Subconsciously though she wants half his house, or better yet the whole thing.
Yup -- "trickle truth" or "technically true" statement -- she DOESN'T (just) want "half" of his house... she wants, as you put it, "the whole thing" (ideally SOLELY in her name).
She DEFINITELY wants his house (or at least it's "asset value" -- and probably everything in it as well). Basically she wants to PERMANENTLY "own" the "lifestyle" that she has become accustomed to* via 6 years of living with him -- and probably parasitically OFF of his paycheck {w/o paying rent or anything else; maybe occasionally buying some food, but even then probably takeaway}).
What she's not sure she wants... is HIM.
Ergo if there were some way for her to obtain or acquire control over his assets, AND guarantee that she could tap into his paycheck/business in order to maintain the cash-flow to maintain & support it...
Then she'd be perfectly happy to "sacrifice" him along the way.
I have given him my vagina but he hasn't given me control over his assets! Does not compute! Must secure assets!
Bingo. She's been "playing house" -- trying on the "lifestyle" that he provided -- and she's decided she LIKES IT! Now she wants to make it PERMANENT (for herself! HE is really NOT part of the equation not if he doesn't have to be -- or at least not as anything OTHER than a proverbial "plow horse" and "resource provider" -- which state she wants to "lock down" in whatever manner possible).
* It's much the same as the "perpetual entitlement" meme that has become ensconced in divorce law via alimony & child support -- that the woman and (minor) children are "LEGALLY entitled" to continue (for the remainder of their life**, and with ZERO effort on their own part) to live and enjoy the "lifestyle" that they have become "accustomed to" (during the previous X years). This absurdly baseless claim/assertion (and there is no other word for it than "absurd") -- this utter denial that "things change" -- exists virtually no where else in law (even "perpetual easements" often have conditions, limitations, and circumstances where they end, despite the name).
The notion that "because she has lived a life of ease for X years (or even XX years)" she somehow has a claim to have that status MAINTAINED for herBY OTHERS is simply ridiculous. No such guarantee (unless it has been explicitly agreed to beforehand with full understanding and in a formal, detailed, written and contractually binding agreement) is going to happen for anyone else.
** And one should note that as a additional absurdity, it is "lifetime" ONLY for the "wife", not for the children; once they reach "majority age" they are expected to fend for themselves, and suffer the vagaries of life's ups/downs.
Now I get it, she knows he can walk away free if she fucks up so she wants a deal where she can lock him up as she's approaching the wall.
Nailed it.
Also, he's probably got a decent amount of equity in that house (he's ~36 now, and apparently had bought the home LONG before she moved in ~6 years ago -- and guys usually DON'T let a chick move in right after they buy a place, so I'd say he's probably got about a decade of payments done; and depending on how much he put for a downpayment, and whether he made any extra payments against principle {very likely, at least prior to her moving in} he could easily have ~50% or more of the value of the house).
-- The thing is -- so long as he is the sole title holder, and especially to THAT particular house (bought not only PRIOR to any "marriage" but prior to his even having known her) -- well that's a solid "pre-nup" asset; entirely his -- at MOST she might have (very limited) "tenant" rights (i.e. if he tells her to move out, he has to give her 30 days to find a new place, get her shit out).
It's not just that HE can "walk away" -- it's that if SHE tries to ditch him... she's S.O.L.; she can walk, but she can't take ANYTHING with her (the clothes on her back, the clothes in her closet; maybe a few baubles from the shelves, and possibly some cookware); and she has ZERO claim on the house (and other than for a short term vias some "DV/abuse" claim, she really can't kick HIM out), much less it's asset value.
...But...
If she can convince (maneuver, manipulate, or trick) him into SELLING the current place, and then put the money from the sale into a newer, fancier, bigger house -- one that also has HER NAME as "co-owner" on the paperwork... Well THEN it's an entirely different story.
THEN it is no longer a "pre nup" asset -- it's "marital property"; and (unless the divorce is almost instantaneous following some marriage) the courts aren't going to give a shit who put down which portion (or even the entirety of) the downpayment; she'll basically be able to "claim" the (new, jointly-titled) home and at least 50% of the valuation of it (probably more if she gets preggers somewhere along the way), and will be able to kick his arse to the curb.
Gosh, what a cluster of a situation feminism, more career opportunities, financial independence, and decline in interest in the role of motherhood has brought to relationships and cohabitation.
Why even bother living together at this point? They should just own their own property and plan date nights out or at one or the others homes. The fact that men can't trust women anymore and everything is about equality is just a hotbed for endless financial conflict and emotional tension. The older they get the more burdensome and ridiculous such a living arrangement would be. Can't win either way. Maybe the only reasonable answer is to get married at 60 - 70 when the risk of hypergamy is no longer a threat.
I was just throwing ideas out there facetiously. I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotes about gold digging, adulterous grannies. They could probably make a whole series of a reality TV show dedicated to them.
Oh, it's not just "anecdotes", it's a "trend" in society -- just google the phrase "Grey Divorce" and you'll find a whole shitload of stuff about it -- the majority of it is senior-woman hypergamy (in one form or another; basically seeking "something BETTER").
That they often end up destroying majority of what they had, along the path to trying to obtain control over just "half" of it ... doesn't seem to "compute."
-- EDIT: Also, I don't know about the "reality TV show" aspect, but every woman's favorite "role model" -- Sarah Jessica Parker of "Sex And The City" fame (infamy?) -- is set to star in HBO's new TV series called "Divorce"; which will doubtless become a promotional/instructional device leading more women to follow suit (because even though it is supposedly about a "long, drawn out divorce" -- you can bet your bottom that the female character will be propagandistically portrayed as being "stunning & brave" for seeking to "empower" herself {via first cheating on her husband, and then divorce-raping him} and to "triumph" through it all {via a ridiculously long, expensive, court battle} to achieve the "blissful nirvana" of being a divorcee {aka becoming an aging slut-ho; which no doubt will be "glorified" just as her SATC character glorified being a twenty-thirty-something urban slut}). The glorification & promotion of hypergamy isn't done yet.
All that will really be left is (20 years from now) the creation of the final part, something akin to "Sex In The Senior/Nursing Home" -- which will doubtless also star old horse-face herself as she rides the circuit of wheelchair-carousel of Viagra powered wrinkly cocks (just think of the potential for "drama-comedy" in that!)
A scary as they are true to some extent, the absurdity of the scenarios you paint are humorous. Just when men thought female behavior couldn't get anymore perfidious and destructive, think again.
I've never heard of the term grey divorce. It makes me think of the film American Beauty and how it represents the couples in the baby boomer generation that tended to split once the kids were older, but not quite grey hair, senior citizen age. My grandmother has mentioned regrets over marrying my grandfather and he took good care of her for ~60+ years. Doesn't make for much of a case for proving whether loyalty and unconditional love are attainable, mostly just an illusion.
[–]Cristoff1314 points15 points16 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]NefariousRaccoon3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Yup -- "trickle truth" or "technically true" statement -- she DOESN'T (just) want "half" of his house... she wants, as you put it, "the whole thing" (ideally SOLELY in her name).
She DEFINITELY wants his house (or at least it's "asset value" -- and probably everything in it as well). Basically she wants to PERMANENTLY "own" the "lifestyle" that she has become accustomed to* via 6 years of living with him -- and probably parasitically OFF of his paycheck {w/o paying rent or anything else; maybe occasionally buying some food, but even then probably takeaway}).
What she's not sure she wants... is HIM.
Ergo if there were some way for her to obtain or acquire control over his assets, AND guarantee that she could tap into his paycheck/business in order to maintain the cash-flow to maintain & support it...
Then she'd be perfectly happy to "sacrifice" him along the way.
Bingo. She's been "playing house" -- trying on the "lifestyle" that he provided -- and she's decided she LIKES IT! Now she wants to make it PERMANENT (for herself! HE is really NOT part of the equation not if he doesn't have to be -- or at least not as anything OTHER than a proverbial "plow horse" and "resource provider" -- which state she wants to "lock down" in whatever manner possible).
* It's much the same as the "perpetual entitlement" meme that has become ensconced in divorce law via alimony & child support -- that the woman and (minor) children are "LEGALLY entitled" to continue (for the remainder of their life**, and with ZERO effort on their own part) to live and enjoy the "lifestyle" that they have become "accustomed to" (during the previous X years). This absurdly baseless claim/assertion (and there is no other word for it than "absurd") -- this utter denial that "things change" -- exists virtually no where else in law (even "perpetual easements" often have conditions, limitations, and circumstances where they end, despite the name).
The notion that "because she has lived a life of ease for X years (or even XX years)" she somehow has a claim to have that status MAINTAINED for her BY OTHERS is simply ridiculous. No such guarantee (unless it has been explicitly agreed to beforehand with full understanding and in a formal, detailed, written and contractually binding agreement) is going to happen for anyone else.
** And one should note that as a additional absurdity, it is "lifetime" ONLY for the "wife", not for the children; once they reach "majority age" they are expected to fend for themselves, and suffer the vagaries of life's ups/downs.
[–]Cristoff130 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BevTheManFromDownUnd16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hiromant8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hollybegin12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]leoberto7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]veritas61510 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ChipOffMyShoulder 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Nailed it.
Also, he's probably got a decent amount of equity in that house (he's ~36 now, and apparently had bought the home LONG before she moved in ~6 years ago -- and guys usually DON'T let a chick move in right after they buy a place, so I'd say he's probably got about a decade of payments done; and depending on how much he put for a downpayment, and whether he made any extra payments against principle {very likely, at least prior to her moving in} he could easily have ~50% or more of the value of the house).
-- The thing is -- so long as he is the sole title holder, and especially to THAT particular house (bought not only PRIOR to any "marriage" but prior to his even having known her) -- well that's a solid "pre-nup" asset; entirely his -- at MOST she might have (very limited) "tenant" rights (i.e. if he tells her to move out, he has to give her 30 days to find a new place, get her shit out).
It's not just that HE can "walk away" -- it's that if SHE tries to ditch him... she's S.O.L.; she can walk, but she can't take ANYTHING with her (the clothes on her back, the clothes in her closet; maybe a few baubles from the shelves, and possibly some cookware); and she has ZERO claim on the house (and other than for a short term vias some "DV/abuse" claim, she really can't kick HIM out), much less it's asset value.
...But...
If she can convince (maneuver, manipulate, or trick) him into SELLING the current place, and then put the money from the sale into a newer, fancier, bigger house -- one that also has HER NAME as "co-owner" on the paperwork... Well THEN it's an entirely different story.
THEN it is no longer a "pre nup" asset -- it's "marital property"; and (unless the divorce is almost instantaneous following some marriage) the courts aren't going to give a shit who put down which portion (or even the entirety of) the downpayment; she'll basically be able to "claim" the (new, jointly-titled) home and at least 50% of the valuation of it (probably more if she gets preggers somewhere along the way), and will be able to kick his arse to the curb.
[–]ChipOffMyShoulder 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cynicalsimon6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link
Gosh, what a cluster of a situation feminism, more career opportunities, financial independence, and decline in interest in the role of motherhood has brought to relationships and cohabitation.
Why even bother living together at this point? They should just own their own property and plan date nights out or at one or the others homes. The fact that men can't trust women anymore and everything is about equality is just a hotbed for endless financial conflict and emotional tension. The older they get the more burdensome and ridiculous such a living arrangement would be. Can't win either way. Maybe the only reasonable answer is to get married at 60 - 70 when the risk of hypergamy is no longer a threat.
[+][deleted] [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Oh don't kid yourself about that.
[+][deleted] [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
I was just throwing ideas out there facetiously. I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotes about gold digging, adulterous grannies. They could probably make a whole series of a reality TV show dedicated to them.
[+][deleted] [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh, it's not just "anecdotes", it's a "trend" in society -- just google the phrase "Grey Divorce" and you'll find a whole shitload of stuff about it -- the majority of it is senior-woman hypergamy (in one form or another; basically seeking "something BETTER").
That they often end up destroying majority of what they had, along the path to trying to obtain control over just "half" of it ... doesn't seem to "compute."
-- EDIT: Also, I don't know about the "reality TV show" aspect, but every woman's favorite "role model" -- Sarah Jessica Parker of "Sex And The City" fame (infamy?) -- is set to star in HBO's new TV series called "Divorce"; which will doubtless become a promotional/instructional device leading more women to follow suit (because even though it is supposedly about a "long, drawn out divorce" -- you can bet your bottom that the female character will be propagandistically portrayed as being "stunning & brave" for seeking to "empower" herself {via first cheating on her husband, and then divorce-raping him} and to "triumph" through it all {via a ridiculously long, expensive, court battle} to achieve the "blissful nirvana" of being a divorcee {aka becoming an aging slut-ho; which no doubt will be "glorified" just as her SATC character glorified being a twenty-thirty-something urban slut}). The glorification & promotion of hypergamy isn't done yet.
All that will really be left is (20 years from now) the creation of the final part, something akin to "Sex In The Senior/Nursing Home" -- which will doubtless also star old horse-face herself as she rides the circuit of wheelchair-carousel of Viagra powered wrinkly cocks (just think of the potential for "drama-comedy" in that!)
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
A scary as they are true to some extent, the absurdity of the scenarios you paint are humorous. Just when men thought female behavior couldn't get anymore perfidious and destructive, think again.
I've never heard of the term grey divorce. It makes me think of the film American Beauty and how it represents the couples in the baby boomer generation that tended to split once the kids were older, but not quite grey hair, senior citizen age. My grandmother has mentioned regrets over marrying my grandfather and he took good care of her for ~60+ years. Doesn't make for much of a case for proving whether loyalty and unconditional love are attainable, mostly just an illusion.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ChipOffMyShoulder 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cynicalsimon2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NefariousRaccoon2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BeefyPadlock2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BukM11 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]WingedVirtue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Darth_Bicycle0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link