TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

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

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

      Popular

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

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

Wife files for a divorce after husband pays off her student loans

beers-and-bratwurst

April 23, 2018
1588 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/i-paid-off-my-wifes-student-loans-then-she-filed-for-divorce-after-two-years-of-marriage-2018-04-21
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Wife files for a divorce after husband pays off her student loans
Author

beers-and-bratwurst

Upvotes 1588
Comments 178
Date April 23, 2018 6:39 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8edt1z/wife_files_for_a_divorce_after_husband_pays_off/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/wife-files-for-a-divorce-after-husband-pays-off.902373
https://theredarchive.com/post/902373
Top posts by beers-and-bratwurst

Man sends date invoice after being ghosted

68 upvotes
April 17, 2018
/r/MensRights

Camille Grammer awarded half of Kelsey's retirement fund

45 upvotes
November 3, 2017
/r/MGTOW

Sexism men face

34 upvotes
December 18, 2016
/r/MensRights

Camille Grammer awarded half of Kelsey's retirement fund

24 upvotes
November 3, 2017
/r/MensRights

Wife says 'never go to bed angry' after waking from row to find husband dead on sofa

17 upvotes
July 11, 2017
/r/MGTOW

Women's income drop 41% when divorced, and yet 66% of divorce is started by women

16 upvotes
May 11, 2018
/r/MensRights

Men Aren’t the Smartest When It Comes to Credit

13 upvotes
June 27, 2017
/r/MGTOW

Manly Men Need to Do More Girly Jobs

8 upvotes
December 7, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]SC2sam 291 points292 points293 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well it's possible he could get an annulment on fraud grounds considering there is pretty big evidence of her using him for money with no good faith on the agreement. If that happens he could probably also then sue her for repayment of debt on fraud grounds. Although it would probably be hard to argue all this but maybe he could get her to incriminate herself in some way i/e "so you only married me to pay off your debt with no intention of staying married?" and she responds in some affirmative way or w/e. Texas is also a single party state which means as long as one party is aware of being recorded it is legal. She most likely is very manipulative and thinks of herself as extremely smart so you can probably catch her trying to insult him by being smug about admitting what she did as she probably wouldn't expect him to record it. Hidden cameras and microphones are super easy to get.

[+]HoundDogs1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

If you’ve got nothing you’ve got nothing to lose. Learn the law. Tie her up in legal fees for a decade. Go captain catamarans in the British Virgin islands.

[–]ORP7 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a coin toss, but if he acquired a righteous judge, I could see victory.

[–]tenchineuro 516 points517 points518 points 8 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

Before I married my wife two years ago, she had huge amounts of debt to her name, including large amounts of student loans. After we married, we diligently almost paid everything off, helped by my salary being three times that of my wife.

She recently asked for a divorce, saying she was taking the house and my retirement. My question is: Does the fact we paid off her debts she held before get spread evenly? Had I not paid all of her debts our net worth would be near the same with a better outcome for me.

It seems that he served his purpose. Now she wants to walk with all the assets. This is why MGTOW makes sense.

[+]mysql1011 points 8 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

Did he own the house prior to being married to her? It's not like she automatically gets half.

[–]tenchineuro 211 points212 points213 points 8 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Given that she says she's taking the house, I would assume so.

The article has some good news on this front though.

The good news: Texas is a community property state so, where you have not co-mingled your assets, you take out of the marriage what you brought into it. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include the money you gave your wife to pay off her loans. But if you had a home before you married, for instance, you will walk away with that.

[–]NoxHexaDraconis 123 points124 points125 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From Texas, can say without a doubt this is a godsend.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Don't put a space between the first letter of the quote and the greater than sign.

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

Thanx. I figured it out a bit ago.

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

Good bot

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

I ain't a clanker, boy. I'm a lich.

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

Good bot.

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

angry lich noises

[+]xynix_ie1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The lawyers get half, they each get one quarter.

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

It's almost like a legal system designed by lawyers was intended to do exactly that.

[+]mrfixerupper1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Time to loosen the fitting on the gas hose to the dryer and take a months vacation.

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

In a lot of places, assests are only split "equally" if you have been together for a set number of years (normally five or something). Otherwise, courts take into account different incomes (depending, less so if kids). So it is possible if he takes it to court he will end up getting most of the stuff. The problem is: you don't want to go to court, divorce court is especially bad (I don't mean just in terms of unfair, which basically comes down to the judge, but rather just the ordeal and the lawyers and the whole thing is extremely taxing).

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

So it is possible if he takes it to court he will end up getting most of the stuff.

That's not the way things usually work. As an opening salvo she will probably accuse him of DV or rape. Then while he's locked up she will initiate divorce proceedings. This way she gets the house for sure, the kids, and because of that child support.

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

Nope, won't lock him up. She'll get the house temporarily and a restraining order against him. Not just sending him to jail right off the bat. It doesn't mention them having kids, if they had kids you'd probably be right.

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

That's just the way things work more often than not. And the article does not mention kids, you are right, but they don't seem relevant to the question being asked, so he may have not mentioned them. If there are no kids he may stand a better chance of coming out of this will a life still.

[–]mactroneng 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW?

[–][deleted] 67 points68 points69 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Men Go Their Own Way. So basically no marriage. Make sure you can't get hit with false rape accusations, things of that nature when it's not bat shit crazy.

[–]tenchineuro 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Men Go Their Own Way. So basically no marriage. Make sure you can't get hit with false rape accusations, things of that nature when it's not bat shit crazy.

I think the page above shows what marriage can bring to a man.

[–]The__Tren__Train 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

just marry the right girl bro /s

[–]tenchineuro 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I think I have. But mistakes here can be costly.

[–]Pz5 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats because of the feminist kangaroo family court system.

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

Yes, for sure, but I've also noticed that the sweet girl that some friend married turns into a raving psycho-bitch come divorce and does everything she can to destroy his life and future. That kangaroo court system will pretty much do whatever she wants.

[–]The__Tren__Train 41 points42 points43 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

every man thinks they have

[–]tenchineuro 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This year will be the 18th anniversary, but who can predict the future.

[–]The__Tren__Train 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

kinda like sitting under the sword of Damocles..

accepting loads of risk with no actual gain

[–]eadala 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Not trying to be a sap, but I think the gain is 18 years of marriage, presumably happy ones, based on his replies.

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

I went 14 before my FRA + $60K + CS payments divorce.

[–]SuperGRB 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...until they don't.

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

The right girl wouldn't ask men to place themselves in that position. If a woman wants marriage in this climate, she's not the right woman.

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

this is 100% true.

and that's the great irony of it.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The concept of MGTOW is "if there's no fairplay in the relationship, then there's no play at all". As in- so long as our society is so heavily weighted for women's favour, and relationships are pure risk on the man's part and pure benefit for the woman, there will be 0 entertaining them. It's a big risk, very little return on that risk.

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

Men Going Their Own Way.

I took a quick look and while wikipedia is usually pretty biased about these things, their MGTOW page looks OK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way

You also might take a look at this.

https://www.mgtow.com/

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

Men Going Their Own Way

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. MGTOW have "...vowed to stay away from women, stop dating and not have children". MGTOW focus on men's self-ownership rather than changing the status quo through activism and protest, making MGTOW distinct from the men's rights movement.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

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

common sense makes sense, would you pay off your best friends student loans that youve known since 5 years old?

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

common sense makes sense

But it's not so common anymore.

[+]Phiau -17 points-16 points-15 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Mgtow makes zero sense.

No extreme position makes sense. Because not everyone agrees. On anything.

Edit: feel free to explain to me how MGTOW as a movement isn't "sovereign citizen" meets "redpill"

[–]FeveredCarton57 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The basis of your argument is that MGTOW is wrong because other people have different views. The validity of an argument does not depend on the number of people who believe it.

[–]Phiau -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"the law treats me like shit in a few scenarios, so I'm not going to try to fix it. Not having relationships with females is much more sensible."

How is that not redpill territory?

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

Mgtow makes zero sense.

No extreme position makes sense. Because not everyone agrees. On anything.

There's nothing wrong or even unusual about people avoiding things that are high risk.

And what does "Because not everyone agrees. On anything." have to do with, well, anything. MGTOW are not trying to convince anyone of anything. They don't care if you agree or disagree.

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

I agree that MGTOW as a movement makes no sense, and that is how a lot of people treat it. Which is very cult-like. "Take our magic pill or you'll suffer the consequences!"

For men who "go their own way" they sure love to talk about men's issues a lot, and seem to be up in everybody's business about what they should be doing and thinking. And that they hold the one absolute truth and cure.

If you want to go your own way do so. Actually do it, go your own way and exit from the equation. If you're still here, you're not really going your own way at all, you're recruiting for a cause you believe in. Which is absurd.

[–]DROAWT17 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You make no sense.

[–]Phiau -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Have fun procreating on your own you excellent parental role model

[+][deleted] -89 points-88 points-87 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW is fundamentally a bunch of men who made shit decisions in picking a partner, then try to pick themselves up with "it's not me, man, it's that women are all bloodsuckers".

Accountability is a thing. A woman doesn't just wake up one day and all of a sudden become a vindictive witch...she was like that when they married, but for whatever reason, he didn't see it.

[–]tenchineuro 67 points68 points69 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW is fundamentally a bunch of men who made shit decisions in picking a partner, then try to pick themselves up with "it's not me, man, it's that women are all bloodsuckers".

A lot today are college men who have never been married.

Accountability is a thing.

It is? Accountability to whom? Accountability for what?

A woman doesn't just wake up one day and all of a sudden become a vindictive witch...she was like that when they married, but for whatever reason, he didn't see it.

So it's all men's fault then. Thanx for clearing that up.

[+][deleted] -48 points-47 points-46 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

For one's own bad decisions. If you go into a store and buy a shit piece of furniture, really, who's fault is that? I trust you can apply that principle to partner selection.

So it's all men's fault then.

In part. Going back to the furniture analogy, it's not as though there is no fault on the part of a furniture store for selling / upselling a sofa as more than it is. But it's also your responsibility to know what you are getting into. When you ask someone to marry you, you have to be fucking sure. Most of these bitter ass MGTOW dude frankly, are bitter because they have buyers remorse. There are shitty sofas, and there are shitty people. If you buy into either, you are partly to blame for your own unhappiness.

[–]tallwheel 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But furniture isn't conscious. It's like you're removing all the responsibility from the woman here. It's not like she was just "chosen" like a piece of furniture. She chose him too, and chose how she was going to treat him in the relationship. That matters a lot.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What part of "partly", a word which I have used numerous times, confuses you?

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

Not confused. Just saying it's a bad metaphor.

[+]Derproid1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

If I shot you in the head. It's not my fault, you shouldn't have been standing there. You made a bad decision by not moving and it cost you.

[+][deleted] -23 points-22 points-21 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My god, your analogy makes zero sense. Like none.

A correct analogy would be, you had your pick of persons to be standing next to...you didn't pick the right person, and the person you did pick shot you in the head. In which case...yeah, you picked wrong and you are partly responsible for your circumstance.

[+]Derproid1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

So what you're saying is that no matter what I do if the outcome is bad it's my fault? Like if I hop on a plane and it crashes into the ocean? "Shouldn't have been on that plane." Or if I get shot at at the mall because some lunatic wanted to shoot the place up? "Shouldn't have gone to the mall." Maybe I should just lock myself in my house for all eternity and then I'll be safe.

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

You get a solid say in who you marry. You don't get nearly as much say in say...the quality of the aircraft at which you choose to fly. In other words, one can get a much better sense of the type of person they are going to marry than they can of the condition of the hydraulic mechanism on an aircraft.

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

You get a solid say in who you marry.

But no solid information on the risks that come with marriage and dealing with the family court system. Young men are typically not given this information, or even told this is information that they need.

Even if you are the exception and were given this info, the hypothesis that you can get the full measure of a person is utter fantasy. The human mind is a complex system. You cannot know how someone will change ten years down the line or how they will behave when they turn into your worst enemy. You don't know who they'll make friends with, or what will happen in their family. You don't know how you yourself will change ten years from now. You have no idea how they'll behave in a family court setting because the territory is completely alien and fuckton of life-changing decisions are going to be made there.

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

Partly your fault...yes.

[–]Tel97 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The furniture argument is really flawed because women can hide their true nature.... or just change over time. What you meant to say was if you walked into a furniture store and bought a really sturdy well built looking chair and then got it home and sat in it but it was hollow and fell right through it, whose fault is that?

[+]hungry-animals -11 points-10 points-9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So instead of downvoting this dude, can we get some valid replies? I feel that he makes some valid points. I feel like downvoting this just kind of perpetuates the woman-hating this sub is sometimes known for.

[–]Devilsdouble1988 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How about the system designed to screw over men? Are we going to ignore that and put this down to bad decisions? And MGTOW isn't doing much different? It's saying marriage or ltr is a bad decision. Anyway, nobody owes a condescending PoS an explanation

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

You want a valid reply? Well, here is your valid reply.

Imagine that you see a woman that complain about her husband - he's gettin home drunk again, and beat her because of some stupid reason. The person she whines to replies with this answer: You know what? A man doesn't just wake up one day and all of a sudden become a drunkard wifebeater...he was like that when you married, but for whatever reason, you didn't see it. So really, who is at fault that you have a shitty marriage? If you go into a store and buy a shit piece of furniture, really, who's fault is that? I trust you can apply that principle to partner selection.

Would you agree with this person's words? Would you agree with the fact, that it was her own fault, that she was beaten by husband, because she suck at selecting partners, and no one is forced her to marry this particular man? No? Then stop supporting obvious victim blaming, when it comes to man having shitty marriages.

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

I mean, your example has some valid points, because it's pretty close to the other example I felt had valid points? I'm not sure why you'd assume I'd blindly agree with your statements just because a woman was the victim rather than the man.

The dude got conned, it's as simple as that. He should have been smarter about his decisions in regard to his money and I think it's a really shitty thing that happened but it could have been avoided. Women get conned all the time, too. This woman just found a legal way to do it.

[–]NaturalisticPhallacy 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Accountability is a thing, but only for men? Sounds about right.

[–]DROAWT17 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW is fundamentally a bunch of men who made shit decisions in picking a partner.

Yes they did. Can you blame them? Are there any classes for men on "Learning to recognize gold diggers before youre married". Should the court system award the woman what the man provided because she (on a whim) wants a divorce?

Accountability is a thing.

Sure. The women are accountable to not be gold diggers. Men these days are not educated to spot gold diggers. Most wesern countries have archaic laws giving women the Lions share of possessions that the man earned.

MGTOW is bringing attention to the fact women have too much leverage in the court systems. Just like the old "No taxation without representation" men want their struggles heard just like the situation linked.

Can you empathize with the man here?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

MGTOW isn't bring attention to anything. MGTOW is sitting in a basement playing video games.

[–]DROAWT17 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Prove it

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

TOOT TOOT! All aboard the victim blaming train! Now departing the "abuse is your fault for picking the wrong partner!" station, with nonstop express service to "Don't Stick Your Dick in Crazy," "Keep it in your pants!", "What did you do to make her hit you?" and "You got hard so you must have wanted it." Please have your Male Privilege tickets ready when the conductor approaches, and keep all your emotional baggage stowed in the overhead luggage racks out of sight. Victim-Blaming Rail is not responsible for any financial losses, unwanted children, social ostracization, harassment, imprisonments, rape, violence, or suicide: it's all your fault. For information on schedules, line closures, and services, please direct calls to 555-PAT-RIARCHY.

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

I'm not even MGTOW and think this is pretty dishonest. A large portion of MGTOW haven't ever even been married.

Most of them arent saying that "all women are bloodsuckers", they're saying that women are incentivized to be bloodsuckers by a divorce court system that's biased af.

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

This is a textbook example of Briffault's Law:

BRIFFAULT'S LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. ... Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

Don't get married. If you must, consult a lawyer and sign a rock-solid pre-nup.

[–]aokusman 42 points43 points44 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You can’t buy love.

[–]Key_Lime 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can’t buy love.

For everything else, there's Mastercard.

I'm sorry it was a low hanging fruit.

[–]deville05 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

for everything else, there's beta bux

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

Those are called madbux these days

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

You can as long as there's enough money and they have a need for it. /s

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

Can't buy you love, everybody tells me so.

[–]mikesteane 72 points73 points74 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This is not uncommon. Wives training at their husbands' expense before jumping ship without their debts to become "independent", self-made women. Be on the lookout for this if you are funding your wife's training or paying off her debts.

[–]Tak7ics 43 points44 points45 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This happened to me with my first marriage. She got out of debt, got a good job and suddenly I wasn't needed. Luckily for me I had listened to my parents advice and kept every bill/receipt/payment slip ever since we moved in together (it's a lot I know). But after 7 years when she tried to go after my pension (and everything else), I could prove she actually owed me something to the tune of 70k as I paid for everything, and she had no proof otherwise.

I've since remarried and am very happy with my equally contributing spouse, but I keep up this practice to this day.

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

I once worked for a transport company, who had discovered that the cheapest way of making staff redundant was to train them for their heavy vehicle licences, not a cheap process for an individual. Staff would qualify and then leave voluntarily saving the company redundancy payments.

I wonder if this principle could be used as a means of getting divorced.

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

Did you use that collected evidence in court? Did it work? I wasn't aware you could do that

[–]Tak7ics 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Never made it to court. She dropped her claim on the spot when I showed her the files. I don't think she realized how prepared for war I was.

Ended up with just the plain paperwork fora divorce, and we parted ways.

I think I also have to mention at no point in the relationship did I ever reveal, or tell her I was keeping all this information or hold it over her. I was merely keeping it as a precaution to cover my butt as my parents advised me. Turns out it was pretty good advice. Cover your butt protect yourself just in case. I also didn't have kids at this time which gave her almost no leverage, and she was gainfully employed, which ment 0 support needed. She was after assets.

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

You better put your parents in the nicest retirement home possible! /s

Did you keep physical copies as needed or mostly electronic?

[–]Tak7ics 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A bit of both

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

That’s another reason to get a prenup. Not to fuck each other over, but to ensure that everything is in writing from sound minds. It’s imperative to ensure that nobody is planning on fucking the other person over on purpose. There are people out there who marry who already have secret plans on fucking the person over if divorce/separation occurs.

[–]N0S0M 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

File for alimony.

[–]B_U_F_U 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

From what I was told, no alimony in Texas.

[–]Dembara 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No alimony in this case, /u/N0S0M (lacking odd situations). In Texas, you need to be together 10+ years to qualify (the argument being if one person spent more time at home for that long, it will have significantly damaged their ability to function in the job market).

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

So that’s the same as NJ as well... 10+ years and you qualify. I thought there was absolutely zero alimony in Texas.

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

Apparently you can get it after 10 years.

[–]LEGALinSCCCA 138 points139 points140 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has changed the relationship between men and women forever. We are so fucked as a species....

[–]SuperGRB 122 points123 points124 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The only winning move is not to play.

[–]tenchineuro 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What was that movie again where the computer determined that there would be no winners in a Nuclear war (that was the idea, MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction)?

I'm sure there was a quote a lot like "The only winning move is not to play".

Was it War Games?

[–]SuperGRB 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

War Games

[–]tenchineuro 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

War Games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

Having discovered the concept of mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"), the computer tells Falken that it has concluded that nuclear war is "a strange game" in which "the only winning move is not to play." WOPR relinquishes control of NORAD and the missiles and offers to play "a nice game of chess."

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

WarGames

WarGames is a 1983 American Cold War science fiction film written by Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes and directed by John Badham. The film stars Matthew Broderick, Dabney Coleman, John Wood, and Ally Sheedy. The film follows David Lightman (Broderick), a young hacker who unwittingly accesses WOPR (War Operation Plan Response), a United States military supercomputer originally programmed to predict possible outcomes of nuclear war. Lightman gets WOPR to run a nuclear war simulation, believing it to be a computer game.


Mutual assured destruction

Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike). It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–]LEGALinSCCCA 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I fucked that up years ago. Can't abandon my kids. But I sure learned my lesson...

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

The losing card I'll someday lay, so this is all I have to say....

[–]dmwil27 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Suicide is painless. It brings on many changes.....

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

I don't think so. From what I have seen, this has not been a new thing with feminism. Men in the past were still financially responsible for there wives and off and on throughout history when divorce has been allowed women tended to get a good deal out of it. All that feminism has really done is created the opening of no-fault divorce which is really, really hard to deal with financially.

Definitely a men's rights issue, but I wouldn't say it is limited to feminism.

[–]L3tum 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What I find feminism, or more precise the total victim mentality of women, brought to us is that it's acceptable for a woman to do that. You'll hear stuff like "Well, she worked at home so she deserves her pay" and stuff like that.

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

Not as specie. Only the western culture.

[–]thrway_1000 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Another reason to avoid marriage.

Archive -- https://archive.is/8pvBU

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Or take proper precautions ahead of time.

Sorry, future wife.

[–]Dembara 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why apologizing? It is often better for both parties. If you and the wife have all of your finances properly accounted for so you can separate them fairly relatively easily and you have everything in writing as well as agreements on how money would be divided, neither party has to suffer through the years of court hearings and fights. It is better for everyone if you can easily cut the finances, often even if you get a good deal less it is not worth the time, stress and work of divorce proceedings.

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

My ex fiancee was totally against this.

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

Most people have an aversion for it because they feel it is a symbol of mistrust. But what you should explain is that you don't know if you'll be the same person 20 or 30 years from then.

Not sure how well it would work, but that's what I'd do.

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

lol, that's exactly how I explained it. I'm always for planning ahead. She wasn't.

And hence the "ex" part.

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

The "mistrust" argument works both ways. So just point that out.

After all, if you intend for the marriage to last forever then it doesn't matter if you take these precautions. Since you intend to be with the person forever. If you're against it, then you mistrust your partner and think they'll leave you and thus want a better outcome in the divorce. Which means you are planning for the relationship's failure as well.

It's better for both to take precautions when things are good, so you can both agree on something reasonable. During divorce you're going to be emotional one way or another, and it's unlikely you'll be acting reasonably. If you don't agree to things, then it's good you found it out before getting things tied up through marriage and can just bail on the relationship if you so choose.

Unfortunately prenups are pretty worthless, and get thrown out a lot. "But judge, it was under duress! He wouldn't marry me if I didn't sign it!" is an argument that seems to actually work.

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

He got conned, pure and simple. The marriage was just an attempt to get even more out of him.

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

Exactly!! That was her plan all along. Find a financially secure guy, manipulate him into taking care of her, building her up on his dime, then split soon after he is no longer needed. A relative of mine did this, but they are still together. She deliberately seeked out only rich guys when she was younger.

[–][deleted] 52 points53 points54 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

This is how women see a man. As a utility and only a utility. She does not love you.

[–]MetalChimp 73 points74 points75 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

*Some women.

[–]Kuonji 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Correct. However, it's enough of them for it to be scary as fuck.

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

More than not these days. Feminism has taught women that they have a right to whatever they want, and that exploiting men is empowerment.

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

All women

[–]ZMaiden 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My mother was raised as a "good christian woman". She married my father because she loved him and he got her pregnant with me. She followed him through small town preacher hood. Took fast food jobs just so we could have a little bit more. My father farmed a bit just so we could have some fresh veggies. Went off into the mountains to find ginseng so we could have money for christmas presents. Neither saw each other as a utility. My father got into drugs, met the wrong crowd, got my mom into it. Now they're both junkies. She wants to quit, he wont let her. Breaks down doors, strangles her, hits her head against walls. She screams and yells, takes his phone. Men are not the problem, women are not the problem. Drugs are the problem, society is the problem. My mother is willing to stay with a man that calls her stupid, yells at her regularly because she sees him as a utility? She sobs on the ground saying she sorry and she loves him after he gave her a concussion because she doesn't love him? I'm still a staunch MRA even after watching this shit.

[–]DriverDude777 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry you had to live with that. Your mom seems like a good person and maybe a bit too loyal. I wish my soon-to-be ex-wife was more loyal. We do need a break from each other though.

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

You can't let that go on. If you need to use physical violence against him (up to and including lethal force) to make that stop happening, so be it.

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

Hot takes from Reddit user WW2holocaustisamyth.

[–]Dembara 33 points34 points35 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

#NotAll

Let's not become like feminists. We should not generalize women or men. Some women are asses, some men are asses. Most I would say are decent. Not good, but decent. Men and women alike. But most is not by a lot.

[–]azazelcrowley 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Women are encouraged to do this sort of thing through constantly being told their decisions are empowering and therefore good and discouraged from feeling empathy for men or considering their perspective.

In a feminist culture, most women are this way, and conflate being selfish and using institutional and cultural privilege to abuse men with ethical behavior. They feel powerful when they are cruel, and are told them feeling powerful is good. That's just how it is and what feminism has fostered.

Only outlier women in terms of empathy avoid this, people empathetic enough that social indoctrination doesn't overcome it, as well as those who have been convinced to reject societies indoctrination by the MRM.

If you want a pretty quick and easy proof for how society is stacked in womens favor and against men, consider the following:

To what extent are men subjected to social norms, institutional rules, and laws, designed to make them help women be able to make decisions and choices that they want to make?

Compare;

To what extent are women subjected to social norms, institutional rules, and laws, designed to make them help men be able to make decisions and choices that they want to make?

Note that; "Well men are more often forced to go to work while women stay at home." doesn't answer the question over personal power over ones life, nor any of the other shit. Fact is, women aren't subjected to norms, rules, or norms designed to place their desires and needs second to mens decisions and force them to help men be able to make those decisions, and most of the time, men don't get to make decisions in the first place. The best example I can think of is abortion law, and even there, most anti-abortionists are women in the US and most other modern nations have the matter settled. We live in a society that celebrates and encourages female sociopathy by telling them men are bad people for having their own lives and desires separate from hers, and tells women that any man who doesn't like the fact he is subjected, his life and his choices subject to her demands, is a bad person, and that almost any choice she makes is a good thing and therefore if men have to get fucked over to help her make that choice that's fine.

Red pillers are in this thread arguing it's some defect in womens brains that makes them that way. I think it's feminism and its effect on culture, because there's women MRAs. But ignoring that it's most of them is ignoring the scale of the problem.

Women need to learn that empathy isn't empathy if it disappears the moment it becomes inconvenient for you.

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

I still don't think it is all or even necessarily a majority.

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

Certainly not all, there are examples in the movement who it doesn't apply to.

The question of majority isn't answered at this time and you're welcome to hold an optimistic view provided you accept a pessimistic one isn't invalid either.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Women file up to 80% of divorce. Have you ever seen a married homeless man?

[–]Rolten 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And in the US, 80% of the persons arrested for violent crimes are men.

What's your point? That we're going to generalize a gender based on statistics like this?

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

That's true, but must point out that statistic is also partly because women are less likely to be arrested in the first place when they commit violent crimes.

Just sayin'.

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

Because women are less likely to be arrested, even for felonious acts.

What's your point?

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

That's not the only reason. That's not even the main reason. The main reason is that men commit more violent crimes.

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

That quoting statistics as some sort of way to blame a gender is generally a bit ludicrous and can't be used as a motivation to say ' all women are _ ' or ' all men are _ '.

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

You're the only one that drew that parallel.

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

Well, you asked him what his point was, and he explained it. He never said anyone else had drawn that parallel...

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

Comes back to whether you'd put your hand in a box of snakes if I told you 80% were harmless.

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

I think you meant 20%?

Per that reasoning though, I wouldn't stick my hand in a box of snakes (assumingly venomous) whether it's 80, 20, or 5 percent that is venomous.

I'm not arguing for marriage, against prenups, or whatever. Just arguing against 'This is how women see a man. As a utility and only a utility.'. That's incredibly sexist.

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

It's sexist to say an individual woman is X because 'all women' or 'most women' are X, but I don't think it's sexist to say that in general if you're going to marry, that because there's a large percentage chance the woman will divorce you, that you should be careful with whomever you marry to the point of probably not doing it in case they are like that.

The example I'm making is like the box of snakes, for it to be sexist you'd pick one snake and say it's probably venomous because it came out of a box where some snakes are venomous.

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

And not a single rational person would deny men are more violent..

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

Yes... But I think that is really just because legally women are privileged in the divorce courts.

[–]Aarondhp24 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Generalizations against an entire gender are dumb no matter who makes them.

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

why do the majority of women support abortion?

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

For the same reason that a majority of men support abortion?

[–]Devilsdouble1988 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait. I thought it was NotAllMen and YesAllWomen. Feminists told me that

[–]Pillowed321 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An anti-semite AND a misogynist? What a rare combination /s

Fuck off, this isn't the place for that. There are plenty of great women out there.

[–]stuffandstuff17 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Happened to me and she cheated and got knocked up my lawyer said I had no legal rights to go after that money and walk away since she didn’t go after my 401k

[+]GuyWithPineapple1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Didnt a women sue and win a man she was dating after he won the lottery and left her? Surely this guy can do the same and get his money back?

[+]TheSeanis1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

It was the opposite, a woman won and divorced her husband. Might have happened another time with the roles reversed like you described, though.

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

I have heard of a few cases. There was a recent one with a boyfriend who won and the girlfriend got it. THough they weren't married, she had texts of him saying they would split winnings (didn't mention the amount) then he won, she sent him a message like "OMG!!! Are we keeping our agreement?" he then blocked her and cashed out, she sued and I think she got half of the after-tax amount.

But yea, it happens both ways, I think it counts as civil fraud.

[–]Aarondhp24 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's fair though. Not the debt thing, but the lottery thing.

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

Yea, I agree. It seemed like a really odd case but "fair enough" was my attitude towards it.

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

In these current anti-male times then the best thing for someone as stupid as this to be is a reminder to the rest of us.

[–]alrightjaewegetit[🍰] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not really sure why this needs to be discussed in the sub. We’re supposed to be advocating men’s rights, not just trashing random women because they’re assholes. Nothing that happened here was illegal; morally wrong, yes, but the dude should’ve known who he married. This kinda stuff just makes our sub look as bad as those fem subs that just trash men.

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

A sound voice.

In the grand scheme of things though, it adds to the MGTOW argument.

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

Hey, NecroHexr, just a quick heads-up:
arguement is actually spelled argument. You can remember it by no e after the u.
Have a nice day!

The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.

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

Shh, you saw nothing.

[–]XJ-0461 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And it’s not like there has even been a decision yet. She has just filed for divorce.

[–]James32015 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As messed up as it is shit like this is how people get killed

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

I have no words for how dumbstruck i am by this... holy moly... :(

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

Sharia law looks tempting after reading this horror story.

Edit: /s

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

Holly fuck i can't believe someone wrote a lengthy reply why you're "wrong"

[–]ScottieLikesPi -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No. Hell no. Nothing justifies Sharia law, and you should be ashamed for thinking that way.

People are not slaves, and thinking it's ok to say this shows how misguided you really are. If you don't like women, then fine. But saying women deserve to be treated as second class citizen is where you have officially gone off the deep end. Women should not be forced to serve you as a slave just because you hear where someone was manipulated and used. You're getting your info from a group dedicated to finding the news like this, which is probably a vast minority of most loving relationship.

I'll probably get down voted for even saying all this, but it must be said. If you think this way, you're just as bad as the feminists who think men should be second class citizens. You just said so. That's why you're probably alone and hate women, and it's a self perpetuating cycle. You can't get a girl, so you call her a bitch and try to justify it with shit like this article, claiming all women are evil and manipulative. It's toxic bullshit like this that makes people disregard MRA out of hand, instead of considering what we're here to do.

Don't perpetuate the cycle. Look at the good things that women can bring. Spewing hate will only leave you alone and miserable, and you'll grow bitter and mean. Remember that we can be better people if you just try. Make the world a better place, both for yourself and the people you love. Start by focusing on the positives and rejecting the negatives. You'll be much better off, not just here but in every aspect of your life. Be not just a good man but a good human being.

Rant over. Just think on what I said, and find it within yourself to be a better person. That's how you bring about change. One person doing good brings everyone to a better place.

[–]booyah2 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woop woop white knight lacking a sense of humor alert

[–]piggypoo 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Woah buddy, ever heard of tongue and cheek? Sorry that I forgot the /s. Maybe I actually attempted suicide because of chronic depression and low-self esteem, but thanks for reminding me that I'm an ugly incel and appanrelty a terrible person.

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

I just block the trolls and psychos.

[+]ScottieLikesPi -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said you were ugly, and the point was to become a better person. If you forgot the /s, then maybe this'll remind you next time.

You can be whatever you want to be, and if you choose to be a terrible person, that's on you. If you choose to be a better person, then that's also on you. You are what you choose to be. Get yourself help if you need it, find the solutions you need, learn from your mistakes, and move on.

Like Doc Brown told Marty,

The future is what you make it, so make it a good one.

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

Are you actually so fucking dumb you think all sharia law is is enslaving women?

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

Any debt that's left it's hers, as it was hers before they married. The same for any assets...

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, this is a shit sandwich.

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

Someone tell Bill Burr. He'll flip out.

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

bitches

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

Never marry

[–]on606 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I paid off my ex wife's student loans after our divorce. Helping the mother of your children is good for your children.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He did good. She brought a lot of bad karma on herself.

[+]melonangie -28 points-27 points-26 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Totally against leeching-woman/men, but c’mon guys use your common sense, if you dont want to loose money sign a prenup. Evrybody losses money in a divorce.

[–]neveragoodtime 27 points28 points29 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He lost his money while they were still married.

[–]SirYouAreIncorrect 24 points25 points26 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Today prenup are larely irrrevelent,

Judges have all kinds of methods (and routinly use them) to void them, render sections of the void, or to just ignore them

For example an major economic imbalance (meaning the man is Rich and the women is poor) in the start of the marriage could be seen as "coercion" and render the agreement void...

Failure to have on party consult their own lawyer before signing can render the prenup void.

and about 100 other things

That is with out getting into asset grow during the marriage, children and 100 other economic factors.

The ONLY protection from divorce costs is to never marry.

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

Yeah but a lot of women simply won’t sign a prenup as alimony can be life-changing money. They want equality, but only want equality where it suits them.

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

loose

lose

sign a prenup

We have a poster who claims to be a lawyer that regularly defends prenups, but...

Prenups are more important when there is more to lose. When there is more to lose, lawyers start getting erections. If there is a potential for a big payday, that prenup is going to be heavily challenged, and many don't hold up to that.

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

Prenups aren't legally enforceable in a lot of states. Even in states that they ARE enforceable, they're extremely easy to get thrown out. My friend got his (with his signature, his wife's signature, his lawyer's signature, her lawyer's signature, and a notary signature) thrown out of court because his wife cried and said she signed it under mental duress and coercion and didn't mean to enter into the contract.

Prenups aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

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

Cp state he can get his cp contribution to her sp debt back.

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

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