either kill my children **God rest those babies' souls** or give them away simply to have someone in my life. That wasn't EVER going to happen, I assure you.

My ex is NOT a good dad and I have no idea whether he's a standup guy or not -- I would have to guess not simply from some of his dealings with me. But I've also never stood in the way of anyone that he wanted to date, nor have I made his life ugly over anything. He has the perfect ex. My SO's ex has a great ex. Do they appreciate it? In both cases, I have to wonder.

I see it as a choice as opposed to a double standard, as men have the same choices that I do with who they date.


elliesmom
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 09:44 AM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Maybe I am a crazy one - but as a single childless woman - I looked at my guy with kids and was grateful that I had the opportunity to see what kind of father he was before I committed. I of course wanted to have more children, so that aspect (kids around) didn't bother me.

The biggest obstacle (to me) for dating a man with kids would be my feelings on divorce. I feel the only problems divorce is the answer to are few and far between (adultery, abuse (substance or people)). So the guy that says "yeah we just fell out of love" would send me edging towards the door.

FOr the most part I would only advise someone to RUN from a guy with kids if he didn't handle his ex like a grownup. But that is because I can't STAND to have disagreements with people who behave like children in conflict.

The only time I broke that was with my sister. And that was because SHE was not being a grown up. She was dating a guy with 50-50 (who paid a little CS due to the disparity in income) of his newborn daughter. Thats right 50-50 with a newborn daughter. The mother (a ONS) agreed to it before the birth and just pumped and sent the milk. A million ways this chick could have been difficult and wasn't. They had minor disagreements, but for the most part got along great. Then my sister starts dating him, whining about his spending money when he pays CS, whining about how he has drive farther than her. I told her - either deal with it or get out. Yes, you have to make compromises to deal with someone's ex. If you can't handle that without resentment - you have no business in a relationship with that person.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/16/11 03:23 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm hesitant about getting involved with a guy that has young kids. Between what I experienced in my marriage, and what I read on this forum, it's just the way I feel about it. Atleast for now, and I'm not sure it will change.

gr8Dad
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 04:18 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

So you want to meet a kind guy, who takes his responsibilities serious and isgoing to be a good family man...but not one that has actually DONE all of those things and can PROVE it?

Redlegg
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
01/16/11 04:21 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

See, I would have worded it a different way: I would have said:

So, you're hesitant about getting involved with a guy that has young kids?


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/16/11 04:30 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

Yes Red, I am.

DedicatedDad
(veteran)
01/16/11 05:35 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

What I've seen is that most Custodial parents won't admit it, but they don't want to a marry a NCP with young children, as they have seen how divorce has financially decimated their ex's, and they know that anyone else in the same shoes probably has similar circumstances. Very few women are looking for a man to support that has nothing left.

Reading thousands of posts over the years, probably the biggest complaint I've seen of CP moms that remarry is the financial burden place upon their new husbands from support and other previous family financial obligations.....and these are probably the ones that didn't realize how bad it often is until they married them.


SweetLight
(Pooh-Bah)
01/16/11 06:14 PM
Re: ON topic, ladies, tell me WHY?

I don't have children. My opinion is based on the experience I had in a marriage with ongoing drama that comes with an intrusive ex, and the difficulties involved in the stepfamily dynamic. I'm 39, and I could be happy with a man with either no children of his own, or older children. I've only been divorced a year and a half, and I'm not sure I'm willing to invite the drama that can easily come from having young stepchildren.


Contact Us Divorce Source Home

*
UBB.threads™ 6.5.1.1


Resources & Tools
Start Your Divorce Online Start Your Divorce
Several Options to Get Started Today.
Divorce Tools Online Divorce Tools
Keeping it Simple to Get the Job Done.
Divorce Downloads Download Center
Instantly Download Books, Guides & Forms.
Divorce and Custody Books Discount Books
Over 100 of the Best Divorce & Custody Books.
Negotiate Online Negotiate Online
Settle your Divorce and Save.
Custody and Support Tracking Custody Scheduling
Make Sure You Document Everything.

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
Enter Your Zip Code: