carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Spouses who have been cheated on can file for a fault divorce in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. The usual 'fault' in such cases is adultery. The courts tend to focus less on the 'wrong' of adultery and more on such economic issues as dissipation or hiding of assets due to the adulterous relationship. These factors can be negotiated and agreed to in a pre/post-nuptial agreement and, as an agreed-upon condition, the proof of certain faults can invalidate/void portions or all of such an agreement. My understanding is that fault divorces can be very expensive to prosecute and there is a possibility of the court ruling comparative rectitude, summarily assigning fault to each party and deciding who is least at fault. An example would be one party suing on the grounds of adultery and the other on the grounds of abandonment. That said, a fault divorce is one possible place to assign a 'cheater's penalty', presuming the benefits outweigh the legal costs of prosecution. A pre/post-nuptial might help in that regard.
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Me and my local Starbucks barista buddy are going to a gay bar up here. I know... YAWN. but actually, gay bars can be pretty fun. My friend in Chicago really is quite the fun girl... but is dating a serious guy. Plus, she really wants to start a family and settle down. So I can't blame her. it's the red lace-up corset that is the coolest. Sorry to tell you that the booty is 'hiding' beneath layers of tulle and 'flames'... but, as you said before, a trained eye can't miss those things... haha well that's still lame, but hey, it's all good. Well as always, if you are in the area, hit me up. And as far as the outfit, I'll notice everything from the legs on up. My eyes are quite refined. Red lace, tulles and flames won't be enough to stop me from seeing what's really going on:cool:
eatNrM Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. I was thinking the same thing. On the other hand...its often women in the same position that are the gold diggers. I am also wondering, as to the original poster who said: I will be your golden egg.... OK, so I agree to that, and I will sign the pre nup. Now...what if something happens to your money, your job or your assets and you can no longer be my golden egg??? Ima want my own Pre-Nup for that. haha:laugh:
carhill Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 A man is with a woman for some time, 2 years, that works. He only owns a chair. The woman is entitled to the chair! She can claim it regardless, but proof of co-mingling, such as she purchasing fabric at Jo-Ann's and reupholstering it herself in her own 'style', is the death knell if it was his separate property when they married. She's entitled to her 'portion' of the co-mingled property relevant to the 'value' she imputed. That he 'agreed' to the co-mingling is evidenced by the finished chair. He 'let' it happen. Rinse and repeat for more 'important' things, like a professional practice, the man's beach house and his prize stallion. Imagine tracking down all the bits of information to prosecute or refute claims. Imagine the 'fabric' is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then there's the value of her time and 'skill'. Like I said, slippery slope. Obviously, the example can applied to either gender, hence my prior assertion that, increasingly, women with substantial assets and with life work to protect will be looking to vehicles to do just that, or do like my exW is doing, taking all the great assets she got from me and 'letting' another man use them without being married to her. Interesting how, after three husbands, she changed her tune. The difference? She now has more 'stuff' than her BF. Smart to just let him live there at her pleasure.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 You're a funny little one. You're reminding me of Christian forums. In those forums the men who were raised to be gentlemen and to be the head of the household and such, are found making their opinions know about young women and their habits of separating the men they are attracted to in the ''now,'' from the men they will be attracted to 10 years from now. Always in those forums a woman who can't keep quiet without telling to the despairing young men that she's a traditional woman, she takes care of the kids, stays fit, and that she didn't made many men buy a lot of condoms when she was young(a virgin, so she said). Women like that young Christian lady are increasing their worth by pretending to be what they are not as a means to access the security and the protection of young men, and they crowd Christian forums to be the center of male attention. A modern woman wears a thong coming out of her pants or her boobs are hanging low because most men want a highly sexual woman(doesn't mean that she will be sexual only with the guy she catches), whereas the plain-looking woman will praise a man's worth because she only had a couple of guys before him(she forgets to mention that had she the looks to be a ''tramp' she wouldn't have such a low count), and lastly, the Christian women obey the good lord and are obedient until a certain point and for a good reason. Thing is, good-looks or not, a woman wil still receive far more from interacting with men than men will, from interacting with women. I've mentioned before that I have as my community leaders men who are friking perfect in everything. Manly men who served their Countries and married their wives, women who were very plain in their youth(and whom now have breast implants and botox thanks to ex-hubby's alimony money), women who weren't superficial and not only interested in how my elders looked like, but that the young men looked up to them. For what? Anyone of these guys could have attracted a young Angelina jolie without having to pay for it. No, they listened to their father's advice; look into a womans' deepness, do not get stuck looking at her breasts. everyone of them had long, dedicated marriages. Not one of them cheated. How do I know? It's a closed community of sorts and the men are in very public offices. Still, all of them are divorced(not by free will) and all of them are paying child-support for the children they aren't allowed to see and they're paying alimony. Money used to look better or to please the young men they are sleeping with. I'm sorry ,but given the opportunity any woman can fck up a mans' life, and life is too precious to risk everything on a supposition that only attractive women can be destructive. The only solution for this is to deprive women from relationships, marriage, and children, until they woman the fck up and stop acting like bratty teenagers. Until then, get used to attractive men pumping and dumping women and the average men ignoring women. I do what works. That's the mark of men. We adapt to our surroundings and we make the best of it all. The good men in this Country can't do anything right. everything they do is wrong and sooner or later their blushing brides is going to be corrupted by her impulses or by the message of feminist. I will never be touched by the consequences of by evil deeds because, in this County, everyone loves a ruggedly good-looking bad boy. Change it back to the time when being a man meant more than this domesticated slavery we're living, and I might consider holding women in a better opinion. Most of your stuff doesn't hold water with me... I've met more than a few men with your brave words who fall 'in love'... It's ok. I won't say 'I told you so' if it does happen. And I really do hope it happens for you some day. The beauty of the internet is that she will never need to see the person you were here. And if it makes you feel better... I'm one of the women denying men children and a 'happy home' life too. Or at least, society's view of it.
musemaj11 Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 A prenup is unnecessary if you make sure that the woman you are marrying has equal or more assets than you do. Most men who got screwed over by a divorce are those dumb men who went for stay at home women with no career.
mesmerized Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I have no problem with prenuptial agreements and will gladly sign one, it has to be fair for both of us tho.
Author Mangomonkey Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 ^^ gross dude a ugly chick will never look the same as the hot one
Jynxx Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) .......... Edited October 4, 2011 by Jynxx
Eve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Yes, that's exactly it. An average-looking man has to pay for the dates and women continue to say that they only pay if they aren't interested in the guy and do not wish to give him false hope. A man is torn between the necessity of paying if he wants a shot at a relationship, but many women are multi-dating, taking these guy's resources away and complaining that some of the guys are cheap and don't want to spend their hard-earned money. I know a guy who lost more than 1 million dollars in 10 years by dating and he has nothing to show for. The women weren't gold-diggers,average-looking, with their own jobs, and the dates were very cheap, but a coffee here, a dessert there, and the expenses accumulate. Some women don't mind going to parks and free museums as a date but that's rare. My family members in their mid-teens are beginning to date and they not only have to have a car for a girl to even say yes to their invitation; they gotta pay for the girl's tickets. They tell me that not even the most plain(or ugly) or the girls wants to go for a walk in the beach. What do you think is the financial situation of the men who deal with women in college? Then a guy in his 30's has to have a career, good money, a good education, and the potential to earn more money because the women want to settle down and they want financial security. A man is accused of rape if he tries to get fresh with his wife; she can send him to jail and also take his house and possessions, no proof required that he molested her. A destitute-d man is obliged by the law to pay alimony. If he doesn't have money but misses one month in alimony payment his sorrowful ass is now a tenant of the local jail. I know of guys suing their fathers to pay for their colleges even after these poor guys spent their lifetime paying child-support. Whenever a woman is tired of her husband or common-law partner she can quickly kick him out of his house and she can press charges without any proof of domestic violence; and that is also why women are so fat. They can do what they please for they own men and they're always making sure that men don't forget that we're work slaves and their pets. change the laws? women run our political world; they will never let go of this feminist utopia where they exploit men 24/7/ act like victims, and try to force men into marrying them or fathering a child with them, which many men are raising and paying for kids who belong to other men, but we aren't allowed paternity tests(if you are a guy). Did you know that a man, by donating his sperm to a sperm bank, is now forced by law to pay child-support? Think of a Country on which men are only valued if we're working ourselves into an early grave or if we're dying in the middle-east. That's us! C'mon, as if he paid out one million! I am just glad that the penny finally dropped and I can finally see what is a primary root cause of the weird miserable-ness on here. Ok, feminism is not in itself a bad thing. At it's root the reasons why it came into being justify it's presence. I am not into anything which goes along the line of becoming militant but to be honest I can see why women could be duped into taking a militant stance if there really is so much tension within the dating scene, never mind the process of marriage. Well, at least I understand now. Still, at the end of the day I would advise that you lot have a look around and not take yourselves so seriously. I mean, just by reading a few words on the internet I can spot who are the keepers on this site and who are not. It is not rocket science. I know most of us have had difficult, even heavily evil encounters but really don't lose sight of the beauty contained within loving someone truly. Lose sight of that and you are ****ed. I just think that within all the talk of being careful, what seems to be missing is a realistic identity towards what is actually a good man. Sir, a good man is not to be judged on who can **** someone over first... which is like a base theme within so many posts. Anyhow I think I can hear the ones with genuine intentions and I hope you can recognise them in real life too otherwise your politicians have done a thorough job of capturing your futures. Nope, I can't advocate prenuptual agreements or postnuptual ones and feel saddened that people are overly paranoid about what is simply a common and natural process. .. but yeah, I get it now. Take care, Eve x
FrustratedStandards Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I think it's a good idea. Both partners need to protect their assets etc.
Eve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Why is it that men who have never been married, have little money or no job are the ones who are most worried about golddiggers, pre-nups and alimony? They'll never be in the position to deal with those things. Very few women get alimony. Most women have to go to court just to get decent child support. If there are children by a previous marriage then their assets must be protected. If spouse #2 has no kids, then she should make his kids her heirs. That way after her husband dies, she won't be destitute and when she dies, the kids will get what's left. Seems fair to me. To repeat what has already been mentioned but not read by some, if you inherit money, it is yours alone and not your spouse's. When two people are married and then file for divorce, in most states they split whatever assets they accumulated during the marriage, not what each of them had before. What you bring into a marriage is yours alone. In this economy, since the value of houses has consistently gone down, there isn't much money to split anyway. If a man made a fortune in the stockmarket before he got married, then lost his job while the wife worked, she would be paying him spousal support.I've always thought there should be a cheating penalty payment. The spouse who cheats gets little or nothing. I never cheat! Thanks for the clarification. Take care, Eve x
Eve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 That idealism is cute,but the state is not going to give out hand-outs to the men who were screwed by the system and we'd rather play it safe. Don't take me wrong. A loving relationship and all that is attractive to many men, but we're finally coming out of our shell and firming our independence. We are the strong, independent young men of the 21th century. We are going to stop from committing to women and we won't be fathering children because we've fought too long to be free and marriage/relationships/children are the quickest route to lifelong servitude. My friend did spend more than 1 million. He showed me the receipts of everything pertaining to dating, LOL!. I can't get my head around spending one million pounds on dating. That is quite silly. Yes, I am an idealist. Elysian, it is and always will be about protecting ones heart, without losing it to fringe issues. Be wise in what you do and when you get five minutes read what Fitchick said and enjoy your life. Take care, Eve x
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Not likely. I probably do not possess the bonding-hormones that humans seem to have. Cads don't seem to have them, and I don't see the point of worrying about that. I've reached the stage of all women looking the same to me, only their name is different. About the lack of bonding hormones... that is quite possible. If that really is the case though, then what appears to be anger seems pretty unnecessary... Or even being on a 'dating' site. There are plenty of people who share your philosophy... most people here are looking for relationships of some kind though. If you aren't, then it seems kind of pointless to be here. Just accept you don't have that bonding hormone and carry on... You say you are honest with the women you have sex with. That's all most would ask.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 not all men have your bonding issues, nor do they want them. I guess there is that saying... 'misery loves company', eh? Who else is gonna join you at the strip clubs when you are old and gray? Other bitter men you manage to talk into your way of thinking... Yep. The rest will be happily 'bonded'...probably to a woman who doesn't meet your qualifications in the looks department. But that is ok. To each his own. All things considered.. seems like as valid a 'marketing' approach as any. And if other men want to believe your hoo-ha... then I guess that is their choice too.
ThsAmericanLife Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I could introduce you to men who are in their 60's and living the vida loca, as they say. Men who have families spread all over the world, healthy, good-looking men, who didn't lose their looks or their hair over the stress caused by loving relationships. Not only are they much better looking than many of the younger men still keen on dabbling with relationships; they have very weighted bank accounts(they never spent money on women), their house is paid for and belongs to them and only to them(no woman can claim a stake to it); all of their resources are generating profits, and they never had any emotional problems. These guys aren't lonely or bitter. At what? They have the looks or the charisma to seduce women whenever they want. Their boldness and their skill at the art of seduction is so advanced, they can attract the hot, young women that most young guys would have to spend a fortune for one date. This is oddly reflective of how I am, but the bad boy/Player life is all play and joy and pleasure and money. If you don't go over the edge like charlie sheen. What I find amusing is that you'd be attracted to these older gentlemen but you wouldn't have anything to do with them because they aren't safe bets for a relationship and they're too much of a wild stallion to be tamed, so you must paint them as bitter, lonely, poor men, who regret their choices in life. NOP. Never met one of the guys you mention... and probably wouldn't be attracted to them either. Not interested in taming anyone. Not everyone looks at relationships like a blood sport. It's ok if you do though. You and your guy friends can have fun. Noone really cares. Most people are busy living their own lives. Just see the anger in you and find it hard to believe you are all that 'happy'... No offense.
Eve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I could introduce you to men who are in their 60's and living the vida loca, as they say. Men who have families spread all over the world, healthy, good-looking men, who didn't lose their looks or their hair over the stress caused by loving relationships. Not only are they much better looking than many of the younger men still keen on dabbling with relationships; they have very weighted bank accounts(they never spent money on women), their house is paid for and belongs to them and only to them(no woman can claim a stake to it); all of their resources are generating profits, and they never had any emotional problems. These guys aren't lonely or bitter. At what? They have the looks or the charisma to seduce women whenever they want. Their boldness and their skill at the art of seduction is so advanced, they can attract the hot, young women that most young guys would have to spend a fortune for one date. This is oddly reflective of how I am, but the bad boy/Player life is all play and joy and pleasure and money. If you don't go over the edge like charlie sheen. What I find amusing is that you'd be attracted to these older gentlemen but you wouldn't have anything to do with them because they aren't safe bets for a relationship and they're too much of a wild stallion to be tamed, so you must paint them as bitter, lonely, poor men, who regret their choices in life. NOP. .. but what does that have to do with pre/postnuptial agreements? As long as the person ensures they cannot have children, fine. Not everyone is cut out for relationships. Not met anyone as described and I have met more people than most because of my work. Take care, Eve x
Eve Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 They have to do with prenups in the sense that the law is stacked against men which makes the player lifestyle(guerrilla warfare) the only solution to the disease of feminism and it's the only viable shield between a lifetime of obligations, and freedom. Celibacy also works. I'm not seeing the majority of men being all for it, though No, the men you describe are players by choice, Sir. Then by conditioning... probably familial and cultural conditioning. Hey, some feminist literature is very good! I was reading something the other day within the outline of a course that looks at gender from a male perspective. It was very insightful. I am glad that their is a language to such matters which if used here could aid understanding and probably erase generalisations. Maybe we should try something as such? All in all, regarding your post about the aged men, I think playing around can jade a person. Many will change though as soon as they find someone who they can love and who loves them back. To be 60 and still not have had such an experience would be the ultimate bad life. There is no war, there is just a process of finding people who 'get you' and learning how to co-exist with those who don't. Anyhow, the pre/postnuptial agreement thing has been very interesting for me to view but really it is none of my business... Thanks OP for paving a way for me to recieve some understanding of the people on this site. All the best, Take care, Eve x
Scottdmw Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I could introduce you to men who are in their 60's and living the vida loca, as they say. Men who have families spread all over the world, healthy, good-looking men, who didn't lose their looks or their hair over the stress caused by loving relationships. Not only are they much better looking than many of the younger men still keen on dabbling with relationships; they have very weighted bank accounts(they never spent money on women), their house is paid for and belongs to them and only to them(no woman can claim a stake to it); all of their resources are generating profits, and they never had any emotional problems. These guys aren't lonely or bitter. At what? They have the looks or the charisma to seduce women whenever they want. Their boldness and their skill at the art of seduction is so advanced, they can attract the hot, young women that most young guys would have to spend a fortune for one date. This is oddly reflective of how I am, but the bad boy/Player life is all play and joy and pleasure and money. If you don't go over the edge like charlie sheen. What I find amusing is that you'd be attracted to these older gentlemen but you wouldn't have anything to do with them because they aren't safe bets for a relationship and they're too much of a wild stallion to be tamed, so you must paint them as bitter, lonely, poor men, who regret their choices in life. NOP. EP, there is some truth in what you say. There are a significant number of things about our society where men face injustices that women don't, and a good number of cases where women take advantage of that somewhat shamelessly. There are also cases that go the other way, where men have the better deal, but for the sake of argument let's just say that those are relatively insignificant and men as a class are getting screwed right now. Your approach is one way to react to that. You can try to essentially beat women at their own game and prove to them how stupid they are being in their choices. You can try to give them what they think they want and laugh your way to the promised land of easy sex for the rest of your life. To me, there is an undercurrent of payback here. You may not be very angry, but reading several of your posts I do you get the feeling that this is somehow personal for you, that you’re not just on an abstract crusade for justice for your fellow man. Of course, anyone who's ever dated has probably been hurt at one point or another. You mentioned the men in their 60s living the vida loca. I don't doubt they exist, but I don't believe I've ever seen or met one. I've never been in a restaurant and seen a man in his 60s with an attractive young woman outside of TV. Either these men are so good at what they do that they get women to skip the dating and come directly to their homes for sex, or they are quite rare. I contrast that to what I've seen in my own life. My grandfathers both raised families with children and grandchildren. When they were in their 60s they had loving wives plus good sized extended families that loved them. I think they were very happy. My father is heading the same way, as are my uncles. Times are tough to replicate that, I know. Dating is more difficult maybe than it's ever been. But, personally I would rather take a chance on getting what my grandfathers and father had then aspire to be one of the men in their 60s banging young chicks. Honestly, you may aspire to that but you are taking at least as much of a chance there. Some men may age gracefully, but you may or may not have the genetic gifts to still even be interested in sex in your 60s, much less attractive. I know that things are unjust in many ways for men right now. But, think about how much injustice various groups of people have faced in other parts of the world and throughout history, born slaves, into grinding poverty, or decade-long warfare. It seems to me that by comparison the injustices modern Western men face are fairly minor. Given that, and given the fact that it seems to me that a happy family man is a more worthwhile goal to aspire to, I choose to take a different path than the one you suggest. I know that if I marry a woman she may just decide to leave for no particular reason and screw me out of a lot of my stuff. I've had it happen in relationships. But, I think that part of being a strong and good man is to take those chances. Where will civilization be if every man decides to go for a life of responsibility-free sex? If we as a people are going to have a future someone has to raise the children, and the science is clear it works better if men and women work on that together. Again, I do understand where you're coming from. It's a personal choice. Scott
Recommended Posts