patrick.net

lostand confused says

Betrayals and other such are part and parcel of life.

Yes there are a lot of horror stories out there. I have a friend, he married a woman with a child. She very over weight. Anyway, for the last two years, since he moved closer to his work, she refused to relocate with him. (a move of maybe 30 miles). She rents her own place and he rents another place. And now she's unemployed. So if he divorces her, he's stuck paying alimony and child support, even though the child isn't his biological child. He claims he's still getting sex from her, but I don't believe him. And she's no looker, a fat blob to put it bluntly if you ask me. At least if you going to get screwed over by a girl, at least do it with a good looking one.

TechGromit says

I have a friend, he married a woman with a child. She very over weight. Anyway, for the last two years, since he moved closer to his work, she refused to relocate with him.

Now why would he do that?

TechGromit says

At least if you going to get screwed over by a girl, at least do it with a good looking one.

Make sure she looks good sans make-up too!

Peter P says

Any woman who agrees to be impregnated deserves no child support whatsoever.

Perhaps you were only joking...

First of all, child support belongs to the child. As co-creator, you have a financial responsibility to help meet the needs of your child.

Having spent several years working on child support reform in Georgia, I know all too well how much the system is abused. Alimony is often flown under the flag of "child support" for tax and other purposes. Men have all choice taken from them, as custodial parents are NEVER required to account for their spending of c/s. Custodial parents often claim all kinds of special expenditures as a way of padding the award and never have to show proof that the money is used for the purposes claimed in their sworn testimony. Without a doubt, the system is very flawed.

But that doesn't change the fact that each parent is responsible for meeting the needs of his and her own children in an equal capacity commensurate with each person's ability to pay... (Based on education level and previous work experience... not one's belief that she is entitled to be a stay-at-home mom for the rest of her life.)

TechGromit says

At least if you going to get screwed over by a girl, at least do it with a good looking one.

Ouch! From what I've read, getting hooked on a single mom with child is a risky bet. I got close to it once myself, but backed away quickly after I realized the cost might someday seriously outweigh the reward. There were too many variables that would have come into play and my exit strategy would have been weak at best. Don't have anything against single moms. Just couldn't handle the thought of the potential issues that would likely come up in that type of quasi parental arrangement.

turtledove says

First of all, child support belongs to the child. As co-creator, you have a financial responsibility to help meet the needs of your child.

It is a matter of expectations. What if the parents stay married? Too many parents do not take responsibility anyway.

The child support system invites too much abuses.

turtledove says

But that doesn't change the fact that each parent is responsible for meeting the needs of his and her own children in an equal capacity commensurate with each person's ability to pay...

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. I guess it incentivizes many fathers to become judgement-proof deadbeats.

I think we need to make divorces much harder, especially when there are kids involved. (It should be as hard as obtaining a Swiss citizenship.)

On the other hand, too many people have kids when they really cannot afford to.

Peter P says

turtledove says

But that doesn't change the fact that each parent is responsible for meeting the needs of his and her own children in an equal capacity commensurate with each person's ability to pay...

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. I guess it incentivizes many fathers to become judgement-proof deadbeats.

I think we need to make divorces much harder, especially when there are kids involved. (It should be as hard as obtaining a Swiss citizenship.)

On the other hand, too many people have kids when they really cannot afford to.

I don't think that the marital status has much bearing on whether a mom or a dad is a good parent (or whether both as a tandem are), so I don't think making marriages/divorces easier or harder does solve anything for the child for the better. Marriage should be a contract between the two parties only and - optionally - a religious - journey for both at the church of their liking. The government should completely stay out of it. If the government want s to incentivise kids and their stable parenting so that they can become future producers (taxpayers etc.), they should just focus on the (number of) kids and maybe come up with some metrics to measure parental success, if that is possible at all.

Peter P says

turtledove says

But that doesn't change the fact that each parent is responsible for meeting the needs of his and her own children in an equal capacity commensurate with each person's ability to pay...

From each according to his ability to each according to his need. I guess it incentivizes many fathers to become judgement-proof deadbeats.

I think we need to make divorces much harder, especially when there are kids involved. (It should be as hard as obtaining a Swiss citizenship.)

On the other hand, too many people have kids when they really cannot afford to.

If I eat too much ice cream, I’ll get fat. It doesn’t say on the jar of ice cream that I’ll get fat, but that’s what’ll happen. As a result of eating too much ice cream, I might get diabetes. It doesn’t say that on the jar, but it might happen. Do I have the right to forcibly take money from the ice cream creator for making me fat and causing me to have diabetes? Well…no. Everyone knows that ice cream eating can make you fat and may also cause diabetes. It would be silly to suggest that the ice cream maker pay me for my own choices. All I have to do is NOT open my mouth, NOT put ice cream in there, and I’m good. In short, all I have to do is control my urges and no weight gain or diabetes. All I have to do is keep the potentially bad things at bay and I’ll likely be fine. There are plenty of tasty advertisements for fatty foods, but not everyone over indulges themselves and gets fat. It’s just common sense. It’s a choice. Can I sue someone if we shared a pint of ice cream together, causing me to get fat? Nope. Sharing a choice like eating too much ice cream does not entitle you to someone else’s money.

If I drink too much and get liver damage, can I sue the alcohol company? Well no. Why? Because I shouldn’t have imbibed so much alcohol. Everyone knows the dangers of alcohol and liver damage. I made a choice that affected my body and I have no one to blame but myself. It was my choice to put a glass to my lips and imbibe too much alcohol into MY body. No one would question that it was my choice that brought about the consequences. It was my choice so why would anyone else have to pay for that choice? Making decisions is a choice. All decisions involve consequences. Why should others, even if they drink right alongside me, have to pay for my choices?

So here we are. A girl makes the decision to have sex with a man. She knows darn well that she could get pregnant having unprotected sex. She knows darn well she could get pregnant even if protection is used. It’s her body, and she decided to let some guy put his thing in her, knowing the possible result. It was her decision to have sex with him regardless of the potential consequences. If they shared ice cream together and she got diabetes, would he be held responsible legally and financially for her choice (even if they shared the same spoon)? Uh…no. If they smoked cigarettes together and she got cancer, would he be responsible legally and financially for her choice (even they were both sharing the same air)? Again…no. If they got drunk together and she developed liver damage, would he be responsible legally and financially for that illness? No…no…no…no…no. If they have sex and she gets pregnant, is he legally and financially responsible for her choice? Absolutely!

The moral of this story? Every man should load up his condoms with tobacco, ice cream, and alcohol. Don’t be a fool for the coochie!

I think we should give women absolutely control over the pregnancy, but we make them financially responsible for the children.

They can have separate contracts with the men regarding the financials and other joint arrangements.

turtledove says

First of all, child support belongs to the child. As co-creator, you have a
financial responsibility to help meet the needs of your child.

If only the dad's were able to make sure the funds went ONLY to child support. You see, when a guy dumps a gal because she spends cash like an Obama, and then he is forced to hand over thousands, to the exact same broad that is keeping the kids hungery and half-dressed due to her spending habits, (or just habits) - handed over without even the slightest oversight - that is stuuuupid.

I totally don't get the divorce phenomena in America.

I've been married 15 years, two kids and no divorce.

Yes, once my marriage was on the rocks, my wife stressed from two kids in diapers, me feeling like I'm only a pay check. Both of us lost during that time, in our new parental life feeling like it was a trap. My wife turned to crazy option trading to find the money to buy our "unrealized dreams". She charged 50K on credit cards and gambled it and lost it on the stock market, all with out my knowledge.

That was 4 years ago and the debt is now 80% paid off. Life is better, I refused the divorce and we worked it all out. I think my marriage and family is strong.

I think loyalty is really important, I believe in loyalty and I think loyalty is an important part of what keeps a couple or family together.

I don't think I understand Americans anymore,
I think Americans have lost or forgotten the importance of loyalty. Loyalty to their wife , to their husband, and to the family unit. I would even venture to say that Americans don't even feel the need to be loyal to their own country or people anymore.

If you want to get married and you want it to last, I think one should think long and hard about the concept of Loyalty, and build a high regard for it.

propitup1 says

I think loyalty is really important, I believe in loyalty and I think loyalty is an important part of what keeps a couple or family together.

Loyalty is an abstract concept.

But marriage is a contract. I expect people to respect it like they would with any other contract.

propitup1 says

That was 4 years ago and the debt is now 80% paid off. Life is better, I refused the divorce and we worked it all out. I think my marriage and family is strong.

doesnt matter what you think. it matters what she thinks. that's the terrifying part of a marriage

BRP001 says

If they shared ice cream together and she got diabetes, would he be held responsible legally and financially for her choice (even if they shared the same spoon)?

lol

"that after years of slaving away to give that woman everything, she decided she was not attracted to me anymore? what would that have done to my self-esteem?

that was a hilarious line from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle when Craig's father reveals his wife left him

The impact of hookup culture on future divorce rates:

One thing the most recent data doesn’t tell us is what impact if any the widespread acceptance of hookup culture will have on divorce rates moving forward. Just because marrying a college educated woman in the late 90s turned out to be a relatively safe bet, it doesn’t mean marrying one today will have the same low risk. Back in the late 90s the hookup culture was still in the early stages. Since then we have seen the growth of hookup culture and a mass of women postponing marriage until the very last minute. All of this adds up to an explosion of former carousel riders suddenly looking to marry. Based on what The Social Pathologist has shared here, here, and here, we know that the more sexual partners a woman has the less satisfied she is in marriage and the higher risk she presents for divorce. On the flip side, we know that older wives are less likely to divorce. This leaves us with a best case scenario of unhappy marriages with low rates of divorce, and a worst case scenario of unhappy marriages with high rates of divorce.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/whistling-through-the-graveyard/

this thread cannot be complete without this

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hPIxrzmatq0

Peter P says

But marriage is a contract. I expect people to respect it like they would with any other contract.

Well shit, that explains a lot. People seem to respect the contractual obligations of marriage about as much as they respect, say, the contractual obligations of a mortgage! If it stops working the way you like, walk the fuck away and make it someone else's problem! 'Murica, fuck yeah!

propitup1 says

I totally don't get the divorce phenomena in America.

it's not a country thing. it's a confluence of factors, mainly legal incentives and culture.

legal marriage is about the state shifting power to protect (and now penalize) the parties. here is an example of no-fault divorce incentives across 2 countries.

"American women file 70% of the Divorces and the American divorce rate is 50%. South Korea had a 1% divorce rate up until 1990. Until that time Korean men would get the house and children if he wanted them, and women would rarely if ever pay child support, but she would be forced to leave the marriage house unless she proved that there was something seriously wrong with the man. Until 1990, men usually filed for divorce and had to to prove fault with the wife. Since 1990, South Korean divorce laws became more similar to the USA. Since 2000, the South Korean divorce rate has been 45%, and Korean women file 65% of the divorces"

BayArea says

Please elaborate on the affair definition recommendation.

Simple. What is an affair to you? What sort of relationship outside of marriage would you consider a threat to your marriage? Would it be okay if your wife had a male friend with whom she shares her innermost feelings? Would it be okay for her to spend hours a day texting and calling this person? Is that sort of behavior an affair to you?

Oxygen says

Until 1990, men usually filed for divorce and had to to prove fault with the
wife. Since 1990, South Korean divorce laws became more similar to the USA.
Since 2000, the South Korean divorce rate has been 45%, and Korean women file
65% of the divorces"

The same in China. On divorce , women would get half the apt , even though in most cases, it was the man/his family that bought it. Last year the govt recognized the phenomenon-as there were close to 1 million divorces and so changed the law- so that women won't get the houses.

Now you have abunch of angry Chinese women !!! Whatever happened to living by your heart? Of course you have the feminists up in arms claiming Chinese women are now homeless because of the law and this is a civil rights violation. So a guy buys a home, you live in it free and don't want to be with him anymore-so you want the house and kick him out??

lostand confused says

Last year the govt recognized the phenomenon-as there were close to 1 million divorces and so changed the law- so that women won't get the houses.

i am well aware of the marriage phenomenon in China (i'm Chinese and i read about socioeconomic issues a lot). The law was enacted to protect the man's parents' interest since they were usually the one to give money to the son. this trend also partially drives the housing market in China.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MH20Ad01.html

the funny thing is once the law was enacted, all the beta males quickly moved to add their wife's name on the deed as a sign of their love. lol

The hookup culture is not a new phenomenon, it is just a different manifestation of humans natural polyamory because it is now more accepted. This bullshit about how marriages were great and sanct in the (insert your favorite decade here) is just complete hogwash. Spouses were financially and socially dependent on their husband and took care of everything home and the husband was supposed to take care of everything financial. That and societal pressure just kept you married. Hook ups didn't exist, instead they manifested as secret and long lasting affairs. And even if those were busted, the societal contract demanded the parties working this out and keeping it secret. Man and woman's expectations of how their life would be shaped were reduced to very few possibilities. If you never leave your village you may never get bitten by desire or longing for the unknown. As long as we cling to monogamy and the exclusive and possessive nature of what we call marriage and family, all these conflicts and scams will continue.

Oxygen says

this thread cannot be complete without this

Epic shit - hell yeah!

An old woman was sipping on a glass of wine, while sitting on the patio with her husband, and she says.

"I love you so much, I don't know how I could ever live without you"

Her husband asks, "Is that you or the wine talking?" ... She replies, "It's me... talking to the wine."

joe blow says

marriage is slavery if you are the breadwinner, and there is no way out -- divorce courts destroy your life. If you have a decent middle class job, marriage is like playing russian roulette with 3 bullets in the gun.

Middle class is a fragile way to live anyway. There is no other way to put it.

Divorce is an easy out, so many people don't consider how difficult it can really be. There's always emotional fallout, which is magnified if children are involved. People even battle over pets.

BRP001 says

Unfortunately for her, all of my investments were locked up tight and untouchable. She got nada.

Exactly how does one do this?

turtledove says

Having spent several years working on child support reform in Georgia, I know all too well how much the system is abused. Alimony is often flown under the flag of "child support" for tax and other purposes. Men have all choice taken from them, as custodial parents are NEVER required to account for their spending of c/s. Custodial parents often claim all kinds of special expenditures as a way of padding the award and never have to show proof that the money is used for the purposes claimed in their sworn testimony. Without a doubt, the system is very flawed.

But that doesn't change the fact that each parent is responsible for meeting the needs of his and her own children in an equal capacity commensurate with each person's ability to pay... (Based on education level and previous work experience... not one's belief that she is entitled to be a stay-at-home mom for the rest of her life.)

Already really high on my long list of reasons not to have kids.

zzyzzx says

Fantastic, I'll take 5

Edit: Forgot to ask - how many before I can get the volume discount?

Oxygen says

"American women file 70% of the Divorces and the American divorce rate is 50%. South Korea had a 1% divorce rate up until 1990. Until that time Korean men would get the house and children if he wanted them, and women would rarely if ever pay child support, but she would be forced to leave the marriage house unless she proved that there was something seriously wrong with the man. Until 1990, men usually filed for divorce and had to to prove fault with the wife. Since 1990, South Korean divorce laws became more similar to the USA. Since 2000, the South Korean divorce rate has been 45%, and Korean women file 65% of the divorces"

This ought to be front page news in the US. But I am not surprised that it is not.

lostand confused says

The same in China. On divorce , women would get half the apt , even though in most cases, it was the man/his family that bought it. Last year the govt recognized the phenomenon-as there were close to 1 million divorces and so changed the law- so that women won't get the houses.

Now you have abunch of angry Chinese women !!! Whatever happened to living by your heart? Of course you have the feminists up in arms claiming Chinese women are now homeless because of the law and this is a civil rights violation. So a guy buys a home, you live in it free and don't want to be with him anymore-so you want the house and kick him out??

Marriage law in the US could need a similar makeover, too. When will Congress act to abolish slavery, finally? :-)

Peter P says

But marriage is a contract. I expect people to respect it like they would with any other contract.

The problem is that the marriage contract gives the husband no rights whatsoever, and the wife all kinds of rights that will be enforced by law.

As far as I can tell, the only right a man gets through marriage is the following: If your wife, during marriage, gets pregnant and has a child with another man, you have the right (actually obligation) to claim that child as your own.

Some "right" that is. Don't believe me? Look it up.

justme says

Peter P says

But marriage is a contract. I expect people to respect it like they would with any other contract.

The problem is that the marriage contract gives the husband no rights whatsoever, and the wife all kinds of rights that will be enforced by law.

As far as I can tell, the only right a man gets through marriage is the following: If your wife, during marriage, gets pregnant and has a child with another man, you have the right (actually obligation) to claim that child as your own.

Some "right" that is. Don't believe me? Look it up.

presumption of paternity

this is the extent of hook-up culture. it is what it is. can't change it. bottom line is that marriage is not a reasonable bet for most males. it only makes sense for a very small minority of men at certain stages of their life (usually middle age and beyond)

http://www.examiner.com/article/study-shows-female-porn-stars-have-higher-quality-of-life-than-average-women

more gems on the presumption of paternity

- This presumption of paternity is extremely self serving for women. When guys are ordered to pay child support and ordered to raise a child that’s not biologically their own, it’s fine. Women say it’d be fine in reverse. Look how upset females get when someone swaps babies in the maternity ward. I recall lots of women blow their stacks – suing hospitals from one end of the country to the other. So much for being the blood parents “not being important”.

- The presumption of paternity is designed "to be fair to the child." However, in doing so, it is a particularly brutal issue for the man:
1) If the wife has an affair and gives birth to a child who is not the biological child of the husband, the husband is still liable for child support.
2) If a wife separates from her husband (but does not divorce him) and leaves him for another man with whom she has kids, the husband must pay child support for kids that are not his.
3) Men who are the victim of rape are liable for child support
4) Men who have a vasectomy and then their wives cheat and have another child with another man are still liable for child support.

- Why does this unfair issue persist under the guise of fairness to the child?
It reduces welfare. That's it. If you whine and cry about the cost of welfare in this country be sure to give yourself a pat on the back for ensuring the continuation of such policies - because you are responsible for their continuance. If conservatives and libertarians didn't whine so much about the cost of welfare, these policies would no longer exist. These policies exist because someone actually does have to pay for that kid. Since the actual fathers of those kids are probably no longer in the picture (if their identities are even known) and since conservatives don't like welfare, the only other source of money is the guys that these whores are married to. Want to put an end to it?