How many men are actually "divorce raped"?

cuittler · 2016-10-11T19:48:56+00:00

Just wondering if anyone out there has actual data on how many divorced men end up paying alimony and what the average payment/length of time they have to pay...

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

I don't have data, I just have 4 years of experience as a divorce lawyer and my opinion is that "divorce rape" is rare. That is in Canada, and my understanding is that certain US states have really whacky laws that can fuck guys over.

Having said that, the dice are loaded against men and it was shortly after I could no longer lie and told a male client that it was rigged against him that I packed it in.

I walked on both sides of the aisle and represented women as well, and the guys are certainly not all angels. However, the plays they make, the abuse they deal and the general fucked-up-ed-ness is very gender specific.

I am very wary of getting married which is why I haven't. It's not a good deal and neither privately nor professionally would I advise a man to do so. But on the other hand I will not shit on someone's parade if they find "true love"; they will find out for themselves.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

t isn't your entire future income on the line, and you wouldn't be as likely to lose access to the children.

Why do people keep saying this as if you KNOW this to be a fact simply because I'm a woman? A) I plan on and most likely will make a TON more than my husband throughout my career. So actually it is more of MY future income on the line. B) My parents had a very contentious divorce and I've been through two custody battles as a child. My mother took me half way around the country for 4 years and I barely got to see my father during that time. If you think for 1 minute I'm the type of woman who would attempt to keep my husband's children from him you are dead wrong. C) I know and understand the law and it's not nearly as dramatic as you are painting. My belief that it's not that risky is highly influenced by my actual experience and knowledge of the law.

Technically, however, since I view my income and my husband's as OUR income, I'm not worried that much about it. I don't view my marriage as "his stuff/my stuff" and I don't know why you'd want to marry anyone who views it that way. We are building a life together, and we will likely contribute in different ways throughout our lifetimes. I don't look at marriage as a quid pro quo relationship.

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So there's a chance you'd have to pay alimony? Good. Glad to see those scales finally tipping. ;-)

I get that you have experience with divorce. Doesn't matter, as a woman you'd still have FAR more support from the courts and probably from your social circle than your hubby should things go south.

As to your second paragraph? I actually saw it the same way in my first marriage, right up until I was forced to start putting dollar signs on our "life together", and I realized that no matter how a marriage goes, there is no such thing as "our" stuff. If she wanted, my wife could force me to make it "her" and "my" stuff against my will, and there isn't a damn thing I could do about it. I'll admit I still act the same in my current marriage, which is to say I consider everything "ours". However, I also took steps to ensure at least a bit of a buffer for myself should things go sideways again. A nest egg outside our marriage, and outside my own grasp for the moment. I did so before we married, and I have no intention of using it unless forced to. My wife knows about it, and I told her in no uncertain terms that it was staying where it is until we are old and gray, and that I wanted to ensure that no matter what happened to be going forward, I had something in reserve to support my kids.

It is "our" money until one of us wants out. Then? Start putting a price tag on all your happy memories. You'll be sad to see how little they are worth.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So there's a chance you'd have to pay alimony?

There is virtually zero chance that I will ever have to pay alimony or that my husband will ever have to pay alimony to me. Because we both make enough money individually for a solidly middle class lifestyle and alimony is very rarely granted due to income disparity alone. The only way I could see me having to pay alimony is if he becomes a SAHD, which is something we have discussed but I doubt will come to fruition.

Doesn't matter, as a woman you'd still have FAR more support from the courts and probably from your social circle than your hubby should things go south.

So my legal experience and knowledge "doesn't matter" because I'm a woman? I'm being realistic here, I'm not propagating some conspiracy-level theory regarding family law and the courts which I see so many terps try to do.

If she wanted, my wife could force me to make it "her" and "my" stuff against my will, and there isn't a damn thing I could do about it.

I don't even know what you mean by this. The law makes it marital property - not your wife. I suppose if she surreptitiously comingled all your assets but I doubt she could do that right under your nose without you knowing.

However, I also took steps to ensure at least a bit of a buffer for myself should things go sideways again. A nest egg outside our marriage, and outside my own grasp for the moment. I did so before we married, and I have no intention of using it unless forced to. My wife knows about it, and I told her in no uncertain terms that it was staying where it is until we are old and gray, and that I wanted to ensure that no matter what happened to be going forward, I had something in reserve to support my kids.

And men are absolutely free to do this. Sounds like it was always non-marital property if it was premarital. The only thing you honestly need to do is make sure it remains separate. Men can also get prenups (no, they are not tossed aside willy nilly).

It is "our" money until one of us wants out. Then? Start putting a price tag on all your happy memories. You'll be sad to see how little they are worth.

I'm aware that marital property gets divided between the two and that some people don't like that. I still view marital property as jointly earned.

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So my legal experience and knowledge "doesn't matter" because I'm a woman? I'm being realistic here, I'm not propagating some conspiracy-level theory regarding family law and the courts which I see so many terps try to do

that wasn't at all the point I was trying to make. I'm implying you simply can't empathize with the situation, because you'll never live it the same way, even if you do get divorced. (and I certainly hope that you do NOT.)

The law makes it marital property - not your wife.

"The Law" can be used, by my wife, to force me to monetize our life together whether I want it or not. Its "marital property" until someone wants out, then its "hers" and "mine".

I'm aware that marital property gets divided between the two and that some people don't like that. I still view marital property as jointly earned.

I used to, until I saw how easy it is for someone to pull the rip cord and force the monetary issue. And frankly? Its only "ours" if we are together in my mind. If she wants out? She can leave with what she came with, plus any "extra" she's made along the way.

Of course my situation is entirely different than most men going about this the first time. We have no children together, both had a long history of working prior to marriage, and as such the only real tangle we'd have is deciding how to split the house we live in, and as far as I'm concerned, she can have it free and clear if she ever wants out. But honestly? If I was a 20-something guy looking at all this for the first time? I don't know if I'd do it, and you know it really is what I want. Its a HUGE risk, and depending on your situation you can only prepare for the worst so much. I DO NOT suggest to my boys they "should marry", nor do I talk against it other than to say "think long and hard before you consider it. Then do it again."

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis702 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm just tired of folks assuming it AUTOMATICALLY applies to MY marriage

That wasn't my intention. Apologies if that's how it came across.

I'm sure in plenty of other marriages the incomes are about equal.

Around here? Only if both have minimum wage jobs. Otherwise? By and large both work, but the husband is usually bringing in the bulk of the money, or they don't have a bulk of money at all.

Remember, I'm not swimming with college educated types here. By and large, a college education is a rare thing for men AND women here. The guys that get one, tend to still marry women without them, because frankly there aren't that many women with a degree to choose from.

Now for our children, that will be a different story. I don't expect a single one of them to stay here past HS/College, and in fact my wife and I don't intend to stay here either. I expect they'll have a better shot at finding similarly educated peers to pair off with, but only because they won't be choosing from people here. Although, my stop-son has hitched himself up with a local girl. She's nice enough, but in my opinion she'll be an anchor to his progress if it lasts. Time will tell.

[–]yaboitinky3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The concern is that since divorce rape is a risk, men should not get married. But it isn't just divorce rape. Men are not treated equally when there is a divorce. Not only must he fight harder, but he has to hope his soon-to-be-ex will not be too vindictive. Let's say he does not lose the house but never sees his kids again. That still sucks seriously big portions of ass. All things being equal, they should be looking to split things equally or at least consider the impact of divorce on men.

They are at greater risk of suicide after divorce. They may not see their kids. They may lose a chunk of the money they have earned. They may be forced to pay for a house they may no longer live in (then pay rent at another place while they figure things out). There is also a good chance he did not want to split up and wanted to work it out. So he already feels abandoned and now he has to deal with costs she is less likely to pay. Flip the genders, and if women would not be happy with this deal, why should men get married knowing that his life could be devastated on her whim?

Any woman advocating marriage in a country where divorce could destroy a man's life does not care about the impact it has on a man. Nor are they considering his wellbeing.

[–]truthuncensored 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthuncensored 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Let's say he does not lose the house but never sees his kids again.

This is an extreme and unusual case. I never once worked on a divorce case where the father never got to see his kids again. Jesus you guys talk out of your ass sometimes.

All things being equal, they should be looking to split things equally or at least consider the impact of divorce on men.

There are laws and judges which do this. Do you honestly think in court the woman gets literally everything she asks for and literally everything she says is believed??

They are at greater risk of suicide after divorce. They may not see their kids. They may lose a chunk of the money they have earned. They may be forced to pay for a house they may no longer live in (then pay rent at another place while they figure things out). There is also a good chance he did not want to split up and wanted to work it out. So he already feels abandoned and now he has to deal with costs she is less likely to pay. Flip the genders, and if women would not be happy with this deal, why should men get married knowing that his life could be devastated on her whim?

Divorce is risky for both parties. Women, and in particular single mothers, actually have it worse financially than men, if we are going off of the stats. Yes when you get married there is a risk of you contributing more towards marital property and then having it split evenly. Yes there is a risk you will not be able to see your children like you did while married. Yes there is a (very slight) risk of alimony depending on the circumstances. Yes there is a risk that your partner will want to leave and you don't and that will make you sad.

As a man you are free to say "no" given those risks. But the manosphere propaganda that marriage will devastate and destroy is extremely exaggerated. I've seen my fair share of divorces -- both professionally and my parents -- and this idea that a high portion of men are left poverty-stricken with zero visitation with their children is complete bullshit.

Any woman advocating marriage in a country where divorce could destroy a man's life does not care about the impact it has on a man. Nor are they considering his wellbeing.

Considering you guys know very little about marriage, marriage law, and divorce, I find it ironic that you are personally accusing me of not caring about men. Even more ironic given the number of men I represented in family court. But I'm sure you care about them more.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet we have another divorce lawyer saying the opposite of what you're saying, that the odds are stacked against men. He isn't getting married anytime soon. He isn't advocating it either. Now, your argument is it happens so infrequently, it's not a problem. But, my point is not about the frequency, but about bias and how vulnerable men are when it comes to divorce. They'd like a little more protection.

I find it ironic that you are personally accusing me of not caring about men.

As I was saying, and was mentioned before. You're a woman and never have to risk it. Men are not arguing about the frequency. They'd just like some of the bias to be reduced, they'd like to not be seen as the bad guys and they'd like the court to do something when there are instances of abuse regarding visitation, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY0tarD1Ht4

In there they also discuss the misleading stats about how men and women's living standards change after divorce. Women aren't poverty stricken after divorce either.

and this idea that a high portion of men are left poverty-stricken with zero visitation with their children is complete bullshit.

You're misrepresenting the argument here. I know guys won't be screwed forever. No one is, but the effects of it are pretty shitty and men tend to suffer it disproportionately. They're not the ones initiating divorce at the rate women are.

Let's take things like the increased risk of suicide. Yes, men don't have to off themselves, but why do they feel like this is their only option?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2440005/Divorce-mans-health-Separation-increases-risk-death-substance-abuse-suicide-depression.html

You're appealing to authority, and you probably have more experience regarding this, but if some men are not getting screwed from divorce and it really is all equal, why are they complaining they're getting screwed, and why are there so few if any women complaining about being divorce raped (the equivalent of...they're not all losing houses, for example).

Do you honestly think in court the woman gets literally everything she asks for and literally everything she says is believed??

Of course not, and while this is an exaggeration, again, this is not the issue. What we tend to hear about are one of two outcomes: she gets a killer payout or there's an equal split. Not to say women are ever screwed in court (and different countries have different rules. In mine, women tend to be favoured more and there's a ridiculously high divorce rate too) but we tend to hear the stories about how "she got everything in the divorce". Now, where are the stories where the men are the ones coining it from the divorce and do they happen at the same rate compared to women?

As a man you are free to say "no" given those risks.

This is a perfectly legitimate response.

Divorce is risky for both parties.

I agree here. So based on what you've seen, as a divorce lawyer (I am assuming), are the risks for men and women equal? Or shall I say, is there an equal outlook to the way courts treat men? This is not a rhetorical question. I ask this because what we the people tend to get is the effect of divorce on women and children and very little on men. Where I come from there's practically no research on the impact of divorce on men.

I found this dissertation online about the topic:

http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1196/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1

It also has experiences from men about the impacts of divorce:

"It hurt like hell because I still loved her, but now she was gone and with leaving my whole world started to fall apart. I felt like I had failed, like it was my fault, and that everything I believed in was now questionable. I felt worthless and wanted to die. I had thought about killing myself and had once put a gun to my head. The only thing that stopped me was, I loved my son too much and he needed me."

On a personal note, I had a close friend who got divorced. His wife had molested the kids and even handed herself into the police when she was caught. She made a statement and confessed. They could not get the kid to talk about it though, and with a lack of evidence, when they eventually divorced (after years of her abusing him), she was still able to see the kids. Now, if that was the other way around, I doubt very much that he'd get the same leeway.

[–]truthuncensored 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthuncensored 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalka1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yaboitinky4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My understanding is that in Canada, "divorce rape" is very uncommon. I don't have the numbers, but alimony in Canada is generally designed as a temporary measure to get the other party to a place where they can support themselves. It's not designed to be a life long burden, and only applies when there is a big difference in income between both spouses (and even then, is not a guarantee).

The courts take into account length of marriage, financial means and needs, and division of labour within the marriage

If you don't want to pay alimony in Canada, I would suggest marrying an ambitious and hard-working woman. As long as her income is not significantly lower, alimony shouldn't come into play if you divorce.

For me personally, the idea that divorce rape is the reason you wouldn't marry is ridiculous. In my province, common law rules apply after living together for a few years, so you would have to avoid cohabitating as well. Just don't marry someone who wants to be a SAHM.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayCactus60125 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackGetsItRed Pill Man6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackGetsItRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's family court, the evidentiary rules are relaxed. It's not always easy to prove but people are dumb these days and don't hide it all that well. Or the judge could have an ex parte meeting with the children.

You seem to have a lot of experience don't a portion of men let their pride get in the way and they don't fight their ex through the divorce process. They just give in because they think they are helping the children by giving her everything?

They might but either way that's not the mother's or the law's problem. What happens more often is they don't go for what they want because they think they will lose or they can't afford an attorney. That is pretty unfortunate, IMO, because if they do fight for what they want, it's not quite as stacked against them as the manosphere makes it out to be.

[–]JackGetsItRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JackGetsItRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StickItInTheToilet 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A guy losing assets he paid for or earned (home, retirement account, savings, etc)

Only he earned those things, huh? It's all his? What was she then? His slave?

A guy losing custody of his kids either totally or only seeing them 4 days a month

Shared custody is a thing. And over 50% of men go for for full custody get it.

A guy paying alimony

Only paid in certain circumstances, where she doesn't have enough money to survive because she's been at home looking after the kids and has no career for example

A guy paying irrationally high child support that is spent by the mother on the mother

In some cases, I'm sure that happens, but not all. Some people are shitty. And some men spend out on boys toys and gambling while married and leave their family struggling to get by.

A guy being falsely accused of violence so the ex wife can use it as leverage.

In some cases, I'm sure that happens, but not all. Some people are shitty. And some men have used violence on their wives for years before their wives leave them.

[–]MasherusPrimeMGTOW3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasherusPrimeMGTOW2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasherusPrimeMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasherusPrimeMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasherusPrimeMGTOW2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasherusPrime2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (93 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaK_Ultra0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaK_Ultra0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaK_Ultra0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Invalidity1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Didn't he compensate for it by providing for both over the time she stayed at home?

Sure, but again, I don't think it's about compensation. To me, her sacrifice for maintaining his home and mothering his kids was also a worthwhile contribution. It just wasn't one she got paid for or which is marketable on a resume. She comes out of the marriage with little to no marketable skills whereas he may have had the ability to work on his career for decades.

Why would he have to pay double for that in your opinion?

I don't think it's him "paying double" first off. It's not like most women just sort of slip into SAHMomhood - it's a joint decision. If they divorce and she's given up her career potential she needs to have the ability to get that back so she can "land on her feet" so to speak. That's what alimony is designed to do, on a temporary basis.

[–]vandaalen0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vandaalen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]speltspelt2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]iponi 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]iponi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iponi1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ka58131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ka58131 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vandaalenRed Pill EC0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Regarding your first example wouldn't it even be the case, that he would be entitled to alimony by her? If the roles were reversed and she stayed at home studying some stuff while he was working two jobs, wouldn't he be compelled to provide for the way of life she is used to in the case of a divorce?

No the idea is he is now a doctor, he ditches her after he gets a high powered and money-making career after she worked her tail off to support him to get that career. She essentially sacrificed her education to support him while he went after his.

If she has an equally money-making career as him now than there's no alimony.

wouldn't he be compelled to provide for the way of life she is used to in the case of a divorce?

This is also another TRP fallacy. "Lifestyle the spouse is accustomed to" is generally a factor in alimony statutes. One factor. Most alimony is meant to be rehabilitative these days, not compensatory and not to maintain the status quo. The idea that women are being awarded outrageous alimony awards to maintain her "lifestyle" -- outside of the ridiculously wealthy and celebrity couplings -- isn't quite how it works.

[–]vandaalen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vandaalen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aznphenix3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aznphenix2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ya and for him to go to school with the thinking he would support her financially.

Right and he failed to keep up his end of the bargain after she did her fair share. So why are you arguing with me here? No one said he should pay alimony for life, just so she too can get a minimal education.

Bull fucking shit. Watch Divorce Inc. you learn they are far from not and the system is beyond rig.

I responded to you on another comment that I probably will watch this, sounds interesting. That being said it's not bullshit, it's literally the way the court system is set up. I know what I'm talking about, regardless of whatever some documentary is touting.

I do and even favor it. What I don't support and what some feminists even fight to keep is permanent alimony. But alimony is a general payment, its not made to support a specific thing.

I don't care what feminists are doing, most alimony is temporary. Lots of states have gone so far as to ban permanent alimony or have abandoned the practice altogether. The only time I would agree with it is if she is past retirement age and the chances of her being able to support herself after there's been an equitable division of assets is very low.

I would agree to more accountability, for sure, but the fact of the matter is it's most often temporary to begin with. That in and of itself is incentive to put it to good use and not spend it frivolously.

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because he has no legal obligation to pay for her schooling.

Are you capable of seeing the equitable principles at play behind my hypothetical which would potentially justify temporary alimony or not?

Family court is nothing like civil or criminal. You can say you know what you are talking about, but if family law was really equal men would not be getting nearly as screwed as they are in family court.

Whether you think it's "equal" or not has nothing to do the manner in which the courts system is set up. Having practiced law in civil, criminal and family law courts I assure you that family courts are courts of equity, rather than courts of law. Courts of equity refers to applying equitable principles to cases, instead of precedent and hard and fast substantive and procedural law. Google it before you start arguing with me and implying I don't know what I'm talking about again.

Ya because of feminists. Alimony use to be permant but because more women were being subjected to it feminists fought to reform it.

Actually I heard feminists were the ones fighting for permanent alimony to remain. Regardless, permanent alimony is mostly a thing of the past. You can thank feminists if you want.

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you capable of seeing the equitable principles at play behind my hypothetical which would potentially justify temporary alimony or not?

Yes, but alimony is ex spousal support its not pay for schooling for your ex. I would think you know this. Yes she could use the money to pay for school but its not being paid to specifically pay for her schooling.

Google it before you start arguing with me and implying I don't know what I'm talking about again.

I already have, its how I know men get screwed in family court and despite your claim of family courts are courts of equity they are not. If family courts where such men would not be getting screwed as much as they are by family court.

Actually I heard feminists were the ones fighting for permanent alimony to remain.

Feminist group NOW has and currently is fighting to keep such a thing around, other feminist not so much. And no I won't thank feminists for this primary because of how much they fought against father right groups and still do to this day.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but alimony is ex spousal support its not pay for schooling for your ex. I would think you know this. Yes she could use the money to pay for school but its not being paid to specifically pay for her schooling.

You just said you lived in CA and yet I linked you a statute which specifically included the following as a factor to consider in determining alimony:

(1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to acquire other, more marketable skills or employment.

Look here is a law blog explaining that in SC alimony can be granted to allow the supported spouse to further his or her education. Oh look here is one from FL. NC. CA law blog explaining that you can make your alimony agreement contingent upon going back to school and the Court can include it in your order. Honestly do you think I just pull stuff out of my ass? Yes if the argument is you need rehabilitative alimony to go back to school it can be included in the divorce order. Another great thing about courts of equity: they can shape the divorce orders the way they want.

I already have, its how I know men get screwed in family court and despite your claim of family courts are courts of equity they are not. If family courts where such men would not be getting screwed as much as they are by family court.

OMFG. This is why I asked you to google. Family courts are courts of equity whether you agree or not.

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You just said you lived in CA and yet I linked you a statute which specifically included the following as a factor to consider in determining alimony

Bolded the key word. More so alimony itself is a general spousal payment, its not meant to pay for a specific thing.

you can make your alimony agreement contingent upon going back to school and the Court can include it in your order

And I am talking about the judge forcing you to pay for your ex spouse's schooling. Not an agreed upon agreement. Your hypothetical didn't have that part there. Your hypothetical was more on the lines of "screw you I got mine see ya". Not "hey if we got a divorce I return the favor".

This is why I asked you to google.

Because linking to wikipedia so proves family court law is all about equity. Despite me saying repeatedly how family court screws over men. Again watch Divorce Inc. as if you really knew what you where talking about then I doubt there be as much of an uproar over family court as there is.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More so alimony itself is a general spousal payment, its not meant to pay for a specific thing.

That isn't correct of modern, rehabilitative alimony. There are plenty of alimony orders which detail what it is meant to be used for! Not in all of them, but lots! Is there realistically a way to absolutely enforce that every dime is spent the way it is supposed to be? No, but you can put whatever you want in a court order as long as the judge signs off it, especially in family proceedings.

And I am talking about the judge forcing you to pay for your ex spouse's schooling. Not an agreed upon agreement.

9/10 divorce orders are done by agreement. You present it to the judge and he/she signs off on it. Hence it is both an agreement and court ordered.

Because linking to wikipedia so proves family court law is all about equity.

You are applying your own definition of "equity" to the phrase "court of equity." Family courts are literally courts of equity and not courts of law. Why are you making me bang my head on the wall? Find me one link which says: "family law courts in the US are courts of law and not courts of equity." The fact that family law has screwed over men and has the potential to do so does not mean it isn't a court of equity. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again watch Divorce Inc. as if you really knew what you where talking about then I doubt there be as much of an uproar over family court as there is.

I already said I would watch it. Not because I need to do so to understand how the law works, but because it sounds interesting. Do you understand that I'm a lawyer? Who used to practice family law?? Do you honestly think that watching one (obviously biased) documentary is going to convince me to toss my legal education and actual experience out the window?

[–]Invalidity1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A woman shouldn't just blindly trust a man, but at the same time, a man shouldn't blindly just enter into a marriage with a woman on the belief that she will remain faithful and won't give a hard time.

When did I saw otherwise? Marriage shouldn't be taken lightly by either party. That's a given.

You just provided more reasons as to why marriage doesn't make much sense for women - there's simply too much risk involved. People can't just trust one another, because trust isn't reliable.

That's your opinion. I trust my husband and he trusts me. You can call that dumb or whatever you want but we are very happy, regardless.

Hence, marriage reforms are absolutely necessary to keep the union sacred... since people aren't reliable enough to do that themselves.

The only way you guys want to reform it is by making it better for men. This at the same time I hear every day how child support should be abolished and is "unconstitutional". Gee I'll take your word for it to your so-called "reforms" will not be bad for women.

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's your opinion. I trust my husband and he trusts me. You can call that dumb or whatever you want but we are very happy, regardless.

That's great, but given the number of divorces in places like the United States, most people would disagree with you. Especially women given that they initiate divorces more often than men do. Now there may be legitimate reasons for the divorce, but it all ultimately boils down to one thing - the marriage has failed and there's no further desire to try and salvage it.

The only way you guys want to reform it is by making it better for men. This at the same time I hear every day how child support should be abolished and is "unconstitutional". Gee I'll take your word for it to your so-called "reforms" will not be bad for women.

None of the reforms I mentioned in the other post were gender specific. They reflect primarily upon the person initiating the divorce and the disparity in incomes. I personally would prefer to eliminate no-fault divorce, because that gives people too easy of an out.

Some other proposed reforms do indeed strongly favor men, but for the most part, no one is going to accept those reforms.

[–]stonepimpletilists 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I expect people to be more responsible for their decisions; if two people are going to get married, they need to be more considerate of all the possibilities that could or could not happen and make a conscientious decision from there.

Now I know that is idealistic. The only reasonable alternative then is for the courts to establish rules to preserve the sanctity of marriage. If a person wants out of a marriage because they aren't happy and don't want to fix the relationship, then there should be repercussions involved. That's where the division of assets and alimony would play out.

If a man were making significantly more than his spouse and he wanted to divorce his wife for no reason other than to test the waters, then their assets should be divided and he should pay alimony. That protects the former wife in the event that she is unable to take care of herself. However, if the wife decided to divorce her husband because she felt tired of the relationship, then she should not be entitled to any of his assets nor alimony.

All such repercussions should be dealt appropriately with regards to the person initiating the divorce. If you want out of the marriage, you're leaving your partner in a destitute position, and you won't do anything to try and salvage the relationship? Fine but you've gotta pay up.

If you want out of the marriage under all the same conditions but you are NOT the one with the higher income/greater resources? You get nothing.

No-fault divorce makes everything murky. Makes no fucking sense if a person with higher income should be paying out to their partner if the spouse decides to call it quits.

Society can't count on people to maintain the sanctity of marriage, so stricter laws have to be mandated so as to scare people off who would not otherwise be suited for a marriage, or to prevent people from being falsely rewarded.

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There is a legal scholar who has published several law review articles on the subject and history of alimony, two of which are linked here and here. From the latter:

At any rate, it does not appear that alimony of any kind was ever awarded in the majority of divorces. In the years 1887-1906 approximately 9.3% of divorces included provisions for permanent alimony.29 From the early 20th century through the 1960s, approximately 25% of divorces involved alimony awards of any kind.30 The few empirical studies that have been done since the mid twentieth century show that alimony awards in the United States have fallen over time in frequency, amount and duration, at least in the states that were studied. As recently as 1978 (prior to divorce reform), Professor Marsha Garrison studied three sample counties in New York and found that approximately 21% of the divorces involved alimony.31 Four out of five of those awards were for permanent alimony.32 However, by 1984, Garrison found that the proportion of cases having alimony awards in those same counties had declined 43%, and the majority of the awards were of limited duration.33 The decline in alimony awards was even more pronounced two decades later when a study of 2005 Wisconsin divorces by McMullen and Oswald found that 8.6% of the sample cases had alimony awards with an additional 2.6% having “family support” awards (which is a hybrid of spousal and child support); 17% of these were awards of permanent alimony (about 1.5% of the sample overall).34

My guess is in the past decade it's gone down even more. You also seem to be under the misinformed impression that income disparity alone is sufficient to award alimony. Here is the spousal support factor statute in California -- one of the most liberal states in the country when it comes to law.

As you can see, there are 14 separate identified factors here. Factor (a) is likely the only one which could arguably include wage disparity. The single greatest factors that I have ever seen to be used for alimony determinations (in KY where I practiced) were duration of the marriage (usually it was a given in marriages over 10 years long) and whether the spouse seeking maintenance was a SAHP. But don't take my word for it, according to the former law review article:

Alimony now represents neither a duty of the husband nor an entitlement of the wife. Courts have the power to order alimony in any circumstances where one spouse (usually the wife) has need and the other spouse (usually the husband) has the ability to pay.46 The general rule is that only spouses of “longterm” marriages are eligible for court-ordered alimony, but “long-term” is not specifically defined.47 Courts do not look only at a marriage’s longevity in making alimony determinations. Legislatures have produced long lists of factors for the court’s consideration, and doctrines have evolved to allow alimony to be used for purposes other than only keeping divorced women out of dire poverty.48

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdEyeSqueegeed0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A person's "word" is all that is needed in any court.

So if I say you murdered someone that all that is needed to convict you of murder?

Sworn testimony is evidence in every court system in this country

Ya and its often combined with and/or supported with additional evidence. As if I say you murdered someone and said you wore a black jacket and that jacket was in court my word is supported. Where as in family court if was say your ex spouse and say you take drugs as evidence you are a bad parent that is all is needed. I don't need to present any additional proof.

I might check it out given that it sounds like it offers a different perspective than what I'm experienced myself as a lawyer.

Watch it it is interesting and fucking scary as well. To put it one way, I thought the political corruption in the US was bad, family court is worse.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if I say you murdered someone that all that is needed to convict you of murder?

Technically, yes. Would that frequently be enough in practice? No. But the burden of proof in criminal law is much higher, which plays a huge role there. Have you ever heard of cases where eye witness testimony is, essentially the sole piece of evidence used to convict?

Ya and its often combined with and/or supported with additional evidence.

Of course it is. We call that corroborating evidence. That doesn't mean that sworn testimony isn't evidence. People think it has zero weight. It doesn't.

Where as in family court if was say your ex spouse and say you take drugs as evidence you are a bad parent that is all is needed. I don't need to present any additional proof.

If your ex says this and the judge believes him or her and there's no other evidence either way than it's unfortunate. That being said, that's very unlikely, as there will usually either be corroborating or exculpatory evidence. My point wasn't that it is usually the case, but that it's incorrect to be so dismissive of someone's statements. Get them on the record or use them to impeach and you have sworn testimony, which is evidence.

I don't need to present any additional proof.

Again, you don't need to present any additional proof in any case. It's just not a great way of proving your case because it might not work out well for you -- family court is really no different.

One thing I think we could both agree upon, however, is a bit more scrutiny of alleged abuse is needed. You're correct that it can be thrown about cavalierly and it's likely granted more leeway coming from women in DV as well as family law matters (I have actually see both men and women use it, however).

[–]Invalidity0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Her earning isn't an issue for the guys... her earning more tends to be an issue for her.

Oh, she will be more demanding and disrespectful. However the only consolation is if it gets too much is that you can dish out the same divorce rape treatment you'd expect... though considering the bias in the court system, not at much it is possible.

That's just the way it is, you earn more and you're not really seen as that much of a man. You could try retain some alpha traits like staying fit, interesting etc... but most likely she'll still take you for granted.

Dread game, by the way of showing that other women do find you attractive and you'll readily jump ship if you're not being treated the way you want. Ironically this is what women do to men who don't treat them how they like... but if that's all you can do.

SAHMs are thee riskiest as they are the ones who tend to divorce rape hard.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Her earning isn't an issue for the guys... her earning more tends to be an issue for her.

Oh, she will be more demanding and disrespectful.

Yes, this is what I said earlier. You agree with me now?

However the only consolation is if it gets too much is that you can dish out the same divorce rape treatment you'd expect... though considering the bias in the court system, not at much it is possible.

Do you have data showing courts are biased in terms of breadwinner wives not being ordered to pay alimony?

Dread game, by the way of showing that other women do find you attractive and you'll readily jump ship if you're not being treated the way you want. Ironically this is what women do to men who don't treat them how they like... but if that's all you can do.

How would you convey the "dread", exactly?

[–]Transmigratory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Do you have data showing women get leniency from the courts regarding alimony?

Personally I don't think they get leniency, so I wouldn't have said data.

Yes, what's an example of how you would convey that to your girlfriend?

Dread game with women who earn more than me is hard for me to think of, since I've not really experienced that. I can also go by what I've read from RPers who have actually gone on and actually used dread game... and some BPers who've unconsciously used it but would never acknowledge it if it is considered a RP thing.

However one would imagine that an example would be chatting to pretty women, right in front of your girlfriend, or having some sort of correspondence with such women over social media/text (of which she'll inevitably see) with them.

There are other levels of it, however I just described an aspect regarding how you would show you're still a hot commodity in the market. Common sense would suggest that if she doesn't treat her man right, there are other pretty women (perhaps prettier than her) who would be willing to do it. The options for her in this case are really treat him better or let him have another woman... in the guy's case go try another variation of dread if he is anxious to keep this woman.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm assuming you fully got the dread point.

I understand what you mean, I think it's a little silly to call something like that dread though. If she found you attractive enough in the first place chances are other women will too and vice versa. It just seems petty to do things like chat up attractive women on Facebook where she'll see if you're unhappy instead of just talking to her. Like, in high school before people develop relationship skills sure, but as an adult that just seems immature and unattractive. Better than going around flirting with other women in front of her, but still.

Old judges come from a time where women were seen as fragile things, so chances are they would be more lenient on them.

Agreed, individual judges can be awesome or awful but that is a problem that cuts both ways: see Brock Turner case and many others where convicted rapists were let off with a slap on the wrists.

[–]Transmigratory1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I understand what you mean, I think it's a little silly to call something like that dread though. If she found you attractive enough in the first place chances are other women will too and vice versa. It just seems petty to do things like chat up attractive women on Facebook where she'll see if you're unhappy instead of just talking to her. Like, in high school before people develop relationship skills sure, but as an adult that just seems immature and unattractive. Better than going around flirting with other women in front of her, but still.

Dread can come in a number of forms, I just described the relevant dread to the scenario being discussed. Other women would true, however it serves as a reminder that if she won't treat you right, you will have no problem finding someone to take her place. Chatting up attractive women on Facebook only works if you actually see said women in person... which is really the cornerstone of this (meeting them irl). The notion is that if you spill your feelings out (as women tend to) you'll be seen even more feminine than before if she's disrespecting you and not as nice to you as she doesn't view you as masculine (being the higher earner and all).

Heard of the notion that women are the most responsible teenagers? That's one of the main notions. We could spend ages discussing whether or not that is offensive, but by considering this a lot of guys seem to have instantly improved their success with women. One would be prompted to ask why? As such why would tactics that worked with people (women) in during one's teen years still work many years later... as a teen they are developing you are correct. However as an adult, by doing that you show the consequences of neglect etc are very much real.

Agreed, individual judges can be awesome or awful but that is a problem that cuts both ways: see Brock Turner case and many others where convicted rapists were let off with a slap on the wrists.

It is a problem cut both ways, but who gets the bigger cut?

[–]cuittler1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it serves as a reminder that if she won't treat you right, you will have no problem finding someone to take her place.

I find it cowardly, petty and unnecessary. Cowardly because you're (not you personally, the "dread" user) too afraid of appearing "feminine" to be honest and stand up for yourself about being unhappy. That doesn't exactly spell confidence in oneself. Petty because you need to drag her down when a relationship is about lifting each other up. Unnecessary because truly feeling abundance, like you could easily strike up a new romance, means you would just leave once the relationship makes you unhappy and not bother with elaborate mind games. Not to mention intentionally deceptive and manipulative in a way that harms her because apparently the only feelings that matter in the relationship is your unhappiness and dissatisfaction, who cares if she feels hurt or unhappy seeing you chat up other women. Because TRP is all about the man gaining the maximum advantage at the disadvantage of the woman so whatever.

Heard of the notion that women are the most responsible teenagers?

Yeah, it's a nice way of rationalizing treating her like shit.

[–]Transmigratory1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I find it cowardly, petty and unnecessary. Cowardly because you're (not you personally, the "dread" user) too afraid of appearing "feminine" to be honest and stand up for yourself about being unhappy. That doesn't exactly spell confidence in oneself. Petty because you need to drag her down when a relationship is about lifting each other up. Unnecessary because truly feeling abundance, like you could easily strike up a new romance, means you would just leave once the relationship makes you unhappy and not bother with elaborate mind games. Not to mention intentionally deceptive and manipulative in a way that harms her because apparently the only feelings that matter in the relationship is your unhappiness and dissatisfaction, who cares if she feels hurt or unhappy seeing you chat up other women. Because TRP is all about the man gaining the maximum advantage at the disadvantage of the woman so whatever.

Cowardly... but a man talking about his feelings will usually be destroyed. More so in a setting where he isn't seen as masculine anyway. How is confidence not spelt out when the guy can literally move onto a better woman? The lack of confidence would be sticking with one that doesn't treat you well because you feel you need to. Petty when you drag her down, but not when she steps on you? That's a double standard, bro. The dread is only applied when you're not being treated right. This is the point the red has, put a man in a scenario like this and he's doing all kinds of wrong. A woman, however, will get all the sympathy one can muster.

It becomes very necessary when you're in a scenario where someone won't treat you nicely just because they earn more than you. Such a scenario is certainly acceptable when women do it... so why men?

Yeah, it's a nice way of rationalizing treating her like shit.

Why do you take it as treating them like shit?

[–]moontripper12461 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

who cares if she feels hurt or unhappy seeing you chat up other women.

I'm late to the party here, and you seem mindful and open to discussion, but there's a very important concept in PUA that goes like this (off the top of my head): Women need to feel a full range of emotions. Well, people in general do. There's a reason that movies aren't just a film of someone having a great day. There's trouble (bad emotions) and the hero overcoming obstacles (struggle) and hopefully a happy ending (validation). It's an emotional roller coaster.

And so, fuck how do I say this without sounding like a dick.....it can be advantageous to the excitement of a relationship to give your girlfriend/wife the fear of losing you. If she thinks you have options ("the fuck, that slut is flirting with him...."), she'll make more of an attempt to please you. And there's a lot of other concepts packed in dread game. Preselection, abundance, social proof, confidence.....like, all I'm trying to say is: if we have two couples that are exactly the same and one of the couple's guy runs dread game his gf/wife will be more attracted than the other couple. That's just how attraction works. It's similar to why teasing a girl is flirting. Your not showering her with compliments, hell on some level you might be insulting her, but she laughs anyways. And if you don't believe me, try it for yourself. (THAT, personal experience, is what all pua concepts are founded on. If you don't believe what I'm telling you then go try it for yourself.)

Just a pua that stumbled across this (almost) archived post and really needed to correct something that no one else felt the need to fix.

[–]cuittler1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moontripper12461 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moontripper12461 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moontripper12461 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moontripper12460 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrcs84usnFatty Fat Neck Beard1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Transmigratory1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iponi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]driftsclRed Pill / Not TRP2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HigHog0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wynterpetalsBlue Pill XX1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StickItInTheToilet 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StickItInTheToilet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DarkLord0chinChin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StickItInTheToilet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (102 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (100 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man-2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]impossibleworlds 2 points2 points2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]sen--sen 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sen--sen 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabbleRed Pill-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sen--sen 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkentyDooBabble2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sen--sen2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

there's nothing wrong with not getting married, but this thinking is silly... i mean, why wouldn't you just opt not to have a bad business partner first, before swearing off all deals entirely? one of these is much more sensible than the other.

The problem with marriage is that you have no control over the terms of the deal and the deal is bad for men. In those circumstances, it does not make logical sense for an informed man, concerned about his own welfare, to enter such a deal.

No one's judgement or predictive powers are so great that they can guarantee a potential partner, particularly a woman, will not take advantage of the man's vulnerable position somewhere down the track. We already know that 50% of marriages end in divorce, over 70% of which are initiated by women. Then of course there are the unhappy marriages which men endure for fear of the carnage that would ensue upon divorce.

Clearly, the sensible thing is for men not to get married to begin with.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The problem with marriage is that you have no control over the terms of the deal and the deal is bad for men. In those circumstances, it does not make logical sense for an informed man, concerned about his own welfare, to enter such a deal.

You realize the "terms of the deal" are either laid out in publically available legislation or you could have a properly drawn prenup, right? Sure if you're making the argument that it is subject to judicial discretion, you would be correct. But judges - even in courts of equity - do not typically stray so far from enacted legislation that it's utterly unpredictable.

We already know that 50% of marriages end in divorce, over 70% of which are initiated by women.

I'm so sick of these stats being trotted out so cavalierly and absolutely. You realize there are other stats which say if you marry higher educated women when you both are a bit older the divorce rate goes dramatically down, right?

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

You realize the "terms of the deal" are either laid out in publically available legislation or you could have a properly drawn prenup, right? Sure if you're making the argument that it is subject to judicial discretion, you would be correct. But judges - even in courts of equity - do not typically stray so far from enacted legislation that it's utterly unpredictable.

Yes, I’m aware that the terms of the deal are laid out publicly. My point was that the terms not being good for men and unalterable are enough good reason for men not to get married, irrespective of the other disadvantages of marriage.

We already know that 50% of marriages end in divorce, over 70% of which are initiated by women. 
I'm so sick of these stats being trotted out so cavalierly and absolutely. You realize there are other stats which say if you marry higher educated women when you both are a bit older the divorce rate goes dramatically down, right?

You may be sick of the stats, but they reflect reality. They do however fail to identify how many of the marriages that remain intact contain unhappy men.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes they are.

Around 50% of marriages in the US still end in divorce, as the figures in the link below from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. The fact that there was a slight downward trend to 49% in 2013 and 46 % in 2014 doesn’t change much. There’s always going to be some fluctuation up and down in these figures, but it's still more or less 50%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

There’s also the fact that fewer people are getting married to begin with and that more and more men are opting out.

In these circumstances, those who do get married may be a little more pro-marriage and determined to make it work than has typically been the case.

This also does not tell us how many of those marriages contain unhappy men, afraid of triggering divorce proceedings. There are a lot of unhappy marriages out there.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

when she could just pack up and leave, and take half of his shit.

Most marriages are dual income families. Women outearn men in 38% of marriages (according to a RPer's very own stat which he brought up yesterday). The idea that she takes "half of his shit" in the event of divorce is unrealistic. In most cases, she made significant contributions too.

I'm just thinking of a friend of mine who's working 60 hours a week to support himself and his wife. He's worried about their mortgage, healthcare bills (overwhelmingly incurred by her) AND keeping her happy (there has already been infidelity). She doesn't make as much as him, but she could check out tomorrow and get half of everything - the fact that he's the one that's held a constant job and is easily responsible for 80% of what they have would be inadmissible evidence to the court, and she would walk out of that divorce proceeding with half of his, yes, his, assets.

Marriage is an economic union, you realize. It's not quid pro quo like all you RPers seem to wish and there are policy rationales underlying that.

If it's an economic union, it IS quid pro quo - otherwise it's just one party subsidizing the other.

[–]sen--sen 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The problem with marriage is that you have no control over the terms of the deal and the deal is bad for men. 
what terms? both people in a marriage have a lot of control; this sounds like paranoid nonsense.

By terms I mean the details of the legal contract of the marriage i.e. how assets get split in the event of a divorce etc.

No one's judgement or predictive powers are so great that they can guarantee a potential partner, particularly a woman, will not take advantage of the man's vulnerable position somewhere down the track. 
i'm not saying to roll dice or shake a magic 8-ball. properly vet your partner. don't pick them solely for stupid reasons like hotness and expect them to be virtuous just because.

All the due diligence in the world cannot guarantee that the future behaviour of a partner will not be to your gross disadvantage. Women have just as much difficulty as men in understanding the opposite sex and identifying suitable partners.

Furthermore, there is always going to be some natural tension or incompatibility (to varying degrees) between men and women, given our differences, so this presents an even greater challenge when it comes to truly knowing another person. The best amongst men and women are blindsided all the time, not to mention that people change all the time.

[–]sen--sen 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

By terms I mean the details of the legal contract of the marriage i.e. how assets get split in the event of a divorce etc.

lawyers are free to chime in if i'm wrong (which i definitely could be) but this doesn't sound accurate to me at all. it sounds like a red pill horror story, which is to say, false.

All the due diligence in the world cannot guarantee that the future behaviour of a partner will not be to your gross disadvantage.

you're acting like you can have no possible way of knowing how someone will be in the future and they'll definitely stab you in the back at the first opportunity. which, barring extremes, isn't true if you spend years dating them, getting to know them, living with them, friends and family, and so on. women aren't all just waiting in the wings to find men to divorce, and it's probably not that hard to find the ones that do. i would expect less helplessness and 'oh noooo how will i knowwww' from a group of men who claims to know if a woman is a slut or not by the color of her hair.

Furthermore, there is always going to be some natural tension or incompatibility (to varying degrees) between men and women, given our differences, so this presents an even greater challenge when it comes to truly knowing another person.

that tension isn't necessary or a given, and sounds weird. i doubt i'm the only one in a committed relationship here that thinks that/doesn't experience it.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

By terms I mean the details of the legal contract of the marriage i.e. how assets get split in the event of a divorce etc.
lawyers are free to chime in if i'm wrong (which i definitely could be) but this doesn't sound accurate to me at all. it sounds like a red pill horror story, which is to say, false.

Clearly, I'm right. If couples were free to determine the legal terms of their marriages, you wouldn't have men complaining that the terms are unfair.

For example, no fault divorce is non-negotiable, as is the legal fabrication of marital assets being assigned on a 50/50 basis, irrespective of the relative contributions of the involved parties.

All the due diligence in the world cannot guarantee that the future behaviour of a partner will not be to your gross disadvantage.
you're acting like you can have no possible way of knowing how someone will be in the future and they'll definitely stab you in the back at the first opportunity. which, barring extremes, isn't true if you spend years dating them, getting to know them, living with them, friends and family, and so on. women aren't all just waiting in the wings to find men to divorce, and it's probably not that hard to find the ones that do. i would expect less helplessness and 'oh noooo how will I knowwww' from a group of men who claims to know if a woman is a slut or not by the color of her hair.

Human beings are flawed and therefore will often err. No one can guarantee anything. I'm sure that those amongst the 50% divorce rate and in unhappy marriages never anticipated their future course, otherwise why would they have gone down that road. Human beings are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Whatever considerations a person makes, they are far too limited to be able to know or guarantee the state of their marriage 5, 10, 15, 20 or however many years later. Let’s not be ridiculous and pretend that anyone has this level of certainty or ability.

Furthermore, there is always going to be some natural tension or incompatibility (to varying degrees) between men and women, given our differences, so this presents an even greater challenge when it comes to truly knowing another person.
that tension isn't necessary or a given, and sounds weird. i doubt i'm the only one in a committed relationship here that thinks that/doesn't experience it.

This is one of the areas where the red pill and the blue pill disagree. The fact is that men and women are different and this creates tension, unless one side willingly and completely capitulates to the other. Ordinarily that tension is managed by both sides compromising to some degree, but it's still there.

[–]sen--sen1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

why do men refer to marital assets as "my shit"? when you were married you BOTH owned 100% of the marital assets, when you divorce you BOTH lose 50%. do you understand what marriage is?

Because many men, rightly, believe that they are disproportionately responsible for the acquisition of those marital assets, despite the legal artifice of seeing the contribution as equal.

Marital laws are not immutable directives, necessarily based on best practice and mutual justice. They’re a complete human fabrication and in many cases are unjust, unreasonable and outdated, which is one of the many reasons why many men choose not to get married.

There's no reason why the division of marital assets upon divorce could not be proportionately divided based on the market value of the non-reciprocal and actual contributions of the parties involved, rather than dominated by the assets acquired by the highest earner.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Complication has never stopped the law before.

Not entirely true but nevertheless I see your point. The problem is that what you're describing seems like it would be prohibitively complex, dilatory, and expensive for a lot of folk.

Also I don't think the laws are that unfair as they are now (although I'd like to see a move for default 50/50 child custody). Tbf lots of you guys haven't really seen family law in action so I don't blame you, but they really aren't as bad for the vast majority as you guys make it out to be.

Also, it’s not the case that my idea is too complicated. There are any number of ways that this could be implemented without crippling complication.

Like how? How do you go about determining the market value of non-monetary contributions in an uncomplicated and inexpensive way?

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Complication has never stopped the law before. 
Not entirely true but nevertheless I see your point. The problem is that what you're describing seems like it would be prohibitively complex, dilatory, and expensive for a lot of folk.

Also I don't think the laws are that unfair as they are now (although I'd like to see a move for default 50/50 child custody). Tbf lots of you guys haven't really seen family law in action so I don't blame you, but they really aren't as bad for the vast majority as you guys make it out to be.

Of course you think the laws are perfectly fine. You’re a women, so it’s to your advantage, given the way Western society currently operates.

See, I don’t think that it would be prohibitively complex or expensive to award assets based on actual contributions. It could even be less complex.

Also, it’s not the case that my idea is too complicated. There are any number of ways that this could be implemented without crippling complication. 
Like how? How do you go about determining the market value of non-monetary contributions in an uncomplicated and inexpensive way?

There are various ways you could probably do this. One way would be to have different pre-existing tiers, based on legal reasonable standards, into which a person would fall based on the balance of their home and work life. Crucially, the figures assigned would be independent of the highest earner and could be capped at 50% of the assets accumulated by the highest earner after marriage.

Another alternative would be to calculate the opportunity cost of a person giving up or reducing their paid work to raise a family, based on their education, level of work experience at the time of their marriage, line of work, likely career trajectory if they had worked full-time, pay based on national averages etc. Again, you could have a tiered or band system, like a tax code or pay band.

Importantly, the preparatory work for all of these figures would ensure that they were already in place prior to all divorces. I'm sure that many of these figures are already out there and could be collated fairly easily. It would just be a case of identifying which category a person fell into and then awarding them accordingly.

These are just a couple of ideas, but I'm sure that the best legal minds out their would be able to refine or improve upon these.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Of course you think the laws are perfectly fine. You’re a women, so it’s to your advantage, given the way Western society currently operates.

I also have the training, knowledge and experience to understand them. But I suppose all that is moot given my womanhood, lol.

Crucially, the figures assigned would be independent of the highest earner and could be capped at 50% of the assets accumulated by the highest earner after marriage.

Assets are usually accumulated jointly in a marriage. I say that as a married person. Keep in mind most marriages are dual income these days.

Another alternative would be to calculate the opportunity cost of a person giving up or reducing their paid work to raise a family, based on their education, level of work experience at the time of their marriage, line of work, likely career trajectory if they had worked full-time, pay based on national averages etc. Again, you could have a tiered or band system, like a tax code or pay band.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said prohibitively expensive and complicated. This requires vocational experts. We use them all the time in big ticket civil cases. They aren't cheap.

Also we are venturing into jury-required territory here. One could make the argument that given all these highly debatable fact questions it's a violation of due process to allow a judge to decide.

Importantly, the preparatory work for all of these figures would ensure that they were already in place prior to all divorces. I'm sure that many of these figures are already out there and could be collated fairly easily. It would just be a case of identifying which category a person fell into and then awarding them accordingly.

If we presently can't do it cheaply, quickly and easily in civil law cases I think this is a bit ambitious.

These are just a couple of ideas, but I'm sure that the best legal minds out their would be able to refine or improve upon these.

I don't doubt there are things that could be done. I just don't know what they are. And what you're presented thus far isn't really that convincing (no offense).

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Of course you think the laws are perfectly fine. You’re a women, so it’s to your advantage, given the way Western society currently operates. 
I also have the training, knowledge and experience to understand them. But I suppose all that is moot given my womanhood, lol.

Of course you’re biased. You think there are no issues with the current laws, as if the complaints coming from men have no basis. Your bent is obviously more gynocentric as is usual with women, irrespective of whatever understanding you have.

Crucially, the figures assigned would be independent of the highest earner and could be capped at 50% of the assets accumulated by the highest earner after marriage. 
Assets are usually accumulated jointly in a marriage. I say that as a married person. Keep in mind most marriages are dual income these days.

Yes, but not all contributions are equal, despite the law rendering it so. My argument is that in the event of a divorce the law should differentiate the relative contributions of the parties involved and award assets accordingly. That’s the whole point of this discussion, you just disagree, obviously.

Another alternative would be to calculate the opportunity cost of a person giving up or reducing their paid work to raise a family, based on their education, level of work experience at the time of their marriage, line of work, likely career trajectory if they had worked full-time, pay based on national averages etc. Again, you could have a tiered or band system, like a tax code or pay band. 
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said prohibitively expensive and complicated. This requires vocational experts. We use them all the time in big ticket civil cases. They aren't cheap.

Also we are venturing into jury-required territory here. One could make the argument that given all these highly debatable fact questions it's a violation of due process to allow a judge to decide.

You wouldn’t need vocational experts to attend each case. The data would be collated and would already exist for most domestic arrangements. An equation or algorithm devised by experts could be used to simplify matters and allow the input of important material facts. It would then be up to each person to argue which of the arrived at bands they fell into and a judge to decide, who would determine the split of assets based on the arguments presented.

Judges already decide on a lot of things, including divorces currently. That fact does not entail the abandonment of due process, even though many of those judges currently saddle men with unreasonable, crippling and unsustainable alimony and child custody payments, that see many men end up in prison because of the extortionate amounts involved, additional punishments and their unavoidable inability to pay. Of course no one cares when it's men getting screwed, in line with what we understand about male disposability.

Importantly, the preparatory work for all of these figures would ensure that they were already in place prior to all divorces. I'm sure that many of these figures are already out there and could be collated fairly easily. It would just be a case of identifying which category a person fell into and then awarding them accordingly.

If we presently can't do it cheaply, quickly and easily in civil law cases I think this is a bit ambitious.

I don’t think it’s ambitious at all. I think it's very doable.

These are just a couple of ideas, but I'm sure that the best legal minds out their would be able to refine or improve upon these. 
I don't doubt there are things that could be done. I just don't know what they are. And what you're presented thus far isn't really that convincing (no offense).

I don’t care that it’s not convincing to you. Why would it be? You like the system as it currently is because it advantages women. I’m not trying to convince you. I’m presenting my perspective, which convinces me and would many others were they to hear it.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Of course you’re biased. You think there are no issues with the current laws, as if the complaints coming from men have no basis. Your bent is obviously more gynocentric as is usual with women, irrespective of whatever understanding you have.

This is what makes it so difficult to argue with RPers. You literally are dismissing my entire legal experience and training as biased because I'm a woman. You're also blatantly ignoring that I already said I would be down for some reform in the law wrt child custody. But apparently because I haven't jumped 100% on the "team man" bandwagon I'm biased and you can completely dismiss everything I've said. It's extremely frustrating and unnecessary. And honestly makes arguing with you unpleasant. Either read what I actually said and give me the credit I deserve or don't fucking respond.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is what makes it so difficult to argue with RPers. You literally are dismissing my entire legal experience and training as biased because I'm a woman. You're also blatantly ignoring that I already said I would be down for some reform in the law wrt child custody. But apparently because I haven't jumped 100% on the "team man" bandwagon I'm biased and you can completely dismiss everything I've said. It's extremely frustrating and unnecessary. And honestly makes arguing with you unpleasant. Either read what I actually said and give me the credit I deserve or don't fucking respond.

Whatever training you have does not make you right. The veracity of an argument stands or falls independently, not because of the person arguing the case. There are people far more knowledgeable than you who will disagree with you on this and many other issues.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sunkindonut149Blue Pill Mouse0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Changes4175 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurferson4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SipsSparklingWater 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My thought is "divorce rape" doesn't happen so much at the UMC or poor class levels. I think its a phenomenon of the MC, and probably the LMC more so. I've seen guys dragged through the mud during a divorce. I know a guy that is afraid to look for a better job, because he knows his ex will drag him to court for more child support, which will probably go towards her live-in boyfriends drug habit. I have another friend who's ex moved their kids 2.5 hours away, and he had NO CHOICE in the matter at all. She forced him to become a two weekend a month father, and he is still forced to pay support and "figure out" how to see his children more often. In all but one case, the divorces I've seen result in the man being forced out of his home, but in one way or another forced to continue paying for it. So far not a single man I know that filed for full custody has won, and AT BEST the court will award them joint custody. However, I know of several cases where the wife did indeed get "full" custody.

The very rich protect their assets. The very poor have nothing to lose. Its Bob the accountant in the LMC that will have his ass handed to him when his wife gets "unhaaaaaaaaappy" and takes him to court.

[–]LewisCross 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I know one guy who got divorced who made out very, very well. He got the best results I have ever seen in a divorce. He and his ex wife were both high school teachers. She slightly outearned him. Married 12 years, two sons both in middle school presently. She divorced him for unhaaaaappiness. They both live in the same city. Here's how it turned out:

Joint 50/50 residential custody. They each get their sons on alternating 4 day schedules. No child support order in place and no child support money actually changes hands. He supports their sons when they are with him; she supports them when they are with her. No alimony (though he claims he could have asked for it because of her higher salary. He would never have gotten it though.) He kept the house (I couldn't believe it), though he had to refinance it.

Mind you - this result happened because she slightly outearns him and he was prepared when she started talking divorce. They had been sleeping in separate bedrooms for a year before she finally started talking divorce. As soon as she started making noise about divorce, he went to see a lawyer and found out what his rights are. As soon as he received the papers, he presented her with a proposed divorce and property division settlement and order.

Another guy I know of was married to a wife breadwinner while he was having trouble finding a job, mainly because he didn't have his shit together. She got sick of it and divorced him. The court ordered her to pay him alimony for a year, subject to review at the end of the year, figuring a year is enough time for him to get it together and start supporting himself.

The alimony worm is starting to turn. To the courts' credit, when wives are the breadwinners, they have to pay some alimony to let the ex husband get on his feet.

[–]sardonis70 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The alimony worm is starting to turn. To the courts' credit, when wives are the breadwinners, they have to pay some alimony to let the ex husband get on his feet.

I've always suspected that the moment alimony law stopped favoring women, and a few had to start paying it themselves, we'd see the law changing. I ALSO suspect we'll see more of it as same-sex marriages hit divorce court.

As to the guy in your example? He did it right, but most men don't even realize they should be prepared for a divorce, let alone know how to go about doing so.

FWIW my own divorce was drama free. But, we really didn't have anything to "split" but debt, and my ex wanted to move "back home", so I offered her a way to step out free and clear, and she jumped at it. That being said, she allowed her van to get repo'ed while we were still officially married, and maxed out two credit cards as well. I had to sell our "marriage" house because I couldn't afford it on my own, but I waited until AFTER we divorced for that, and luckily made enough to buy where we live right now in cash. We have no custody agreement on file, and although she offered to pay me support, I declined. I preferred she keep the money and use it to enjoy her summers with our children.

I don't know a single man other than myself that has been divorced and came out the other side the same, and in most cases they are FAR worse off than they started. There is NO REASON a man should still fear is ex-wife years after the divorce, but I know several men that are EXACTLY in that position.

[–]MaK_Ultra0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaphneDKKing of LBFM0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stonepimpletilists 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wubooAlpha Blue Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Lets say I produce the stats, and they weren't favourable to your point, would you even believe them?

The point is, it's come to a point where stats that show unfavourable results to women's desires are pushed under the rug.Let me give you an example, the fact that the learning environment has now become hostile to boys and men is rarely mentioned. There is very little research done on how hostile it has become. Instead, we are consistently bombarded with "statistics" about how women earn less then men, statistics which have been debunked time and time again. We are consistently bombarded with "statistics" about sexism in the workplace relating to women, yet not men. Do you have any idea how many times women have sexually harassed me in the workplace either verbally or physically? It's not okay for men to let their eyes stray in the general direction of a female co-worker's cleavage, but apparently, it's perfectly fine for a woman to slap her male co-worker's ass. Statistics and research require funding. Funding is provided by governments and corporation. In our currently society, any company that backs up or funds research that goes against feminism is shit on by feminism. They lose votes or their corporate reputation. Therefore, women have basically banned and skewed statistics to only show the things that they favour.

Let me put it this way, there aren't any stats saying how many men are divorce raped, but in my personal life, I know 3 older men who either lost custody of their children, or went bankrupt. None of these men were abusive in any way, they just weren't given full custody because "the mother spent more time with the children up to that point". Apparently though, I come from a very strange family where fathers actually love their children since according to "statistics", men don't love their children and don't want custody of their children, which, according to women, is the reason why men often settle out of court. Two of my closest friends are about a 10 years older. I'm in my mid 20's, the 3 older men I know are in their 50's, and these guys are in their 30's. One of the 30 year olds refuses to get married because every one of his friends was divorce raped. And the other regrets getting in a committed relationship. When we sit around with my friend's who are my age, both my male and female friend's tell me that they have men in their lives who got divorced raped. The women in my life tell me straight up that they hear some of their female friend's telling them "i just want to marry a rich guy so that I don't have to worry about money" which even those women admit that the marriage will likely end up in a divorce.

So either a very large group of men are divorce raped, and women do divorce rape men a lot more often then people want to believe, or the women that I know and that all of my friend's and family know are terrible people, but are outliers when it comes to how women behave. I doubt it's the second one.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Legal scholars which were funded by someone and who have a lot at stake. If they funded the research themselves, then they need favourable results or they would have wasted their money. If a corporation or a government funded them, then that third party needs results that wouldn't harm their reputation. Therefore, these legal scholars are biased. Listen, when a powerful entity or a powerful enough group of people antagonize statistics that do not agree with their ideologies (which is what feminism has done time and time again) they send an extremely negative message about their organization.

Yes you are right, they did get partial custody. Most got 2 weekends a month unless the mother allows them to have more. And you are saying they should be grateful for that? Are you insane? These men are the children's fathers. They love them just as much as the mother. And these particular men (friends of mine, though I'm sure many more men other than them) couldn't spend as much time with the children directly because they were earning money to support the family. You are crazy if you think that the law, or anyone for that matter has the right to deny a good father or a mother their right to be fully involved in their children lives. If you believe that the father is financially responsible for the child and should be forced to pay child support, then you would be a hypocrite to say that it is okay that those same fathers are only allowed to see their children 4 days a month plus any day the mother allows. Fatherhood does not come secondary to motherhood.

As far as how that is divorce rape, well, a man doesn't have to go bankrupt to be divorce raped. He doesn't have to not gain custody of his children to get divorce raped. My friends fought in a court of law and had to spend a good portion of their retirement savings on legal fees just to have the right to see their children twice a month. One of my friends said that his divorce set him back 10 years financially. They all have to pay alimony and child support. Just imagine having to give up every penny you saved for the last 10 years to fight for the right to be a parent for your own biological children. Imagine having to pay a large percentage of every dollar you will ever earn to someone just because she is breathing. Imagine, for all of that money that is stolen from you, all you get is 2 weekends a month with YOUR OWN children. THAT is the reality that men face. THAT is divorce rape.

Let me tall you a story. I'm in accounting, so a part of my job is payroll. I have to deduct alimony and child support at source. For one of my employees, I noticed that although he works his butt off, and his salary is higher than most within the company, his take home was ridiculously low due to alimony and child support. I looked through his record and saw that, despite the fact that he worked in operations not marketing, he had taken the initiative to seek out potential clients and increase revenue when he had down time. I calculated his efforts to have directly increased our revenue by about 4%. Now, you gotta understand, 4% in a company with revenues in the millions is a lot for someone who spends less than 10% of their time in sales. So I spoke with him. I told him that I wanted to make a proposition to management that we start paying him commission on his sales. Obviously commission is not something that we pay to operations, this would be an exception that management would make solely because this particular person took initiative. I wanted him to feel like the company is looking out for him.

I made the proposition and management approved the standard commission rate. What I didn't tell him is that, in my proposition, I included a requisition that, if the commission was approved, we would pay him retroactive commission for his previous year's efforts. I calculated his commission for the previous year to be about 45k. I spoke to him about this thinking he would be overjoyed. Imagine getting a cheque for 30k (after tax), wouldn't you be happy? You know what he says to me? he says "listen, I appreciate it, but is there anyway you can keep the money in an account for me. I don't want it to be transferred in my name because my ex wife and her lawyers have access to my bank accounts". I asked him "why does it matter? the divorce is done, the settlement is done. Any money you earn after that is yours as long as you pay your child support and alimony which I know you are since I'm deducting those at source" and he says "no, that's not how it works. If they see my earning jump or if I get a large amount of money through other means, she can appeal the divorce and file for a re-trial in order to increase her alimony/child support or to get a part of the lump sum".

THAT is the reality that men face. THAT is divorce rape.

[–]driftsclRed Pill / Not TRP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	How many men are actually "divorce raped"?
Author	cuittler
Upvotes	7
Comments	353
Date	October 11, 2016 7:48 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/56zyzc/how_many_men_are_actually_divorce_raped/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-many-men-are-actually-divorce-raped.272464 https://theredarchive.com/post/272464

Comments