TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman tries to divorce her boyfriend of 22 years, forgets that she lives in a state that doesn't recognise Common Law marriage.

Z_for_Zontar

November 24, 2017
3042 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/11/shes_not_my_wife_man_says_and.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman tries to divorce her boyfriend of 22 years, forgets that she lives in a state that doesn't recognise Common Law marriage.
Author

Z_for_Zontar

Upvotes 3042
Comments 234
Date November 24, 2017 6:55 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/7f9htr/woman_tries_to_divorce_her_boyfriend_of_22_years/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/woman-tries-to-divorce-her-boyfriend-of-22-years.1174032
https://theredarchive.com/post/1174032
Top posts by Z_for_Zontar

TL;DR - Judge Confirms the Pussy Pass

69 upvotes
February 8, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

Kansas Sperm Donor doesn't have to pay child support

65 upvotes
December 2, 2016
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–][deleted] 1138 points1139 points1140 points 8 years ago (118 children) | Copy Link

Best lines ever.

For years, when Kevin Brown asked her to marry him, Diane Miller would reply that a marriage certificate was "just a piece of paper."

[–]Yabadababoobs 572 points573 points574 points 8 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

Looks like she was afraid of commitment but she liked to reap the ridiculous benefits a divorce gets anyways. 10/10 case.

[–]WilliamBott 133 points134 points135 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

10/10 rekt you mean.

[+]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -543 points-542 points-541 points 8 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

She was with him for 22 years, she probably wasn't just in it for the money. The guy is a scumbag.

[–]Chronoblivion 249 points250 points251 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

She was with him for 22 years, she probably wasn't just in it for the money.

I agree.

The guy is a scumbag.

This is where you lost people. She is the one who filed for divorce - maybe for good reason, we don't have evidence one way or the other. But she is the one leaving. How does telling her "you don't get to take my money with you" make him a scumbag?

[–][deleted] 143 points144 points145 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Because he's clearly not supporting her needs as a woman by stifling her creativity by making her get a job so she can pay rent for her studio apartment, instead of spending her free time making art with her period blood.

[–]xChinky123x-213 points 8 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

How original and not at all sexist.

[–]Starkiller2552 34 points35 points36 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And your username isn’t racist at all.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just noticed that lol the irony

[–]JohnBoyAndBilly71 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you're in the wrong place.

[–]xChinky123x -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I should probably have checked the sub before replying. What a shame.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You probably should've checked your username before replying what a shame.

[+]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -128 points-127 points-126 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Don't worry, I wasn't expecting a reasonable, moderate opinion to get upvoted here. I just thought somebody should make it.

[–]JasePearson 90 points91 points92 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How is "The guy is a scumbag." a reasonable, moderate opinion? You know fuck all about the fella outside of the article. It's not like he's dodging child support and he asked her to marry him, she's the one that refused.

No, your opinion is not fucking reasonable whatsoever, don't kid yourself.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -8 points-7 points-6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That sounds very anti-man, you should get some help!

[–]JasePearson 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you should take a little bit of your own advice. And maybe learn to be a little more empathetic before calling people scumbags, thanks.

[–]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, your whiny bitch pass has been denied.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]oceanic231 128 points129 points130 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

I smell feminist cancer

[–][deleted] 101 points102 points103 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

All posts are in r/twoxchromosomes and r/gendercritical except for one post about she was too stupid to read a contract for a credit card. Ignore u/mymarkis666 opinion isnt worth shit.

[–]rlh1271 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Leave her to amass her many many cats.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd like to speak to your manager. >:(

[–]rlh1271 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am the manager. How can I help you?

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Every redditor should be banned by TwoX. There's something severely wrong with you if you haven't been.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Or you're just smart enough to not comment on anything. I know im among different minded people.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I made the mistake that they could reason in the slightest

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My sweet summer child. :(

[+]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -49 points-48 points-47 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I feel violated. You went crazy deep into my comment history lol I forgot all about that credit card thing. But come on I post in lots of different subs, I actually got banned from twox for posting here. You'll notice those twox posts are from a long time ago, don't mischaracterise me.

[–]ActualWeed 30 points31 points32 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

"violated"

Comments are public, it is like complaining you showed your pussy in public

[+]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -18 points-17 points-16 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I should've added an /s. Thought the "lol" would be sufficient for those of average IQ or higher.

[–]bwleung89 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This right here must make it difficult get along with you in real life. Every comment has ended with a shifty remark about someone and/or pleading you are a victim. In total you haven't had anything meaningful to post in the thread except just bashing people and claiming sexism.

[–]oceanic231 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

At least you didn’t delete your comments like a coward. You should stand by your opinion, no matter how unpopular it is (460 downvotes).

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was just curious if there was more info. I don't assume anything. If the person above is, that's on them.

[–]HedonismandTea 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She didn't get a free paycheck off his back for the rest of her life so obviously he's a scumbag! /s #feminism #girlpower

[–]TheHighestEagle 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have no idea you're just projecting your reality onto something you have no idea about.

[–]prjoplum 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh... Do you know him?

[–]mymarkis666"It sounds like anal isn't for you." -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.

[–][deleted] 168 points169 points170 points 8 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Honestly that is probably what I’ll say if I ever find a girl I want to spend the rest of my life with. I’d get married in a church, leave the govt out of it, and live somewhere that doesn’t recognize common law marriage

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or, you know, don’t get married at all...

[–][deleted] 114 points115 points116 points 8 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

Well the government shouldn't be involved with anything, let alone what happens between consenting adults. If two people want to get married let them do it however. If they want provisions for alimony, child support, whatever, write up a contract.

[–]lucyinthesky8XX 100 points101 points102 points 8 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

Who's going to enforce the contract..?

[–]EntMoose 193 points194 points195 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comcast Security Forces LLC

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]blinky64 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Calm down Ron Paul.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do we even have a government amirite

[–]Wsing1974 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same people that enforce any other contract?

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lannisterstark 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

marriage is dead

Man some of you need to step outside of your houses once in a while.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It’s what happens when a person’s world view is based entirely on internet interactions and experiences.

[–]Frankly_George6 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

lannisterstark posted:

Man some of you need to step outside of your houses once in a while.

3rd-and-Witten posted:

It’s what happens when a person’s world view is based entirely on internet interactions and experiences.

I'd like to draw attention to the fact at no point do either of these commentators refute my post, instead they indulge in snarky ad hominem attacks on my presumed character. They either don't actually disagree or find themselves unable to respond with facts so they toss shit and this makes them feel better.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the questions I posed:

In marriage what exactly is being contracted? What value is being exchanged for what value? Why do the penalties for dissolving a marriage contract seem to be so disproportionately borne?

[–]Psycedilla 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

well why would they? you hade a good argument they couldnt refute, what does kids do then? they attack you -.-

good for you not letting it get to you-

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So many crazy people.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm married. To me it wasn't about the tax benefits you get from the government, or the contractual aspects of it, in a legal sense. Marriage is a celelbration of the love you have, and a symbol of commitment you share with your friends and loved ones. It is an act of saying "You my ride or die bitch for life."

[–]bluewords -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This raises an interesting question of if we'll see a decline in the rate of marriages due to the rise of the incel / neck beard community

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahahahaahah

[–]Und0mesticated 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Going from your house to your cuck shed doesn't count.

[–]thelividgamer 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

God damn. You really got him there. Now if only you could make an actual refutation of his point.

[–]lannisterstark 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is dead? I don't need to make a refutation of an idiotic point.

[–]thelividgamer 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to do anything. We are merely remarking on the fact that you cannot argue and simply resort to fallacies to cover up that fact.

[–]lannisterstark 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Making idiotic statements and then expecting people to argue on those "facts" is absurd.

It's like saying

Democracy is dead.

When a majority of countries are democratic Nations, and then you go on on asking other Redditor to refute your statements.

But, all in all, have a nice day.

[–]cupdmtea 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

EA

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Agreed upon third party.

[–]ShelSilverstain 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Using what power?

[–]NomadicKrow 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

GUL'DAN, USING THE POWER OF THE FEL

[–]ShelSilverstain 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BY THE POWER OF NUMBSKULL!!!

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The power of the judicial system, the same people that enforce every other kind of contract.

[–]ShelSilverstain 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So... The government

[–]Wsing1974 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but the judicial system would be enforcing a civil contract, not a "marriage".

[–]ShelSilverstain 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to "the government shouldn't be doing anything"

[–]Strazdas1 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

also known as "the government"

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't have to be.

[–]Strazdas1 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, but it usually is, because the government is much better at doing it than private third parties.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The same people that enforce business contracts..? Lawyers..? Civil courts..? Collections agencies..?

[–]lucyinthesky8XX -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

  1. Lawyers have no power to enforce contracts.
  2. Civil courts are part of the government.
  3. Why would you pay a collection agency when they have no means to pursue their claim? They can't sue you, they can't garnish your wages. Those are all things you do through the court system.

You need to go back to middle school civics class.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm fully aware of all 3 of those things, and I'm not an anarchist. Save your pretentious snark for someone actually misinformed.

I guess the original commenter could be arguing a "no government whatsoever" thing. what I'M saying (and probably they are too) was a knock on marriage licenses and the entrenched system of marital law, alimony, etc...

The point being if you want to make your relationship a legal matter, draw up a contract. It shouldn't be a given that there is a 3rd party that makes a decision on what's best for the two of you based on no other context than "well you are husband and wife and this is just what happens when you divorce."

Fackin opinion, m8.

[–]lucyinthesky8XX 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Op said:

The government shouldn't be involved with anything

I think it's pretty obvious what OP was saying.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that's not how I took it, and you replied like a twat, so I stand by my words.

[–]Lonelan 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That sounds fun until you want to file taxes jointly

[–]kefkas 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or don't want to pay for individual health insurance plans.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"well the government shouldn't be involved in anything"

[–]Lonelan 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Chaos for everyone, got it

Africa always did look like a fun basis for society

[–]battousai_ 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Funny when Africa has some of the most repressive governments.

[–]pinkbutterfly1 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well... They have no government to protect them from repressive governments, right? Oh wait...

[–]ValAichi -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, exactly.

Look at Somalia.

[–]battousai_ -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the population is libertarian, no govenrment is needed to protect them. Arms will do.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I 100% agree.

[–]fuckyoubarry 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I was in Iraq in 2003, I saw what happens when there's no government to get involved in anything

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It was decades of government intervention that made Iraq what it was.

[–]fuckyoubarry 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So what's an example of a society that works good without any government intervention?

[+]Iamredditsslave -15 points-14 points-13 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Native Americans

[–]fuckyoubarry 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They had governments

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have reservations about that answer.

[–]Strazdas1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so your example of working good is being extinct or at a brink of extinction, depending on which tribe you look at.

Oh wait, they are a tribe, so a literal dictatorship government.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet you want those same people in government.

[–]marcusaurelion 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then you die unexpectedly and she gets nothing

[–]TheHaleStorm 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Good luck finding a church that will marry you without a license.

[–]orcscorper 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Progressive churches had wedding ceremonies for gay couples years before the government would issue them licenses.

[–]hotpotato70 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really? I'm sure you can get an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi to marry people with no government license. Are Christan churches so connected to government that they no longer have pure religious weddings?

I'm a fan of separation of church and state, this rubs me the wrong way. I'm not even religious, which is why I think it should be separate.

[–]disrobedranger 356 points357 points358 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

It's her own damn fault. He asked her to marry him multiple times and she refused. The guy dodged a bullet.

[–]Rawrination 232 points233 points234 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

The guy got lucky and she missed. He didn't dodge shit and actually kept trying to step in front of a bullet.

[–]High_Pitch_Eric_ 101 points102 points103 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The guy ran drunk down an active Alabama firing range while blacked up and flapping his arms and made it.

[–]Hydrocoded 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/jesuschristreddit

[–]Joshyboy1991 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah the bullet was dodging him

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]jakquezz 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're an idiom!

[–]Iamforcedaccount 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He's not pushing daisies, he's dead!!

[–]Hydrocoded 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unlike this horse

[–]Sir_Slick_Rock 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Instructions unclear:Shoved book in ass.

[+]disrobedranger -17 points-16 points-15 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. If he was proposing to her there was no reason to think that the relationship would end in divorce. The fact that he asked multiple times is irrelevant. People do dumb shit when they are in love. He would have been crazy to have asked her in the first place if he had doubts of it not lasting.

[–]Rawrination 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Trying to propose to a woman, any woman, is trying to step in front of a loaded gun and hoping it doesn't go off.

It has nothing to do with it not lasting. In fact the longer it lasts before the divorce the worse off the man is. My parents were married 25 years, and the divorce utterly ruined my dad financially, and that was with him and my mom actually trying to limit the costs.

[–]disrobedranger 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I've been married twice and divorced once. The key is a prenup. If they aren't willing to sign one and be civil before before the marriage then I don't need or want them in my life.

[–]MrBallsackEyesFake news 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Half the time prenups don’t even hold up in court. You are playing with fire, But at least you aren’t pouring gasoline all over yourself like all the poor saps who just get married without a prenup.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This is retarded. Of course if you have a badly written legal document it won't hold up in court. The problem is that they are poorly written, not a fundamental flaw of pre nups.

[+]MrBallsackEyesFake news -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Not even close. All it takes is getting a liberal judge.

[–]GoldenPants2269 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course, it's always those pesky liberals ruining everything!!!! I'll get you next time liberals if it's the last thing I do!!!!

[–]MrBallsackEyesFake news -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Easy there little fella.

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Alright boss, you win. You're super right.

[+]MrBallsackEyesFake news -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Cool story bro. I’m glad school’s back in session on Monday, so you will be busy with your middle school scholastic activities.

[–]Chronoblivion -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Trying to propose to a woman, any woman, is trying to step in front of a loaded gun and hoping it doesn't go off.

I used to disagree any time people claimed this sub is full of misogynists, but the fact that this is upvoted has me second guessing.

How is this any different from the feminist claims about men being rapists?

[–]Rawrination 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Because it isnt about the woman. Its about the way the concept of marriage has been twisted by the state. replace the word woman with person and its a better meaning.

[–]Chronoblivion 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because it isnt about the woman. Its about the way the concept of marriage has been twisted by the state.

Not trying to be confrontational or anything, I'm genuinely curious - can you explain what you mean by this? I agree that marriage isn't what it used to be but I'm not sure I'd blame government for that.

[–]Rawrination 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Alimony, mandatory fees to the state, custody of the kids, all sorts of shit that happens that is outside the control of my parents. It wasn't my mom making my dad go bankrupt but the state itself.

[–]Chronoblivion -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm still not seeing how marriage has been corrupted by the state. Those problems all have to do with divorce, which is related but distinctly separate from marriage.

[–]ABEW190434 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

We knew the people from /r/incels had to come somewhere. Just had to be here. Not that this sub doesn't at least somewhat lend itself to their side.

PussyPassDenied has slowly turned less into women who are just generally bad people trying to abuse their status as a woman to get ahead or fuck someone over having their actions backfire, and more into 'THIS WOMAN GOT INTO A FITE AND LOST HAHAHAHA.'

Many of these people have never been in a real relationship. They think that because they've had bad experiences with woman, all woman are golddigging backstabbing whores. Like you compared- they're the male equivalent of the 'All Men are Rapists' tumblrinas.

[–]morerokk 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Everyone I don't like is Incels"

Many of these people have never been in a real relationship. They think that because they've had bad experiences with woman, all woman are golddigging backstabbing whores. Like you compared- they're the male equivalent of the 'All Men are Rapists' tumblrinas.

Nice armchair you got there.

[–]hotpotato70 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Divorce laws are such that they are biased toward lower earning partner, which is predominantly women. If the law wasn't financial, but would rather say that the home maker is obligated to do part of laundry and dishes because the other party sacrificed by working and never learned to do household chores, then the law would be targeted against women. As we have it now, men are targeted. It's not massagonist to say that the group whom the laws favor take advantage of the laws.

Basically women are told they can have a guaranteed passive income for years, all they have to do is divorce. You'd be stupid not to do it. I think women are just taking advantage of the laws, it is what anyone else would do. As long as they stay married, it's possible their husband will quit work or switch to a lower paying job, there's less financial stability in staying married, divorce is the practical solution to financial stability.

The other thing you said about men being rapists, is just offensive. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the laws, but the laws are bad.

[–]Chronoblivion -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right that the laws are stacked against men, and I wouldn't fault anyone who opts out of marriage to avoid the risk. But to frame it as "any woman is a loaded gun" is sexist bullshit, just as much as it is when women treat men as "loaded guns" because some small proportion of them are rapists.

There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of the laws

I strongly disagree. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. The fact that you can't be punished for it isn't the same as "nothing wrong with it."

[–]10J18R1A 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's just saying that the capacity is there because of an inherently flawed system. Marriage is putting your faith in the idea that your super special woman won't take advantage of the legal inequity.

[–]matt675 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I mean, that’s 22 years down the drain idk if he really dodged much

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a really slow bullet.

[–]WilNotJr 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Sunk cost fallacy. They are both free to move on with their lives.

[–]ProgMM 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's only the sunk cost fallacy if used to justify staying with her

[–]WilNotJr 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure he enjoyed the time they had together so it wasn't a waste.

[–]hotpotato70 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Probably didn't enjoy when she tried to rob him.

[–]WilNotJr 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope, I don't think he did. But we get to enjoy discussing it.

[–]notepad20 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a really poor way to look at it. I was talking to someone the other day who had not long divorced after 20 years.

He said he got the same thing from people ' oh now its all a waste ' and so on.

But he said it doesn't change any thing. They still raised a family, built a life and a home together, and mostly had a great time.

The fact they arnt into it any more after two decades doesnt invalidate the past.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]topdangle 40 points41 points42 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like she only lied to certain people so she could milk him for things like health insurance. Probably a sociopath that doesn't want people thinking she "settled" for this guy, even if it means she loses in court.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]hotpotato70 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who doesn't want alimony? Free money

[–]PussyPassDENIED 135 points136 points137 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And an angel got it's wings.

[–]prsTgs_Chaos 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Common Law Marriage is the biggest crock of shit ever. I'm dating someone for years and very distinctly not marrying them. Guess it's cool if you marry us for no reason.

[–]azhillbilly 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You actually have to do paperwork and mean to get common law married. It's not automatic at all.

You need to live together x years, make a public announcement like am article in a newspaper, then file for it and it can be rejected. It really makes no sense to do it.

Anecdotal: my dad's girlfriend after he passed away suddenly started claiming she was his wife and was the rightful heir to his property because they were "common law married". Not true at all.

[–]thealienelite1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Did she disappear and never bother you again?

[–]azhillbilly 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Fuck no. Still dealing with it. She is living in my dad's house and doesn't answer her phone.

I am letting the house go because I can't afford the mortgage and it's at 95% value (295k mortgage and 310k value so it would cost more to sell then I make and it's 40 miles outside of Denver so living there means over an hour drive to work) so whatever on that. But I still need to get my father's belongings out of it.

[–]thealienelite3 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Man, I feel for you, really. The night my dad died I was asleep. My "stepmom" (she married him for insurance and pills) came in, said "Your dad's dead", and proceeded to loot the house. She even had two officers with her that let her do it, despite her not living there. They also took my dad's gun that I never got back.

So yeah, good luck getting rid of the bitch.

[–]azhillbilly 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. When I talked to her after he passed away she said o could have the guns and suddenly she was saying they were common law married and she had the mortuary put her name as wife on the death certificate and that's the only thing ever with her name attached. She then started on about she had power of attorney and wouldn't listen to me when I said that is voided when he died and it's a irrevocable POA that is after death and needs a judges signature, I work in the legal field but I guess she thinks she knows more then a lawyer. Hell even if they were married for the 3 years I have more claim then her and my step mom that was married to him for 26 years has more claim then her even after being divorced, she tried to take the 401k but I stopped that, my step mom is the rightful recipient of that.

People see death as a windfall, they don't give a shit about people's emotions.

[–]thealienelite3 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

she tried to take the 401k

...wow.

[–]azhillbilly 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually that's not even the worst part. She is trying to claim his Harley. She refused to ride it with him when he was alive and literally does not know how to start the bike. She just wants the stuff that's worth money to sell so she can retire because she never saved a dime and now she is a CNA making 12 dollars an hour.

[–]thealienelite1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd tell you what I'd do but I dont wanna be held liable...lol

[–]azhillbilly 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol no big. I have the titles to everything and the keys, Dec 20th I am going to go up while she's at work and get all my and my brothers share off the farm and leave the title deed on the table. If she signs it then it will be her next bad decision because it puts her name on the debt and I will stop paying the mortgage in January. My name's not on the lien so won't effect my credit.

Merry Christmas here's a big ol fat debt.

[–]prsTgs_Chaos 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is it always presented as this thing that just happens when you're dating too long like it's out of your control? Like guys getting screwed in a divorce when they thought they weren't married.

[–]tothecatmobile 62 points63 points64 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well it does recognise common law marriage.

They just don't meet the criteria.

[–]Z_for_Zontar[S] 63 points64 points65 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It stopped recognition of common law marriage in 2002, though some such marriages from before that where grandfathered in.

[–]uselesstriviadude 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

2005*

[–]Aarondhp24 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

were*

[–]timeslider 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just

[–]tothecatmobile 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if they had met the criteria before then, it would have been recognised.

[–]SloppyLasagna 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Recognition*

[–]uberduger 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

she pointed out that the couple had stated they were married in filing their federal tax return in 2015.

Holy shit this guy is lucky. This case was done entirely on technicalities by the sound of it (i.e. the point that they never exchanged spoken vows) but I'd have not been surprised if that joint tax return stating they were married had been accepted as valid evidence.

This guy must have been born with a horseshoe up his ass, or the law is far more cut-and-dry with this stuff than I'd realised! Either way, great work and great outcome for him.

[–]Tony49UK 43 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Looks like somebody will be getting done for insurance fraud.

[–]disrobedranger 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not really, if the insurance company had a problem with it it would have come up before now. Their underwriting department could have ran a records check prior to approving the policy if they cared. Even though the state doesn't recognize a common law marriage doesn't mean that the insurance company didn't choose to.

Source: My dad was an insurance agent, then an adjuster, then an auditor for 40 years before retiring. I called and asked him to make sure I wasn't spouting out complete bullshit.

[–]Tony49UK 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought they usually worked on the basis of only check the customer out if they make a claim.

[–]disrobedranger 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on the situation. For example car insurance will automatically get a "clue report" ran. That's basically a credit report for your driving and claim history. They run that report even when generating a quote. Health insurance will run similar checks but only based on what can be disclosed via HIPPA and public records. Marriage records are public and can be checked on the fly as most of the records are available online. They also check for large payouts that would be indicative to a pre-existing condition. Even though a company cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions they can adjust rates accordingly based on prior claim amounts. In regards to only checking if a claim is filed; it doesn't apply with health insurance. It's expected that there will be at minimum doctor visits to be paid. Claims are basically guaranteed.

[–]Bouquet_of_seaweed 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I called and asked him to make sure I wasn't spouting out complete bullshit.

That's not how this website works.

[–]Z_for_Zontar[S] 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not as bad as divorce

[–]StellaSadistic 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Insurance fraud? Wtf are you talking about?

[–]Tony49UK 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Where he told the insurance company that she was his wife, on in order to get his work health insurance to cover her. When it's now been legally proven that she wasn't his wife.

[–]StellaSadistic 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shit my bad I missed the part. Turns out I’m the idiot.

[–]mamagee 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some insurance companies classify a spouse as a dependent, not as a spouse, so it could be done that way, in which it wouldn't be insurance fraud.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They could use it as a reason to remove a person from the policy or refuse to pay a claim. But there's nothing they could really do otherwise about previous payments.

If the two of them didn't know each other and committed the deception solely for the financial benefit of insurance. Maybe that would cross into criminal fraud but still improbable.

[–]Smacktardius 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

This is why I don't call it a marriage certificate, it's actually an insurance policy for women.

[+]skintwo -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit. I am a woman who was raked over the coals in a divorce. It's an insurance policy for the non working spouse. Gender has fuck all to do with it and I'm fucking sick of hearing that. I got fleeced because he's too lazy to look for a job after getting laid off (we both were, but I tried harder). And there is a kid. The laws are not gender biased.

[–]Novapophis 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The laws aren't gender biased, and I am sorry to hear what you went through, but statistically speaking the situations absolutely favor women in situations where the judge makes a decision

[–]Castamere_81 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry to hear about your situation but it is absolutely NOT the norm. Statistics clearly show that women are heavily favored in divorce court, even if she is working. Your situation was an anomaly.

[–]skintwo -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not in the US. The laws in most states are gender neutral now. The problem is that since the women have the babies and breastfeed them, they are usually the ones that take a career break, it's hard to justify paying so much for daycare when you might make enough to just break even.. and all that adds up to really hurting your career. This comes from many issues, but the main one is the biological difference. This is why consistent, enforceable maternity AND paternity leave that is reasonable helps everyone - along with high quality, affordable child care. Remember, the laws used to TOTALLY SCREW the woman and children, then they overcorrected them (but still during the era where childcare was basically non-existent!!!), and now they are much more equitable - mostly because child care now exists. In the 60s there was no such thing as daycare! This is something I think most folks on here don't understand...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That to the other 99% of men that get fucked by the courts in comparison.

The laws absolutely are gender based, you are the exception not the rule.

[–]skintwo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They are NOT gender biased anymore in the US - but they are biased against the working parent. The fact that there is a gender imbalance in the parent who usually works vs not is a different issue. Look at the laws.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t have to look at the laws I myself as a man and countless others have experienced it personally.

There is certainly a bias

[+]Yabadababoobs -53 points-52 points-51 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Insurance for what? There is nothing at risk in the first place. It's a slave ownership certificate.

[–]BMWbastard 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What?

[–]MrBallsackEyesFake news 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I escaped the marriage plantation, and I will never return. Thank God I had a good lawyer.

[–]chambertlo 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am so glad that she was put in her place.

[–]geraldwhite 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what a common law marriage is. Even if you live in a state that has common law marriage just because you live together for a specified period of time does not mean you are married. You would have to be living together, she would have to be using his last name, money would have to be commingled, they would have to be acting as if they were already married, then after all that still have to go to court and win. It’s used for people who are acting married in every way for year but never got officially married.

[–]PRW56 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that's a bit scary. I could easily see someone not getting married just so that there was no chance of the losses resulting from a divorce, but then find out that they were technically married all along.

[–]Dardlem 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

she would have to be using his last name

Is that a requirement for a regular marriage too?

[–]geraldwhite 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No it’s not, but this is for common law marriage, they are not married until they are. I mean she kudos have to be using his last name on checks, bank account etc. as someone else said it’s left for a judge to interpret there is not some set in stone rule, and that was the point of my comment. That even if they were in a state that had common law it wouldn’t mean they were actually married.

[–]anderson_buck 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s used for people who are acting married in every way for year but never got officially married.

you're right, but the problem is that it leaves room for interpretation by a judge. Some judges would have probably said the couple in the article were married based on the taxes/insurance.

[–]Cyrino420 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

There is zero reason for a man to ever get married and involve government in his relationship.

[–]devenchis 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yeah if you don’t want benefits that come with it. Sure.

“I’m the husband, can I be her medical proxy?”

“Nope you’re the boyfriend, go sit in the lobby thanks”

[–]duffmannn 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You can sign a form and make whoever you want, your medical proxy.

[–]devenchis 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait, so if you get into a car accident and you're unconscious, you can sign forms? Dude... you're living in 4040!

[–]duffmannn 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No you do it beforehand. Plan for the worst. Hope for the best.

[–]youmakemelaugh- 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If they come into the hospital conscious and are given the opportunity to fill out and sign the paperwork. If they come to the hospital injured and unconscious then the husband is automatically the medical proxy without having to wait for the wife to wake up and fill out a form.

[–]10J18R1A 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Proper planning prevents piss-poor posts.

[–]anderson_buck 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This argument is old and tired. If you consciously make the choice to spend your life together without getting married, you can, and should, make the choice to put the proper legal documents in place for this type of situation.

Just because you don't get these benefits by default doesn't mean you can't get the benefits.

[–]azhillbilly 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So by bringing in the govt?

How is not marrying keeping out the government but getting courts and lawyers in your business completely gov't free?

[–]anderson_buck 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I look at the two differently, but you may not.

Having a civil contract that you may need the courts to enforce is completely different to me than a legal marriage. If you have a contract or legal documents you need the courts to enforce, they will only enforce what is written in the contract based on the precedent of contract law. If you get a marriage license, you're at the whim of a contract/statutes you accepted but were created by the government. Essentially, it comes down to what you're willing to accept personally.

[–]azhillbilly 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I guess I can kind of see it. Marriage is a prepackaged legal document that you have to make extra paperwork (prenup) to remove parts of, you would rather create your own package.

[–]orphancrippla 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank god too.

[–]smacksaw 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

All of this alimony/child support stuff is a clusterfuck anyway.

I wished we just had basic income. It'd be so much easier for people to get into new relationships and kids would be innocent and not pawns in nasty divorces.

[–]hotpotato70 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kids really suffer through divorces. There's a good chance for at least one person to try to get kids to turn on the other. Kids are there, so if you want to badmouth your spouse, they can be used to vent.

At the end, the ex husband starts paying ex wife. Imagine you give me money, a guy you don't know (but at least don't hate) to make sure that your car works. You may think you can make better decisions for your car, but the court forces you to pay me to do what I feel is right, you're also not allowed to see your car everyday. Now replace car with your kids, me with your ex who you hate and has been badmouthing you to kids, and will continue to say you're not paying enough.

The laws are terrible, judges and lawyers should be ashamed to be involved, police should be ashamed for enforcing the laws.

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points70 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

This man is a genius. Look at how much bullshit he has avoided (paying some woman a salary that he no longer gets to have sex with) by simply not entering a marriage contract.

Learn from this man, folks.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Rawrination 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So more idiot savant and less genius. Just got lucky his girlfriend was as dumb as he was.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I misread the article. Thanks for the correction.

[–]LeftHandLannister 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Amazing example of reverse psychology

[–]micahamey 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

IDK man. As long as you are up front and Frank about the woman you are trying to marry about the expectations and she reciprocates with her own expectations. You'll find you won't have crazy shit come up after getting married. a lot of shit can hide under the surface if you don't talk to the person You intend to marry.

[–]sagetrees 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Also, cheating fucks things up and your normally rational wife might go batshit if that is the reason for leaving her (if that happens, and hey people do change). Seriously, it is so much better to just get out with an amicable divorce and THEN bone whoever you want. Boning before the divorce is a recipe for disaster.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Cheating is for losers. Be a man, leave her, and then have your fun if sleeping with multiple women is what you desire.

[–]WilliamBott 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lots of women go batshit insane just because you want to leave them. You have to get their consent to do anything with them, be with them, etc. but you don't get the same agency to leave them if you want.

[–]shackra -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll take this advice, thanks

[–]Drezzzire 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Vaginamony 😉

[–]DerTrickIstZuAtmen 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This "common law marriage" seems like a relic of the middle ages that serves no purpose other than making things complicated.

Noone lives in villages without time and means to travel to the nearest registry office to marry anymore, if they consider a relationship a marriage.

[–]mkicon 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can't be giving me that Susquehanna weed

That's all I can think about after reading where this happened

[–]monstertheory 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bahahahaha

“Take half my shit now!”

[–]aenus79 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Susquehanna hat company, subsequently, Joey Diaz weed antagony.

[–]ousire 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am somewhat confused here. Woman wants to divorce a man, but then finds out they weren't technically married to begin with? Doesn't that just save her all the effort then? Like, what is there to be upset about? Problem solved, it seems...

[–]Saucymeatballs 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read the article and from what I could tell it seems she was trying to collect alimony from him but he proved they were never legally married, so he isn’t required by law to give her anything. Now, he had a baby with her so if he is going to do the right thing, he’s going to be there for the baby and make sure his child will never be without necessities, but he would be providing child support not alimony.

[–]alc0 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She should still be able to get a decent amount of money through child support, even if he is doing his part in parenting the child.

[–]Targren 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only child mentioned in the article would be 22

[–]Strazdas1 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/ not the onion is leaking again

[–]helmer012 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Soooo she tried to get a divorce but it turned out they were never married to begin with? Is this something negative?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

idk why this is even here a woman wasn't being beaten on video nor did a woman miss out on financial gain since it doesn't appear as though she was trying to do anything but break off the marriage.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Read the article, she was trying to get alimony.

[–]Righthoven-6 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Where is this pussypassdenied ? They lived together for 20 years, achieved stuff together, maybe she sacrificed a lot to support his carreer. There is no clue in the article that she wants to rip him off or cheated him or whatever bad reason for splitting up, she was even honest at court for the whole time. These are two persons who shared a big part of their lifes and now that they are parting its ok to split money too.

[–]BroaxXx 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He asked her to marry, she said no and now she wanted a divorce? Fuck that shit...

[+]False_Vanguard -36 points-35 points-34 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yo! This where all my incel bros moved to?

Wassup guys!?

[–]Deep_in_Ruins 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

While I think this comment is just trolling and looking for a reaction, I do agree that the sub has become unnecessarily woman-hating lately. PPD shouldn't be about hating all women, it should be about being against the ones who try to pay the PP card.

[–][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Strazdas1 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if you visit /r/incels youll find out what an incel is, but if you value sanity i suggest you do not follow my advice.

edit: apperently that sub got banned. /r/IncelsInAction may now be a good archive of what went on in that sub then (never visited it but seems like it has the stuff to understand what incels was)

[–]Strazdas1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

while you are correct, this story definitelly fits the PP card denial criteria and its somewhat acceptable that people burned by the PP card will let off some stem once in a while in enviroment they assume is safe for them. While i dont condone woman hating, a few jokes here or there is fine.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter