Post: #26

(08-29-2015 06:09 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

The courts don't give two shits about the general state of the economy and the fact that it's not 1970 anymore when an uneducated manual worker could make enough dough to pay for a house, a car and support a non-working wife with 2,5 children.

Nowadays the performance demand is the same and the media, entertainment and academia blasts it out every fucking day. Recently saw it with NFL players and some young students the pro was seeing.
One girl: "My father is an asshole."
Pro NFL player: "Uh - careful - sometimes it turns out he is not such a bad guy after all."
Girl: "He is behind child support."
Player: "Well, then he is an asshole." Laughter.

Indeed - because child support for an NFL player is not problematic, but for the average Joe it's something else completely. Our system has turned from the one of the nuclear family into one of child support. Whether a man has the cash to support his ex-family or not is irrelevant in total since the government and the men of society will support the family through taxes anyway. Apart from that 100.000+ men are in prison in the US right now for not having paid child support - zero women by the way despite many of them not paying their share either. Oh - and the fees and penalties keep rising even if the fathers are behind bars. Essentially the currently one million fathers behind bars in the US will likely never catch up to their official child support obligations.

https://bitchmedia.org/post/this-fathers...-in-prison

Thus in return can the mothers withhold their visitation rights indefinitely and they are all "assholes".

With regard to child support, the expenses of the payor don't matter, nor does the economy. I agree with that part. Child support has to do with the payor's gross income and in some states, both parties' gross income and/or daycare expenses. Nevada only uses the payor's gross income, doesn't really factor anything else, and puts a cap on the maximum amount per child. Under this system, a guy who earns a really high income can get away with paying a very minimal amount, especially if there is only one child. Guys with moderate or low incomes may get hit comparatively hard. In any event, alimony and equitable distribution of property are an entirely different story and take many other factors into account. I wonder how many guys who claim that they were divorce rape victims entered into stupid agreements which were not in their best interest and which were not representative of what could have been expected to have happened at trial.

Post: #27

^ But if these guys are losing tons of money, getting kicked out of their house, and yet still have to show up for work everyday - how can you expect them to perform well at a trial?

Also, what about men who cannot afford to hold an expensive trial? No matter what happens the men lose out huge.

Post: #28

(08-29-2015 09:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ But if these guys are losing tons of money, getting kicked out of their house, and yet still have to show up for work everyday - how can you expect them to perform well at a trial?

Also, what about men who cannot afford to hold an expensive trial? No matter what happens the men lose out huge.

Let me get to a computer. For now I'll just say that you can't get blood from a stone, most judges know that, and the ones who don't aren't doing women any favors, because the women probably won't see it unless the guy is in that 1% I talked about. Divorce usually makes women worse off financially unless the guy enters into an unfair agreement or a judge does something crazy. Even then, if there's no money, there's no money. Child support finds a way of getting paid, but remember, throwing a guy in jail for not paying child support isn't logical, because if a guy is locked up, he's not earning money. If he's not earning money, he can't pay anything.

Post: #29

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

Post: #30

(08-29-2015 09:10 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ But if these guys are losing tons of money, getting kicked out of their house, and yet still have to show up for work everyday - how can you expect them to perform well at a trial?

Also, what about men who cannot afford to hold an expensive trial? No matter what happens the men lose out huge.

Let me get to a computer. For now I'll just say that you can't get blood from a stone, most judges know that, and the ones who don't aren't doing women any favors, because the women probably won't see it unless the guy is in that 1% I talked about. Divorce usually makes women worse off financially unless the guy enters into an unfair agreement or a judge does something crazy. Even then, if there's no money, there's no money. Child support finds a way of getting paid, but remember, throwing a guy in jail for not paying child support isn't logical, because if a guy is locked up, he's not earning money. If he's not earning money, he can't pay anything.

Nobody is claiming the system is logical, they're claiming that it's inhuman.

"For now I'll just say that you can't get blood from a stone, most judges know that...."

If they know it, they don't seem to care. The system is wack, if it made sense than people wouldn't be complaining as much.

Post: #31

(08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.

Post: #32

I wrote a really long winded post (added on to an edit from my last post) here, but the system wouldn't let me post it because over sixty minutes had passed. I think it would have cleared quite a few thing up. When I said 1%, I was referring to equitable distribution of marital property, not child support or alimony. Basically when there are children involved, the issues can be custody, visitation, child support, equitable distribution of marital property, alimony, and attorney's fees. When there are no children, you are basically looking at alimony, equitable distribution of real property, and attorney's fees. Often when you can't get any money from the real property (most cases), you then go for the alimony. Where I am, ability to pay is a factor (actually a big factor) in deciding alimony. Maybe tomorrow if I have some time I will repost the alimony factors, the sample cases, and my analysis.

Also, a lot of attorneys who represent police officers and firefighters recommend that they pay some alimony in order to avoid having to pay part (the marital part) of their pensions.

Post: #33

(08-29-2015 10:24 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.

I think I know the answer to this but when you say "support" are you referring to child support, alimony, or both?

Post: #34

(08-29-2015 10:27 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:24 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.

I think I know the answer to this but when you say "support" are you referring to child support, alimony, or both?

2nd wife becomes breadwinner while first wife bleeds off his disposable income. I just cant get my head around how second wife can live with that deal.

Post: #35

(08-29-2015 10:27 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:24 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.

I think I know the answer to this but when you say "support" are you referring to child support or alimony.

Merenguero, it's a shell game, it doesn't matter what the label they feel like slapping on the transfer payments. "We'll just eliminate that $300 a week you're paying in alimony and add $300 to the the money your'e paying for Child Support instead.". It's a snowjob. Calling it CS just makes it easier to vilify and imprison men.

"He lost his job, he got another one but it didn't pay as well so we threw him in prison" doesn't sound as sympathetic as "The bastard wouldn't pay his child support.".

Post: #36

(08-29-2015 10:43 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:27 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:24 PM)rpg Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:14 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

"...and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses".

They don't really care much whether you can afford it. That's the major problem.

Your "less than 1% pay alimony" is sounds exceedingly optimistic. Keep in mind that a lot of the laws are WRITTEN in a way to sound fair, a veneer of respectability, but in PRACTICE usually deserve the reputation they've earned. The best way to think of Family Court is to imagine you're in 1950s Alabama....and you ain't white. There will be all these laws and rules that are allegedly written to protect everyone, but the judge, the mediator and her lawyer all understand who those laws were REALLY written to protect, who the "Good ole Boys" actually are. Her lawyer will come up with some justification that your income "ought to be" something much higher than it is, or some other form of skuldudgery. Even if she can't make it stick, facing a significant possibility of grinding poverty intersped with homelessness and occasional imprisonment, guys will agree to some extremely unequal distribution of the marital debt and property.

And if they're playing a shell game where they call her transfer payments Child Support instead of alimony....that just makes it easier for the state to throw you in prison if you lose your job. Then your kid is really screwed.

All I needed to do was ask around the workplace what kind of deals divorced guys were dealing with and I about shit my pants.
Every guy I met had to find bitch #2 who would take him in and support him while he pays money to bitch #1.
If I end up getting a divorce I am waiting till my kids are 18 and out.
Many, many marriages are waiting for that golden moment when the kids are out.

I think I know the answer to this but when you say "support" are you referring to child support or alimony.

Merenguero, it's a shell game, it doesn't matter what the label they feel like slapping on the transfer payments. "We'll just eliminate that $300 a week you're paying in alimony and add $300 to the the money your'e paying for Child Support instead.". It's a snowjob. Calling it CS just makes it easier to vilify and imprison men.

"He lost his job, he got another one but it didn't pay as well so we threw him in prison" doesn't sound as sympathetic as "The bastard wouldn't pay his child support.".

Alimony can be tax deductible and child support often isn't. When those things are structured it is often done for tax reasons. Alimony usually isn't ordered. It can be. I have seen it countless times, but it isn't the norm. It is the exception.

Post: #37

(08-29-2015 06:57 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:09 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:14 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

Maybe in the extremely rare case that she is married to a guy with no debts, has a lot of money saved, all of which is marital, and who can afford to pay alimony after covering all of his own expenses. How many guys in the United States satisfy all of those requirements? 1%? Maybe not even that. In the vast majority of cases, all a women will see after a divorce is child support, if she even sees that.

The courts don't give two shits about the general state of the economy and the fact that it's not 1970 anymore when an uneducated manual worker could make enough dough to pay for a house, a car and support a non-working wife with 2,5 children.

Nowadays the performance demand is the same and the media, entertainment and academia blasts it out every fucking day. Recently saw it with NFL players and some young students the pro was seeing.
One girl: "My father is an asshole."
Pro NFL player: "Uh - careful - sometimes it turns out he is not such a bad guy after all."
Girl: "He is behind child support."
Player: "Well, then he is an asshole." Laughter.

Indeed - because child support for an NFL player is not problematic, but for the average Joe it's something else completely. Our system has turned from the one of the nuclear family into one of child support. Whether a man has the cash to support his ex-family or not is irrelevant in total since the government and the men of society will support the family through taxes anyway. Apart from that 100.000+ men are in prison in the US right now for not having paid child support - zero women by the way despite many of them not paying their share either. Oh - and the fees and penalties keep rising even if the fathers are behind bars. Essentially the currently one million fathers behind bars in the US will likely never catch up to their official child support obligations.

https://bitchmedia.org/post/this-fathers...-in-prison

Thus in return can the mothers withhold their visitation rights indefinitely and they are all "assholes".

With regard to child support, the expenses of the payor don't matter, nor does the economy. I agree with that part. Child support has to do with the payor's gross income and in some states, both parties' gross income and/or daycare expenses. Nevada only uses the payor's gross income, doesn't really factor anything else, and puts a cap on the maximum amount per child. Under this system, a guy who earns a really high income can get away with paying a very minimal amount, especially if there is only one child. Guys with moderate or low incomes may get hit comparatively hard. In any event, alimony and equitable distribution of property are an entirely different story and take many other factors into account. I wonder how many guys who claim that they were divorce rape victims entered into stupid agreements which were not in their best interest and which were not representative of what could have been expected to have happened at trial.

Merenguero, I really think you drank the feminist Kool Aid on this one. The system IS beyond broken. They'll have a fig leaf of respectability out there, but guys are getting hammered far more often than the 1% you're claiming.

Thomas Ball called it "the second set of books". There were a bunch of fair sound laws and rules on the surface, but the state "guidelines" and actual practice were in fact commonly savage and biased. He was facing a lifetime of homelessness, poverty and degradation (intersped with episodes of imprisonment) under the system, so he set himself on fire on the court house steps to raise awareness. It didn't work, feminists even took down his wikipedia page. It's the only political self immolation in the US without a wikipedia page.

Post: #38

Yes. I will never forget Thomas Ball. That shit was beyond disturbing.

Post: #39

Who would I trust.?

Some random guy "red pill" guy or an attorney who has handled multiple divorce cases.

Thanks for the explanations Merenguero.

Post: #40

Quote:Something which does cause a great deal of grief is the following scenario. Husband and wife are divorced. Children live with mother and have contact with father on a regular basis. Mother then meets someone else and decides to move to another part of the country or even abroad to be with her new partner. She wishes to take the children with her and, indeed, to continue to receive maintenance from their father for the children's benefit even though in practical terms it means father is now very unlikely to see his children at all regularly. Many fathers feel very bitter about this scenario and understandably so.

There is, indeed, a certain amount of tension in this case about preserving the status quo because a major part of it is going to change. In the case of older children it would be difficult to force them to go with their mother if they expressed a clear and strong wish to remain with their father but more often than not the father has to accept that he will no longer see the children on a regular basis. A court will not order the mother not to relocate and so the father has to accept what is undoubtedly a very difficult situation.

This law firm breaks down divorces so anyone can understand..too bad it's for the UK. Can anyone provide someone thing similar for Americans?

http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div5.html

Post: #41

(08-30-2015 10:16 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Who would I trust.?

Some random guy "red pill" guy or an attorney who has handled multiple divorce cases.

Thanks for the explanations Merenguero.

Yeah, I thought about arguing about cars with El Mech or arguing about medicine with Lothario, but I think I'll stick with what I know.

When there are children involved in a divorce, the possible financial issues are child support, equitable distribution of property, alimony, and attorney's fees. When there are no children involved, there are obviously no child support issues, but all of those other issues are possibly litigated. Where I am, when there are children involved, there are two separate trials, one for custody, visitation, and child support and one for the remaining issues. Many times the issues related to the children are resolved by an agreement, but the remaining issues are litigated or the custody issues are litigated, but the remaining issues are worked out.

As I said before, equitable distribution of property usually doesn't happen, because very few people have any net worth to distribute. When there really is marital property, only the marital portion may be subject to distribution. Marital property is property, however titled, acquired by one or both parties during the marriage. The distribution need not be equal, but is supposed to be fair and equitable.

I will set out the factors for alimony, then give a few examples of cases.
-The ability to be wholly or partly self supporting.
-The time necessary to gain sufficient education to be self supporting.
-The parties' standard of living during the marriage.
-The duration of the marriage.
-Each party's contributions, monetary and non-monetary, to the well-being of the marriage.
-The circumstances that contributed to the parties' estrangement.
-Each party's age.
-Each party's mental and physical condition.
-The ability of the party from whom alimony is sought to meet that party's needs while meeting the needs of the party seeking alimony.
-Any agreement between the parties.
-The financial needs and resources of each party.
-Any other relevant factor.

Case No. 1: Husband is 40 and earns $70,000. Wife is 45 and earns 0. Wife has not worked in five years and has an illness which makes working difficult. She has never made over minimum wage. There are two minor children for whom the husband was ordered to pay support. Now, I don't see how in good conscience a judge could refuse to order alimony in such a case. The wife obviously needs it. The problem is that after paying his own expenses and paying child support, the husband will really struggle to pay anything. The closest thing to a solution would be to order indefinite alimony at $500.00 per month, which the husband should have no problem paying once he no longer has the child support obligation. Ordering him to pay $1,000 or more would be to set him up for failure and take up more of the court's time and resources. For those of you who say that the court doesn't care about the ability of the guy to pay or about the financial resources of the party paying, those are two of the factors which the court must take into consideration. If the court ignores those factors or orders a guy to pay when the money isn't there, that would be appealable and would again, waste more of the court's time and resources. Also, most judges don't like to see their names in a written opinion in which their decisions are reversed.

Case No. 2: Beta guy hears that Colombian women are the greatest and most honest women on earth and therefore makes a beeline to Cali (also the city which supposedly has the most beautiful women in the world) and marries a local women. The guy isn't savvy enough to realize that the girl is from a horrible section of the city and has no skills or education. Ten years later, the guy is earning $200,000 the woman doesn't work and has never worked. Luckily there are no kids. This guy is probably getting hit with indefinite alimony and it may very well be at least $2,000 to $3,000 per month.

Case 3: Husband earns $100,000 and is 40 years old. Wife earns $50,000 is 35 years old. One child for whom the husband is ordered to pay support. A really strong argument can be made that no alimony should be ordered as the wife is fully capable of being self-supporting. A judge may throw her a minimal amount of rehabilitative alimony. That's about it.

Case No 4: Husband earns $40,000 and is 40 years old. Wife is 50 years old, doesn't work, and is a real wackjob. Ten year marriage. No children. This is kind of similar to Case No. 1, except the husband definitely cannot afford to pay this lady anything. He struggles to even pay his own expenses. Ordering indefinite alimony wouldn't work, because this guy would almost certainly not be able to pay it and would be back in court. It would be tough, however, to order that this lady should not be awarded anything. Six months rehabilitative at $500.00 per month is the most she should get. If the guy can't pay it at all, the most he would possibly be hit with would be a $3,000 judgment.

Post: #42

In all 4 cases you've presented I find the moral reasoning for alimony to be empty and meritless. Without knowing why the couple is divorcing, it doesn't matter how much money the wife makes relative to the husband.

Moreover, from what we know about women, women do not marry men who make less than they do 9 times out of 10. So the idea that alimony is to deliver some form of "justice" to help the woman get "through" a divorce is backwards - she most likely shouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place, and the reason she married was for access to the man's money which she now gets to keep despite not even having sex with the guy.

Divorce courts are social justice warriors on steroids. What rational man submits himself to such lunacy?

Post: #43

(09-03-2015 01:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  In all 4 cases you've presented I find the moral reasoning for alimony to be empty and meritless. Without knowing why the couple is divorcing, it doesn't matter how much money the wife makes relative to the husband.

Moreover, from what we know about women, women do not marry men who make less than they do 9 times out of 10. So the idea that alimony is to deliver some form of "justice" to help the woman get "through" a divorce is backwards - she most likely shouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place, and the reason she married was for access to the man's money which she now gets to keep despite not even having sex with the guy.

Divorce courts are social justice warriors on steroids. What rational man submits himself to such lunacy?

99% of divorces happen because of adultery, domestic violence, arguments about money, or some combination of the three. As far as the factor of circumstance contributing to the estrangement of the parties, you can bet it is one or more of those reasons I just mentioned and there is usually fault to be placed on both parties. I've seen one case in my career where adultery was proven by direct evidence. It can often be proven by circumstantial evidence, but the services of a private investigator are often needed and those services can be costly. I've seen many people blow a ton of money on private investigators with little results. Domestic violence is also surprisingly difficult to prove as it is usually he said/she said and the only two people who know the truth are the alleged abuser and the alleged victim. As for the factor of circumstances contributing to the estrangement of the parties, the answer is usually "both parties screwed up."

Post: #44

(09-03-2015 02:10 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 01:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  In all 4 cases you've presented I find the moral reasoning for alimony to be empty and meritless. Without knowing why the couple is divorcing, it doesn't matter how much money the wife makes relative to the husband.

Moreover, from what we know about women, women do not marry men who make less than they do 9 times out of 10. So the idea that alimony is to deliver some form of "justice" to help the woman get "through" a divorce is backwards - she most likely shouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place, and the reason she married was for access to the man's money which she now gets to keep despite not even having sex with the guy.

Divorce courts are social justice warriors on steroids. What rational man submits himself to such lunacy?

99% of divorces happen because of adultery, domestic violence, arguments about money, or some combination of the three. As far as the factor of circumstance contributing to the estrangement of the parties, you can bet it is one or more of those reasons I just mentioned and there is usually fault to be placed on both parties. I've seen one case in my career where adultery was proven by direct evidence. It can often be proven by circumstantial evidence, but the services of a private investigator are often needed and those services can be costly. I've seen many people blow a ton of money on private investigators with little results. Domestic violence is also surprisingly difficult to prove as it is usually he said/she said and the only two people who know the truth are the alleged abuser and the alleged victim. As for the factor of circumstances contributing to the estrangement of the parties, the answer is usually "both parties screwed up."

70% of divorces being filed by women and it's both parties fault? That doesn't make sense.

Also there is the fact that the divorce epidemic only hit the USA after the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970's. Then the alimony and child support laws, which were created for marriages that were supposed to be indissoluble (according to scripture) have been abused ever since. The child support laws became more draconian during the 1980's in the "Campaign Against Deadbeat Dads" and men who do not pay child support (no matter the reason) were thrown in jail.

So you can clearly see the idea that divorces are legitimate is nonsense. The only real cause for divorce is adultery and domestic abuse, both of which you said are notoriously difficult to prove. This means if no-fault divorces were repealed the amount of divorces would plummet, and there would be more intact families, less degeneracy, and less men getting divorce raped.

Post: #45

^^^
I agree with most of your last post, especially the part about if no fault divorces were abolished, divorce rates would plummet. Although divorces are mostly filed on fault grounds like adultery or cruelty, at the time of the divorce about 99% of them are granted for separation (no-fault) grounds. I only remember one time when I had a case where divorce was granted for adultery. I can't say, however, that divorces being more difficult to obtain would cause a decrease in the dissolution of marriages. What you very well may have is a large number of married people living separate and apart, but who have never been legally divorced and people litigating the custody of their children, but never filing for divorce. This happens sometimes now. I had a custody case which went on for years and years where the people were married, yet as of now have never sought a divorce.

As for the fault thing, I don't dispute that women initiate most divorces. I am further saying, as I've said previously, that women usually do this due to the guy cheating on her or abusing her. Now, this may seem obvious, but there is usually some conduct on the woman's part which drives a guy to cheat and/or abuse her. The guy is still clearly at fault for cheating (He's married and not supposed to have sex with other women) and for abusing her (He's obviously not supposed to lay his hands on anyone ever except for self-defense), but if is often the woman's denial of sexual relations poor treatment of the guy, or other conduct which causes the guy to reach his boiling point, then adultery or domestic violence happens. In those cases, both parties are clearly at fault.

Also, Samseau, there was a Samseau troll over at the Naughty Forum calling himself Samsaeu the other day. He was already banned, so you won't get a chance to put a smackdown on him.

Post: #46

(09-03-2015 06:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  70% of divorces being filed by women and it's both parties fault? That doesn't make sense.

Also there is the fact that the divorce epidemic only hit the USA after the introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970's. Then the alimony and child support laws, which were created for marriages that were supposed to be indissoluble (according to scripture) have been abused ever since. The child support laws became more draconian during the 1980's in the "Campaign Against Deadbeat Dads" and men who do not pay child support (no matter the reason) were thrown in jail.

I agree entirely, and would add that while no-fault divorce is insane, it is the symptom as much as the disease. As the cultural collapse happened, with the introduction of feminism in the media, etc. in society, the divorce rate began to climb and the courts were full of pointless "I can't make him love you, Ma'am" trials. It become such a sham that in some cases the parties would actually act out fake adultery scenes to justify the divorce.

In other words, even if we required divorce to be based on fault, it's far too late. For instance, our split-tailed friends, if restricted from 'frivorce', would simply just stay legally married but move out and jump on the adult merry-go-round anyway.

Post: #47

(09-03-2015 07:16 PM)scrambled Wrote:  In other words, even if we required divorce to be based on fault, it's far too late. For instance, our split-tailed friends, if restricted from 'frivorce', would simply just stay legally married but move out and jump on the adult merry-go-round anyway.

Agreed. See my post above.

Post: #48

(09-03-2015 07:16 PM)scrambled Wrote:  In other words, even if we required divorce to be based on fault, it's far too late. For instance, our split-tailed friends, if restricted from 'frivorce', would simply just stay legally married but move out and jump on the adult merry-go-round anyway.

Still preferable to the divorce-rape industry. Fact is, cheating spouses has always been rampant. Certainly not as much as today's divorce happy world, but even when couples stayed married but had affairs, the children were much better off and evil women could not abuse the divorce system to financially rape their husbands and steal the kids.

I think Merenguero is a bit naive when evaluating his cases. You seem to think the women is more or less justified when she initiates divorce. I'm calling bullshit on that. You don't know if she was abused or cheated on.

I can't even tell you how many girlfriends dumped me for supposedly cheating on them, when in fact I hadn't been fucking anyone else. And when I did cheat on my girlfriends, they rarely catch me. So to be totally honest I don't think most females know what the fuck is going on, and the fact they can kill a marriage with zero evidence is as absurd as throwing a guy in prison without any burden of proof.

Post: #49

(08-29-2015 02:58 PM)trian1 Wrote:  I think several of you really hit the nail on the head -- women are not incentivized to stay married, particularly once their emotions change. A six-year relationship dissolves outside of marriage, she has no legal right to anything. However, within a marriage, she has ample economic incentives to leave.

If you have a kid with her during those six years, you are still screwed. I work with a guy who dated a girl for seven years and has a six year old son with her. They split about a year ago and have 50/50 custody. He not only has to pay her child support, he also has to pay her $120 per week in alimony because the court said "he makes more than her". She's on food stamps and sounds crazy from what he's told me. He seems purple pill now after being screwed by the courts.

I told him to sue for full custody on principle, even though it will cost way more than $120 per week.

Post: #50

(09-03-2015 08:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 07:16 PM)scrambled Wrote:  In other words, even if we required divorce to be based on fault, it's far too late. For instance, our split-tailed friends, if restricted from 'frivorce', would simply just stay legally married but move out and jump on the adult merry-go-round anyway.

Still preferable to the divorce-rape industry. Fact is, cheating spouses has always been rampant. Certainly not as much as today's divorce happy world, but even when couples stayed married but had affairs, the children were much better off and evil women could not abuse the divorce system to financially rape their husbands and steal the kids.

I think Merenguero is a bit naive when evaluating his cases. You seem to think the women is more or less justified when she initiates divorce. I'm calling bullshit on that. You don't know if she was abused or cheated on.

I can't even tell you how many girlfriends dumped me for supposedly cheating on them, when in fact I hadn't been fucking anyone else. And when I did cheat on my girlfriends, they rarely catch me. So to be totally honest I don't think most females know what the fuck is going on, and the fact they can kill a marriage with zero evidence is as absurd as throwing a guy in prison without any burden of proof.

Thanks for the excellent analysis Merenguero, but i'm also in agreement with Samseau that maybe your legal position sort of blinds you a bit from the reality on the ground for most guys.

I have many male buddies or ex-colleauges who are divorced (15 or so), most with kids and who were making good money while their wives stayed home with the kids.

In all cases they got screwed on some level, and all are somewhat bitter about it and most told me they would never marry again. One guy even had a high-earning wife who chose to stay at home with their kid after having it, then they got divorced and he now pays her over $200,000 per year up in Canada for her to live in their nice house with that one kid.

Another buddy was married for like 10+ years and had 3 kids with the wife, she left him, got a big alimony settlement and now he's miserable barely getting by and living in a dump in DC. This happened to another guy I know too but he rebounded and got remarried and now is doing well.

One of my friend's wife cheated on him, divorced him and then said in court that he should pay a divorce settlement (!). I think she wanted like $20,000 but they eventually settled on around $10,000 for transitionary expenses. This guy lost his job during the proceedings but the court didn't care. They didn't have any kids, thank God.

I know that's a small sample size, but I don't really know any guys who made out like bandits in a divorce - never heard of that and I mean ever and when I think about it there are many more stories like the above. I even watched my dad suffer from his divorce settlement for years while he paid an outrageous sum to my mom.

So my advice to any man on this forum looking to get married is to be extra careful when vetting the mother of your children and try to marry them outside the Anglosphere, particularly if you've amassed enough money to have a lot to lose.