Ex Must Continue to Pay Spousal Support to 'Remarried' Wife ($32,547 per month in alimony, $14,590 per month in child support)

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 12 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thisismynetlife 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]Steavee -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

Because leaving the workforce for a decade or more to care for the "teams" children will (in most cases) permanently lower ones lifetime earning potential.

Or think about it this way. Say you and I get married straight out of school. You get a great job doing something and I stay home maintaining the house and raising our (assuming you too are male) adopted children. 20 years in you decide you want a tighter ass (fuck you, I helped you build a life, what about our children you monster??!!).

You managed the money. Sure we have a great house, and you make 1.2 million per year but because we spent it all there isn't a big saving account to split. So I get what? A huge house that costs a lot to maintain (but if I sell it right away our kids are moving schools, haven't their lives already been disrupted enough?!) and a car? That's ok I suppose but I've never been in the traditional workforce. 20 years later and my degree isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The best job I'll get is working at McDonalds. I'll have no time for the kids (that you and your new boytoy don't want more than every other weekend) and won't make even a small fraction of what we used to live on or what I could have made if I'd been in the workforce for the last 20 years.

That is an extreme example, but that is why alimony exists. Remember the laws for alimony weren't passed (by men) to screw other men, but to aid women stuck in this very real situation. Often destitute because of it.

EDIT: TL;DR Because one spouse has invested in the others earning potential at the expense of their own (by leaving the workforce for the family) and may very well deserve a return on that investment.

[–]dungone 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember the laws for alimony weren't passed (by men) to screw other men, but to aid women stuck in this very real situation. Often destitute because of it.

Alimony was created at a time when divorce was illegal; it only applied to separated wives. These women were not allowed to remarry, they couldn't get a job without their husband's permission, and if they did have a job, their income would actually go to the husband. Alimony was all they were allowed to have. In the meanwhile, the reality of the times was that most decent-paying jobs were so physically demanding that women truly were incapable of doing the work to support themselves.

Literally none of those things are true anymore. Your argument is that one person gets to have money as well as the kids because she made teamwork sacrifice a, but the other person neither gets to have the kids nor his income because he made teamwork sacrifice b. Does that really sound equitable to you?

Choosing to throw away a posh career as a lawyer for an even more relaxing life as a millionaire's wife is a free choice and actually a reward in and of itself. Nobody forces women to take advantage of that lifestyle; in fact the bigger problem is that no one can really stop them. What's a guy going to do, file for divorce, lose his house, money, and kids, because he wanted his wife to get a job and she refused?

[–]MS2point0 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

1, Maybe he does not want full custody. A pair of my friends are getting divorced right now and he just wants them every other weekend and holidays. That's not decided by the court, but by him.

2, Why? Because money? What is better for the children? To be raised by the parent they only saw on nights and weekends or the parent who was home to raise them full time? I agree it's a shitty situation all around. Most of the time civil law isn't about fixing shitty situations, it's about finding the least shitty way of going forward.

The thing everyone is missing is that the original divorce terms in this case were very likely all stipulated in one big settlement that everyone agreed to and not forced upon them by a judge. When that much money is involved everyone does there best to pay a lot of lawyers a lot of money to get the best 'deal' they can.

Even "giving the kids to the rich guy" doesn't solve the problem of the spouse. Sure this one seems to be shady, scamming twat. (We don't have any other side of the story, maybe she got screwed out of millions in the divorce and finds it fair to keep taking him for a ride now...) But not all of them are.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

1 - Great, so then whenever a man fights for custody and loses, he should be off the hook for support. If he's literally forcing his wife to take the kids against her will, then I might feel some slight amount of sympathy for her finances. But that would be tempered by whose decision it was to have the kids in the first place and whose decision it was to get divorced.

2 - It's better for children to be raised by the parent who earns enough money to raise them. Your argument is an appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with the children's outcome. Learning how to be financially self-supporting is arguably the most useful skill in a person's life. The life skills that rich fathers can teach their kids are far more valuable than all the child support in the world going to a nonworking mother who games the legal system.

[–]Steavee 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

1, Just because someone wants custody doesn't mean they are a fit parent. Or haven't you seen video of crackheads who want their babies back. Hell I was in a homeless shelter and there were people fighting for custody of their kids while fucking homeless! The problem your blanket solution creates is a parent who doesn't want the kids, and doesn't want child support putting up the worst case possible to "fight for custody" while intending to lose AND getting off the hook.

2, Money isn't the only thing that makes you fit to be a parent. Plenty of poor ass kids turn out fine, plenty of rich ones don't. Our current president (whether you like him or not) did pretty well while coming from modest means. The Hilton fortune gave us Paris Hilton.

You're ignoring the fact that in my example the one spouse DID get a degree only to put work aside and raise a family. That doesn't mean they never learned how to financially self-support. They (with their spouse) chose not to work!

Even if they divorced without kids one spouse might be eligible for alimony for a host of reasons. Alimony =/= child support.

Edit: sexism slip.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nwz1231 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]plasmacutter 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Just because someone wants custody doesn't mean they are a fit parent.

This is a great place to start, but it's just as true about mothers as it is about fathers.

The problem your blanket solution creates is a father who doesn't want his kids, and doesn't want child support putting up the worst case possible to "fight for custody" while intending to lose AND getting off the hook.

On the contrary, I said that if she wants custody then no child support for her, period. No fake custody battle required. This problem wouldn't exist in my blanket solution. The entire fake custody battle is a silly myth, anyway. It costs a tremendous amount of money, sometimes every last penny that a father has. Why do women insist in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that men who fight for custody are really just deadbeats who don't want their kids and don't want to pay child support, either? Is that why they burn through their entire life savings, sell of the house, and sleep out of their cars while they fight for the right to see their kids more than a few times a month?

[–]Steavee -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No no. You said (and I quote):

Great, so then whenever a man fights for custody and loses, he should be off the hook for support.

That is a COMPLETELY different case than:

On the contrary, I said that if she wants custody then no child support for her, period.

If someone wants custody, they might have a damn fine reason. Maybe the other parent is physically abusive. That parent shouldn't get custody and SHOULD pay child support.

And a fake custody case might be a "silly myth" now, because there isn't much benefit to contesting custody unless you want the kids. But if just contesting custody got someone out of paying child support, I think it's pretty obvious we would see a huge uptick is custody. Especially if one doesn't have to (or want to) win.

If you want to turn what was a discussion about alimony into a discussion about child support I am done here. It's a separate issue all together and too many people in this sub are far too touchy about the subject to waste my time on it anyway.

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

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

I think, friend, if you re-read my post I remained (other than addressing the person I was replying to as male) gender neutral. In fact I suggested a gay relationship in my story BECAUSE I am male myself and presumed the other commenter was male as well.

In marriages, most decisions that big are made together. After all if I were married and my wife suddenly decided she didn't want to work anymore and expected me to support her I would immediately file for divorce if she would not change her mind.

I support the idea of alimony, in some circumstances, regardless of gender. If my (again imaginary) wife and I decided she makes more and that I should stay at home with the kids, and fifteen years later there is a divorce I would want alimony from her.

TL;DR: Any pro-female bias you see is in your own mind.

Edit: upon a re-read I did say "to help women" which was the basis of the original idea of alimony. Back when women were property and couldn't re-marry anyway. Clearly that was historical context not a present bias in favor of women.

[–]nigglereddit 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually what I described was very obviously a gay relationship (adopted kids, new boytoy, etc.) and if you didn't see that you didn't read my damn post.

The fact that 97% of alimony is awarded to women does not damn the institution of alimony as wrong or unfair, only the implementation. Even then however your statistics are subject to other variables:

97% does look bad, but consider too that 90% of stay at home parents are female. Similar numbers apply to couples with no children but one income. So of course alimony will overwhelmingly be paid to women. And the rise of women being the sole breadwinner for the household is new, and we would expect a delay of 5-20+ years in the alimony statistic reflecting that new trend.

Again, even IF alimony is applied unfairly, that doesn't make alimony bad. Just the implementation.

[–]nigglereddit 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

97% does look bad, but consider too that 90% of stay at home parents are female. Similar numbers apply to couples with no children but one income. So of course alimony will overwhelmingly be paid to women.

This is one of the most blatant attempts at bending statistics I've seen in some time.

Not all women awarded alimony are stay at home parents. In fact the very article we're discussing proves this beyond doubt. There is no link between the 97% of alimony recipients and the supposed 90% of stay at home mothers.

So where does that leave you? Claiming that because some women choose to stay home, all women who divorce - and let's not forget that 70%+ of divorces are initiated by women, not men, with a leading excuse being "boredom" - should be awarded damages?

Similarly, there is no real justification for claiming that divorces in couples with only one income can reasonably lead to a 97% prevalence of alimony being awarded to women.

we would expect a delay of 5-20+ years in the alimony statistic reflecting that new trend.

No, it's happening right now. And guess what? In places like California where women are being forced to pay alimony, women are protesting every way they can.

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh no no.. I am providing context to a misleading statistic (97%!! ZOMG!).

Firstly you need to re-read the article:

Andrea and Andrew Left were married in June 2001 and separated in February 2006. Andrew is a stock trader. Andrea was a practicing attorney before she and Andrew had children.

Also, and this clearly proves how little you understand statistics, one article about one couple cannot prove anything about the world at large "beyond doubt."

As an aside: I had to look this up since people keep bandying that "boredom" statistic about.

The article I believe you (and others) are referencing was in the guardian in 2011. It talks about a study (in the UK mind) done yearly by Grant Thornton of divorce attorneys. Not divorcees, the lawyers representing them.. It found 27% of divorces were caused by "falling out of love." Which someone has paraphrased as 'boredom' although anyone who has been in a serious relationship understands those two are not synonymous. At 25% (only 2% less) were extramarital affairs. 75% of which were conducted by men, 25% by women.

As for your 70% that statistic is meaningless without other context. As it is you're trying to stipulate that women are just divorcing willy nilly because they are bored with their current man, and just want a big payout. That kind of blatant women hating is false, offensive, and a big reason people still won't take our movement seriously. People like you are cancerous to Mens Rights.

Finally I never said that all women should be awarded damages. In fact I said:

I support the idea of alimony, in some circumstances, regardless of gender.

So please don't put words in my mouth.

[–]nigglereddit 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jacksambuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fedabog 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thil 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

While the amount seems high (because it is) keep in mind two things:

a) Courts tend to work on a "standard of living" basis. If me, my partner and two kids were used to living on a couple of million per year is receiving support of 50k a month that insane?

Maybe, but consider:

b) If my partner and I decide together that I should stay home and raise the kids, but a decade later we divorce and I go back to work (in most cases) I will never make as much money as I would have if I had continued working the entire time. Missed raises, missed experience, missed networking, etc. This fact is quoted often on this sub as a reason why women earn less than men.

That is why spousal support still makes some sense. Yes it is a hold over from the days when one partner (usually the wife) never worked and would have a helluva time entering the workforce at 50, but it has persisted because it some cases it is still fair for one party to compensate the other.

What if your spouse used your joint money to buy a powerball ticket, won, and divorced you instead of sharing? You'd be goddamned livid and would sue. Everyone would. In a similar way, one partner putting their career on hold to watch the kids and house so the other can concentrate on work may deserve some compensation when--after that hard work is done--the other partner wants to upgrade to a newer model.

If you don't personally like it, get a pre-nup.

In this specific case, the ex-wife is a scumbag. "We aren't really married, we just had a huge wedding but didn't make it legal." That is IMHO fraudulent as hell, but more /r/MensRants than /r/MensRights.

[–]plasmacutter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Steavee -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Steavee -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Not sure how you got that from me just responding to you asking someone else a question but ok.

While i disagree with your views on marriage, my personal thoughts on it are nothing like what you are saying. To me marriage is a contract between a man and a woman that gets them certain benefits from the goverment and can if it is ended screw one party over greatly. Its not always the man either who gets screwed (though more often and not it is)

I dont believe in god or gods or living happily ever after, nor do i do any drugs at all. Marriage does have a value in the form of benefits offered via taxes and insurance and probably more (im not personally married yet so i dont know 100% the benefits). You may prefer not to get married and i have no problem with that. I however am in the process of getting married and know full on what could happen should we get divorced down the road and im willing to take the risk.

Its obvious in this post that the chic is a money grubbin bitch. Who found a work around to get money from the ex and all i was pointing out was that in terms of what i read she is valuing that money over her new boyfriend by using her work around since she isnt marrying the new guy but basically had a marriage ceremony for whatever reason (id guess to get gifts from guest or something similar). Looks like shes trying to have her cake and eat it to and i hope this dude can get out of it.

But whatever thanks for treating me like shit cause i responded to your post and have a differing view on marriage than you do(which i never originally posted was just answering your question to the other guy more or less). Sorry im not a woman hater who thinks that they are all out to get me.

[–]carchamp1 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

When you come here on r/mr next time make sure you put your fucking big boy pants on. You've been treated like shit? You have NO fucking idea what some people here have been through with their own and/or a friend's/family member's situation. Marriage and "family" court is ugly business and people have their lives destroyed over it. If you can't take it get your fucking sniveling little feelings out of here and go fuck yourself.

This I can assure you - with regard to marriage you are your town's village idiot. Marriage benefits? The benefit of marriage is for women to take money from men. That is NOT my opinion. That has been the explicit purpose of marriage in America for a hundred years. What you're referring to as benefits are INDUCEMENTS the state's and the Fed's have put in place so idiots like yourself are tricked into getting married. OOPS - you fell for it. You have plenty of company like myself so don't feel too bad about that, even though you're still an idiot (fool).

Your "personal thoughts" on marriage are useless. You don't decide what marriage is. The state you live in decides. Maybe you think you can overcome that, but I assure you it can't be done.

So you know what can happen and you'll still go through with it anyway? Jesus fucking Christ that's unbelievable. I know there are men that stupid, but you don't see it that often. You don't have to be a "woman hater" to know that you don't sign a contract that has no benefits and can destroy your life. You just, seemingly, need a brain in your head, but apparently it takes more than that.

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

My personal thoughts on marriage are fine, just like you having personal thoughts on marriage. Show some documented sources that prove the marriage is meant as a means for a women to take money and property from a man. Its not meant for that. It can happen based on how it is set up and like i already mentioned it doesnt just happen to men either, ive personally seen it happen to a woman, my mom to be exact. This is your opinion on marriage.

I really could give a shit less that you or someone else went through a bad marriage, you put yourself into that situation as I am putting myself in that situation as well. Maybe you need your big boy pants on. Just because it can happen dont mean it always does happen. Ive seen it happen to, many of my family members had messy divorces and even a few had multiple of them.

Just because this is a mens rights group dont mean i cant come here as well just because some of you have a problem with things i choose to do in my own life. Not all mens rights issues have to do with marriage (though ill admit quite alot of them do) i never said marriage isnt flawless and in fact i think i pointed out it can go terribly wrong. So im all for things getting put on equal ground.

So you know what can happen and you'll still go through with it anyway? Jesus fucking Christ that's unbelievable. I know there are men that stupid, but you don't see it that often. You don't have to be a "woman hater" to know that you don't sign a contract that has no benefits and can destroy your life. You just, seemingly, need a brain in your head, but apparently it takes more than that.

Its a fucking gamble, if i goto the casino i know i can lose my money there but i still go cause in the end its worth the gamble to me. Its obvious its not worth it to you, and thats your right to feel that way for whatever reason. I love my fiancee and while i know theres potential that we may eventually get divorced im willing to take a gamble on that we may not ever. I wasnt tricked into marriage and i suffer no delusions that i can get royally screwed should things go bad, but ultimately i choose to take that route cause i aint a bitter dick who married the wrong person yet.

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

By getting married it doesn't mean your gonna get into a divorce. Statistically only 33%-50%(no solid numbers i can find on it but their has been around 50% divorce rate compared to marriages in some recent years) of marriages end in divorce, thinking like it sounds like you do its a gamble in that you could end up being on the shit end of the stick of a divorce should it happen and seeing as you seem to be a pretty unpleasant person on here i wouldnt doubt you are in real life so im willing to bet should you get married or have already been married your getting in a divorce or have already. (im gonna go with have already) Since im about to get married im taking a gamble that i may someday also get divorced and possibly then be took for pretty much everything. My bet is that i wont end up in that position and im gambling in that way. Not all marriages in bad is my point and some dont even ever end. Your looking at out of the large number of people who get married every year the small number of people who have a fucked ending to their marriage.

I already have children with my fiancee, so i already took a step towards being screwed over with child support should our relationship go bad.

Im looking on amazon at that book. I highly doubt its gonna change my mind on anything though but reading it would give me something better to do than look at more memes and garbage on reddit so what the hell. From the inside flap part i read was interesting, may just buy this book really.

The reason marriage is set up that way is because it once was needed to be that way and now in current times its outdated and needs to be reformed like many of the shit laws out there that are no longer right. Also should be noted that same with alot of other legal shit people find loopholes that give them a better edge, not everyone takes advantage of these.

Ive seen several family members lose everything, like literally everything they had in a divorce and then due to not being able to pay child support, male and female included. One family member cant even get licenses to drive or fish or anything. Doesnt have anything no cars or house. Its just him and his dog and while he does work he dont make much and has to take jobs that dont show income just to get by. Ive also seen not only family but also friends go through a divorces that was as good as they can be. They share the children, more or less sold everything they had together and split it and now they are going on with their own lives and not trying to fuck each other over all the time like some couples seem to try and do. Also have seen relationships like my grandparents who stayed together until they died, they had ups and downs and plenty of crap like most relationships but managed to stay together and loved each other until their last moments. Thats what your gambling on. A good life together with your best friend or a messy ass divorce that costs you everything. Ill take my chances and hope i dont get shit on.

Like i said i assume you were married and had a bad divorce. If so sorry you had to go through that. But im sure you also before you got married also didnt think it was gonna end up like that. Shit happens and it sucks ass. From reading your other posts just makes it seem more and more like my assumption is right, either that or your just looking to deep and at all the negatives. Either way im with you in that some shit needs to be changed so it isnt such a one sided crapfest when divorces happen.

May snag this book up today though (was gonna get it on kindle but for some retarded reason hardcover is cheaper?) so thanks for that at least.

[–]carchamp1 -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Really, if you just read the introduction of that book online you'll get the main point of what I'm trying to get across to you (and others). Reading the whole thing wouldn't kill you, though.

Anyway, please read and re-read what I'm about to tell you very carefully: Not all bad, even awful, even abusive, marriages end in divorce. Please don't think for a second that even a 50% divorce rate comes close to describing how big a failure marriage really is.

As bad as divorce is, you're not seeing much of the carnage caused by marriage. For religious, cultural, and, obviously, financial reasons millions of couples, past and present, are stuck together in marriage and as miserable as you can possibly imagine.

I'm still married. The reality is I CAN'T AFFORD TO GET A DIVORCE. My wife would simply take too much. I would be as good as broke and stuck in a job I hate for the rest of my life. I've been living this way for a decade.

The rules of divorce often have an effect on your life even if you stay married. When my brother was going through his divorce, his personal counselor told him that, according to her best opinion based on many years of experience, that only 10% of marriages are happy and successful. After studying this myself for many years on my own this sounds about right.

The chances our grandparents loved each other when they passed were small, very small. Marriage to them was a duty. The death that parted them relieved them of that duty.

And, finally, especially for men, it's NOT all the negatives that is killing marriage (marriage has been in decline for many decades in case you didn't know), it's that there are no positives. Marriage for men is all risk and no reward. Modern marriage reformers, in fact, never intended to provide any benefits for men. Modern marriage has always been a sacrificial duty for men. That men's lives were destroyed through marriage has never been a concern for marriage advocates. As long as women are provided for, marriage is "working".

Edit:

"The reason marriage is set up that way is because it once was needed to be that way and now in current times its outdated and needs to be reformed like many of the shit laws out there that are no longer right. Also should be noted that same with alot of other legal shit people find loopholes that give them a better edge, not everyone takes advantage of these. "

No. This just isn't right. The states NEVER needed to take over marriage from our religious and cultural institutions. Personal relationships do not need to be regulated by government. Modern marriage is a feminist creation to redistribute money and property from men to women. That this all occurred during the height of socialist/communist fascination is not an accident. Men = bourgeoisie, women = proletariat. The "right" in modern marriage to take someone else's money and property was born out of Marxism, not need.

[–]s1500 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newSuperHuman 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]plasmacutter 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]PerniciousOne 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Steavee -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]4man 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_poop_splinters 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ledunk 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]unclefisty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Smokeya 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryderf20 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I must say, folks, that this is EXACTLY how modern marriage is supposed to work. I know it is absurdly shocking to think that, but, according to the explicit purpose of modern marriage, nothing is wrong here.

The whole point of marriage is to take money and property from husbands and give it to wives. Once you marry her, you are legally responsible to provide for her, for at least some amount of time. I know we have fancy names for these $ transfers like marital property and alimony, but it's all just state-sponsored stealing when you get right down to it.

Those people in your life and here on r/mensrights who insist that marriage is about religion, family, or living happily ever after are either ignorant or lying to you. Either way, what they're doing is inexcusable.

There is only ONE way to protect yourself from this state-sponsored bondage, that is slavery, DO NOT GET MARRIED.

[–]Thil 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chowder138 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chowder138 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tinfoilh4t 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Ex Must Continue to Pay Spousal Support to 'Remarried' Wife ($32,547 per month in alimony, $14,590 per month in child support)
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	145
Comments	100
Date	August 30, 2013 6:08 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ldvk0/ex_must_continue_to_pay_spousal_support_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ex-must-continue-to-pay-spousal-support-to.1165110 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165110

Comments