TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

CMV: A cheating spouse should not be able to receive alimony payments after a divorce. : changemyview

Bortasz

September 6, 2015
27 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3jsef1/cmv_a_cheating_spouse_should_not_be_able_to/
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title CMV: A cheating spouse should not be able to receive alimony payments after a divorce. : changemyview
Author

Bortasz

Upvotes 27
Comments 28
Date September 6, 2015 3:37 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3jv5kj/cmv_a_cheating_spouse_should_not_be_able_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cmv-a-cheating-spouse-should-not-be-able-to.971893
https://theredarchive.com/post/971893
Red Pill terms in post
cheating
Top posts by Bortasz

Just Feminism.

4524 upvotes
March 26, 2015
/r/MensRights

Sarah Silverman Admits She Made Up a Wage-Gap Story, Then Calls Critics ‘Maniacs’

2872 upvotes
April 16, 2015
/r/MensRights

TIL that 47% of male victims of domestic abuse are threatened with arrest. 21% are arrested. : todayilearned

2021 upvotes
May 30, 2015
/r/MensRights

4chan on men suicides.

1965 upvotes
October 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

TIL a CDC study claims more men are victims of partner abuse than women : todayilearned

1550 upvotes
March 22, 2015
/r/MensRights

Female Veteran on Women in Military.

1248 upvotes
January 11, 2016
/r/MensRights

Male privileges

1030 upvotes
September 4, 2015
/r/MensRights

Judge Freaks Out in Court: "I Hope You Die in Prison!"

924 upvotes
March 5, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–]trygold4 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Does she have to keep prviding whatever it was she was contributing to the relationship. Why should he have to keep paying for it.

[–]my_name_is_gato 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I am not a fan of this perspective. Family law is already a mess. If proof of adultery changed spousal support amounts, you would run into a worse quagmire of trying to prove/defend infidelity. I suspect entrapment issues would also arrive.

No fault divorce is a good thing. The current way it plays out for men is not.

[–]SRSLovesGawker 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Proof of adultery was one of several legal ways out of marriage in the past. It didn't seem a particularly onerous task to prove infidelity back in the day, but I suppose it would depend on standard of proof required (eg. preponderance or clear & convincing).

I'm not so convinced that no-fault divorce is a good thing. There should, I think, be a sort of "divorce with prejudice" in cases where one party is being demonstrably horrible to the other... although given the current system of justice, such a thing may never be able to exist without being ruthlessly exploited.

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If you don't think the courts should be getting into the nitty-gritty of relationships, then is it fair to say you don't support alimony at all in this day and age?

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't think alimony should be eliminated completely, but it does need a major overhaul. I can't really fathom a situation where lifelong alimony would be appropriate. Some limited transitional support may be appropriate. Additionally, where there is strong evidence of one party making major concessions for another, some equalizing support may be appropriate. However, I view the ability to be a stay at home parent as a privilege afforded by the other spouse's hard work, and that alone should never be reason to award alimony.

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In what situations do you see alimony being appropriate?

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

One spouse supports the other during a long educational process i.e. Med school, with the understanding that the future income would improve both of their lives. Or, if one party enticed the other to relocate and give up a lucrative career, then divorced them. Finally, in very long term marriage where one spouse reasonably relied on being cared for in retirement.

In each of these situations, I think the burden of proving alimony is appropriate should be high and the award should be limited in amount and duration.

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how you can get into any of those issues without getting into the "nitty-gritty" of verbal contracts between the two parties. Why do you think those examples are fair grounds for courts to get involved in spousal agreements, but that questions of fidelity are too complicated?

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is a very fair point, and I agree that there are going to be muddy waters. That is why I said there should be a high burden on the person who is asking for support to prove the circumstances that merit it. Infidelity is just too tough to deal with legally. Who cheated first, who cheated more, whose cheating was more egregious, etc.

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

I don't really see why. Courts deal with "muddy waters" with respect to other issues all the time. Yes, our legal system is certainly taxed by these waters, and we do need to ensure that it doesn't get so bogged down in them that it can't function, but refusing to consider infidelity in an alimony decision puts breadwinners in a really unfair situation: either put up with a cheating spouse, or divorce and pay alimony (assuming your spouse doesn't divorce you and then collect).

For the record, I'm completely against alimony in all forms in this day and age. It was one thing when women couldn't reasonably expect to be as financially independent as men, but that is no longer the case. Equal opportunity, equal responsibility. People should not be depending on their spouses for their financial stability, and if they choose to put themselves in a situation where they are, it's their problem if that spouse decides he/she wants a divorce. Children are a joint responsibility, and people who choose to support their spouse by paying for education or simply supporting them while they go to school are perfectly entitled to do so. I just don't think the recipients of that charity should expect the State to force its continuance should they run afoul of their benefactor for whatever reason.

I do acknowledge that these are all very tricky situations to navigate, however, and that raising children is a full-time job, at least for the first 3-5 years. However, children are paid for with child support, not alimony. I can see child support arrangements that include expenses like rent and utilities—if it's agreed upon in mediation or family court that the children will stay with the at-home parent. Personally though, in the event of divorce, I think all child-rearing negotiations had prior to the divorce ought to be considered void, and new ones should be made—I think a lot of men would make sacrifices to their careers if they thought it meant having more time with their kids. They might be willing to be the breadwinner when they can come home and spend time with their children on a nightly basis, but doing so and only getting to see them on weekends or bi-monthly? Yeah, not what a lot of breadwinners signed on for, I don't think. I can see a lot of fathers agreeing to work part-time just to get a 50/50 share of time with their children.

Regardless, alimony is out of the question in 2015.

[–]SirGrump 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd say if you're opting out of a divorce through no fault of the person you're leaving you're not entitled to support from that person.

[–]my_name_is_gato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That includes an element of fault though. It leads to "he cheated." "She refused sex for years, what was I supposed to do?" Ad nauseum.

[–]SirGrump 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Honestly? I'm actually against the entire concept of alimony as a whole, fault or not.

Even the name "spousal support" is gross, considering the people are no longer spouses.

[–]my_name_is_gato 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can understand your perspective of no alimony regardless, but married people are no longer spouses? I am genuinely confused by this. Even accounting for gay marriage, married partners are referred to as spouses, right?

[–]SirGrump 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Paying alimony is generally done after a divorce right? Once you're divorced you're no long married, and therefor no longer spouses.

[–]my_name_is_gato 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess I read your post wrong late last night. I see what you mean now. Ex-spousal support would be the more appropriate term, though just as frustrating.

[–]Juan_Golt 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely wrong approach. I believe a more accurate representation of the argument against alimony goes like this:

  1. In our modern world both spouses are able to work, and neither can place a meaningful restriction on the other. Alimony made sense when one side of the relationship made all the career decisions for the entire family. Now that neither spouse holds that power it doesn't make sense to expect large ongoing alimony payments. Anyone who chooses to not work, is doing so of their own volition. They aren't in thrall to their spouse.

  2. The argument for alimony is a contradiction. "Breadwinner couldn't have achieved the career they have without the efforts of homemaker!" Yet if the homemaker's efforts were so vital for breadwinner, then we do we expect breadwinner to go on earning the exact same amount of money after homemaker leaves? If homemakers help was so vital, then why is there no tangible effect when the relationship ends?

[–]belil569 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

while I dont condone it at all Ill agree with a caveat.

Context and circumstances. I dont mean some one tripped and fell onto some one else stuff but more mean that a lot of on here have seen folks that are trapped on a bad place, and cant leave for fear of what would happen to them, their children or being homeless. Again I dont condone cheating but I can understand that situation and not think less of the person vs some one just going out bar hopping and trying to fuck around.

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

I can. You don't compromise your own values just because it's difficult to stick with those values. That makes you no better.

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

It actually doesn't matter that circumstances. Let's say, if the husband was a grade A a-hole, and she finds emotional comfort with another man. Then, it's up to her and her new guy to step up their game financially to take care of themselves. Would you rather live with an abusive wife, or downgrade your lifestyle and work one more job just so you can get away from her? And I bet you definitely will if safety of your kids are at stake, where there's a mother woman who care about you and your kids more so than your psychotic wife. So why won't woman sacrifice financially to live better? After all, money can't buy happiness if it gets to a point where cheating is the resort.

[–]rg57 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. The non-cheating spouse could have driven them to it by withholding sex or love.

I think in such a case, polygamy is the best option. The "cheater" can be respected for the human they are, and if the original spouse wants to leave, they can do so in a separate divorce.

[–]Number357 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Their cheating doesn't automatically erase whatever justification there was for alimony to begin with. In many cases alimony needs to be cut back, regardless of cheating. But if one partner did legitimately make sacrifices in their career for the marriage, then it would be unjust to deny them alimony altogether. Maybe reduce alimony but don't cut it entirely and throw them out in the streets

[–]Corn-Tortilla 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So an over priced whore that breaks her contract should be awarded the title of slave owner. Got it. Thank you, but I'll pass.

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

Why should one party still have to comply with a broken contract while the other doesn't? Both parties made sacrifices for the relationship, but it seem that the one to stay home for the kids (traditionally the females) are the only ones people seem to recognize as making a sacrifice. They are the only one that people also think that should be continually payed after a contract has been terminated.

Alimony would be fair, provided the other party still maintained their part of the contact. Everyone makes sacrifices, but to expect one party to not have to deal with the consequences of their choices is silly.

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Some sacrifices have greater long-term consequences. I don't think alimony payments should be as high as they often and shouldn't last more than a few years, but if a person took 10 years out from working they can't exactly just re-enter the work-force, especially not in this economy.

[–]PunxTatto 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Some sacrifices have greater long-term consequences.

You're right. Re-entering the workforce is a smaller consequence than dying 5 years earlier on average. Where are the proposals to make sure men are taken care of after a divorce?

Alimony shouldn't be payed out at all. The contract is broken. The trade of taking care of the home and children in exchange of being provided for is done. People overlook the fact that men work longer hours and more dangerous jobs, but feel that women deserve to be supported even after a divorce, but the men are only entitled to work even harder to make her transition better. I find it funny how people talk a lot about how hard it is to be a stay at home mother, but completely overlook the difficulty of supporting other people and the stress that puts on someone.

[–]PerniciousOne 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

After a divorce since I am supporting her financial needs;

  • How are my sexual needs being fulfilled by her after the divorce
  • How are my hunger needs being fulfilled by her after the divorce.

I was accustomed to come home and have her make me a meal and then have relations. Why are these "needs" ignored.

[–]PunxTatto 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because men are not important. Women are a more worthy of providing for.

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