BeExcellent: "Nothing short of marriage is exclusive to be perfectly honest"

[ChristopherColumbus]

And what society is doing to women, you should be fearful of where society is going. Most people, men included, need some type of parameters in place, punishments and rewards, to behave properly. So was this really a good woman if she needs some societal punishments in place to behave properly? Probably not but in reality, eventually, they could be trained up into something respectable. Now, without training and society in place? You have most women who are not marriage material. Society, in it's rush to "empower" women, have actually dis-empowered them. It's just that most women are too stupid to realize it.

Sadly true. All have fallen victim to the dogma of freedom.

 

[BeExcellent]

When people fall out of love, nobody should be taken to the cleaners. Nobody's child should be taken away or "time with the child" reduced down to 4 days out of a 30 day month. Nobody should have to pay a lifetime monthly check to someone they are no longer in love with or married to.

Do you agree with this? If the answer is Yes, then we honestly have no disagreement. You are saying there's nobody "perfect" but "decent enough" people exist that make a commitment worthwhile.....and I AGREE with that. But if you are also in agreement about my statement on the Marriage Contract, then we have no Disagreement anywhere.

Here's where I stand on the things you mention in the paragraphs above:

1. Nobody should be taken to the cleaners. I concur. However the courts take a different stance that there must be (and this is what the courts try to do) some assignment of equity to say, a stay at home spouse who relinquished earning an income to instead contribute to the wealth of the family by enabling the working spouse. The courts are pretty formulaic about this honestly. And most typically that applies to marriages with children born of the marriage. Step children and kids who are not products of the marriage (unless they were legally adopted) are not seen in the same way. Think about it this way. If the non-working spouse had earning power of 100K per year and didn't work for 10 years, that's a million dollars of non-realized earnings. The courts factor stuff like this in when they figure alimony and child support obligations.

2. Nobody's child should be taken away or "time with the child" reduced down to 4 days out of a 30 day month. Again I concur. Now obviously there are exceptions to that in the case of abusive or dangerous or negligent parents, but barring that I agree with you. This is why in most states you have the week with mom/week with dad joint custody arrangement as the default setting in no-fault divorce cases. The court is the advocate for the interests of the minor children first, and the adults second. Or at least that is how its designed to work in most states in the US at the current time.

3. Nobody should have to pay a lifetime monthly check to someone they are no longer married to. To this I say it depends. One of my friends is a doctor. When he was in college he married his first wife. She paid his way through medical school with her income. Once he was in practice she did not work outside the home as he preferred and she assisted him in running his practice without a salary. She raised the children until they divorced and was a full time at home spouse. She's got a college degree and her paycheck and career supported him through his professional education to the tune of six figures. He didn't have med school loans or the associated interest because her income put him through school. She had the ability to earn 80-100K annually, which she gave up at his request. They were married 10 years so this is approaching a million dollars in unrealized income she could have generated. Alimony is reasonable in a case like this because she made the financial investment and bet on his future and the family future. He was assigned to pay her 75K annually.

And this lady is no saint...she also knew how to work the laws such that my friend was having to pay the alimony even though she was living with another man (which by statute causes the alimony to cease in IL, where they all live.) So do I think the 1st wife sought to take advantage of the situation? Absolutely. But should she have been essentially repaid for her financial sacrifices that enabled him to reach his goals? Yes I find that reasonable enough. So I see alimony and child support more on the merits case by case.

Here's how that resolved by the way...My doctor friend and his 2nd wife were eventually able to get the alimony payment stopped because of the 1st wife's living arrangements with the new man. Several hundred thousand in legal fees and private investigator fees later. So its a sobering example in the end...but I do think there is merit in the original intent of the court in this sort of case.

I don't think there should be "no fault" divorce either and the think the courts ought to give some weight to immorality if say one of the spouses is caught cheating too...but the courts long ago got out of trying to mandate morality. So I agree getting divorced is now too easy compared to how it once was.

So believe me @Tenacity I understand the beef you have with the marriage contract. At this point I have essentially the same beef where I'm concerned personally. I still think the nuclear married family is best for child rearing however, and I will always believe that. In the end we all have to decide what best serves us individually. There is no risk free path. Its more a question of what risks do you find reasonable, and what are your needs and desires in your relationships. Those are questions we must each answer individually.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

You can cook and clean for yourself. You also have no idea how long the chick will "remain" in such happy and positive "state" going forward. Again, what are the DIRECT benefits, rewards, and advantages that a Man receives from signing a Marriage Contract? Stop with your "female like" personal attacks and answer a DIRECT question. If you have NO ANSWER, I understand because neither does anybody else in this discussion because there honestly is NO ANSWER.....which means a Man signing a Marriage contract is 90% of the time doing something that benefits other people but not himself.

They take up some of the small annoyances that you would otherwise have to deal with i.e. the examples previously listed. You may do them yourself, but they can take up that mantle of the relationship. It's called 'making life easier'. Most women don't do that, but those are the reasons why a man would wish to get married.

Again, more "female-like" personal attacks followed up with "lol" or "lmao". Whatever POINT you are trying to make, can be made without this crap. I suggest you edit your posts. Now, in regards to "virgins" being clingy AF, that's subjective and case-by-case.

Those aren't female attacks. They're much more obvious and direct. If it were, you wouldn't be able to recognize it. But you're so butthurt that you have to say I'm a female. Quit trying to twist it around. You are the one trying to get me to argue with you. And if there's anything female-like within our posts, it's yours. Talking ABOUT someone while tagging them in a post is like when a snooty chick talks about another chick to one of her girlfriends in front of that same chick as if she wasn't there. That is probably the prissiest thing you could have done. Grab hold of your balls man (note, women don't make remarks like that btw). Quit caring so much about what some random people think. That's what MEN typically do. I should know...

Didn't I say that @sazc and her "buddy" here were trying hard to remove the Red Pill Posters off the website? What is ITDF's statements above trying to do? That's right....provoke me into bickering back and forth. I mean, look how HARD ITDF is trying to do it though.....I'm ready for this "person" to start cracking "momma" jokes.

This shows your lack of knowledge of women. They almost NEVER make 'momma' jokes, only dudes do that crap. With all of your emotional drivel, I might have started to believe that you are a woman.

Tell you what I'm going to do though, as I know what you and @sazc's agenda is, I'm going to report your post. And I'm going to see if the Moderators (who are clearly in @sazc corner) remove, edit, or give you a warning for clearly flaming another poster. And I'm doing that because I'm tired of the double standard where other Red Pill commentators are banned, but people like YOU can just continue to make these "statements" and nothing happens.

I still do contribute to the forum more than you without turning things into a flame war all the time. That's why you got banned. Everyone who disagrees with you is somehow effeminate in some way? That's exactly why PK, bigneil, and you got banned the first time. And it'll be the same reason you guys get banned again several months from now. You have no self-control. If you had read the forums from when you and him were both banned, you would have seen just how much respect had been given between each of the members even if there were disagreements. If everything is wrong around you but not others, Tenacity, you have to ask yourself what the common denominator is. Go ahead and report me. All it will do is close this thread down.

 

[Macaframalama]

The problem here is simply that these men are howling because someone reacted viscerally to the statement I made because it really bugs them on a deep level.

The ego really is a mfr.

Not going to interrupt women relentlessly pushing marriage on a men's forum.

No one is pushing marriage. If you are in the fvck around stage, there are plenty of women to fvck around with. Just so happens, the good ones don't exactly just give it away.

Well let’s look at it like this:

Again, respectfully you are 18.

You’re gay.

Again, respectfully or disrespectfully, you are 18

Humans are goal seeking organisms. The basic structure is like this:

1) Identify target.

2) Take action towards target.

3) Measure results of action.

4) Update as needed.

Everything else (forums, other people's opinions, misery sharing company,) is just noise.

All actions do one of two things:

Get you closer to your target

or

Not getting you closer to your target.

However, given the skill with which we deceive ourselves, this is much easier said than done.

You live, you try, you die.

Use your time wisely.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

It’s just a adapting the definition to a modern day one.

Blatantly disrespectfull, what in the actual fvck do you know of anything other, than modern? Not trying to pick on you, but it's rediculous at this point.

since i have things going on like making money, getting jacked, solving lifes problems for people an banging women, can someone pls cliffs this 9 page clusterfuk

Someone who finally has it figured out.
I'm sure the ban hammers are sure to ensue shortly and to that, I say swing away ladies. It's pretty sad, when the women smell of testosterone, more so than the men. You want something of value, you pay a premium. You desire chit, it costs you chit. You've got to pay to play b!tches.

 

[highSpeed]

Here's where I stand on the things you mention in the paragraphs above:

1. Nobody should be taken to the cleaners. I concur. However the courts take a different stance that there must be (and this is what the courts try to do) some assignment of equity to say, a stay at home spouse who relinquished earning an income to instead contribute to the wealth of the family by enabling the working spouse. The courts are pretty formulaic about this honestly. And most typically that applies to marriages with children born of the marriage. Step children and kids who are not products of the marriage (unless they were legally adopted) are not seen in the same way. Think about it this way. If the non-working spouse had earning power of 100K per year and didn't work for 10 years, that's a million dollars of non-realized earnings. The courts factor stuff like this in when they figure alimony and child support obligations.

2. Nobody's child should be taken away or "time with the child" reduced down to 4 days out of a 30 day month. Again I concur. Now obviously there are exceptions to that in the case of abusive or dangerous or negligent parents, but barring that I agree with you. This is why in most states you have the week with mom/week with dad joint custody arrangement as the default setting in no-fault divorce cases. The court is the advocate for the interests of the minor children first, and the adults second. Or at least that is how its designed to work in most states in the US at the current time.

3. Nobody should have to pay a lifetime monthly check to someone they are no longer married to. To this I say it depends. One of my friends is a doctor. When he was in college he married his first wife. She paid his way through medical school with her income. Once he was in practice she did not work outside the home as he preferred and she assisted him in running his practice without a salary. She raised the children until they divorced and was a full time at home spouse. She's got a college degree and her paycheck and career supported him through his professional education to the tune of six figures. He didn't have med school loans or the associated interest because her income put him through school. She had the ability to earn 80-100K annually, which she gave up at his request. They were married 10 years so this is approaching a million dollars in unrealized income she could have generated. Alimony is reasonable in a case like this because she made the financial investment and bet on his future and the family future. He was assigned to pay her 75K annually.

And this lady is no saint...she also knew how to work the laws such that my friend was having to pay the alimony even though she was living with another man (which by statute causes the alimony to cease in IL, where they all live.) So do I think the 1st wife sought to take advantage of the situation? Absolutely. But should she have been essentially repaid for her financial sacrifices that enabled him to reach his goals? Yes I find that reasonable enough. So I see alimony and child support more on the merits case by case.

Here's how that resolved by the way...My doctor friend and his 2nd wife were eventually able to get the alimony payment stopped because of the 1st wife's living arrangements with the new man. Several hundred thousand in legal fees and private investigator fees later. So its a sobering example in the end...but I do think there is merit in the original intent of the court in this sort of case.

I don't think there should be "no fault" divorce either and the think the courts ought to give some weight to immorality if say one of the spouses is caught cheating too...but the courts long ago got out of trying to mandate morality. So I agree getting divorced is now too easy compared to how it once was.

So believe me @Tenacity I understand the beef you have with the marriage contract. At this point I have essentially the same beef where I'm concerned personally. I still think the nuclear married family is best for child rearing however, and I will always believe that. In the end we all have to decide what best serves us individually. There is no risk free path. Its more a question of what risks do you find reasonable, and what are your needs and desires in your relationships. Those are questions we must each answer individually.

Let's see, taking to the cleaners, there's no way to tell what would have happened. Perhaps she would have quit her job and gone back to school. And once again, you're wrong, or at least, leaving things out. It is also taken into account just as much, how much the man made when they entered the relationship and what he made when the relationship is exited. You have 100k going in and 10million going out, not going to matter that she could have made a max of 1 million, she's getting 5 and she's getting child support. The child support will coincidentally enough, be factored on the 10 million you're worth, not the 5 million you're leaving with. So your formula is a bit off (I'm being nice, I think you're lying but oh well, why bicker of splitting hairs, you're still wrong)

Nobody's child should be taken away? yep, that's why most guys only see their kids on the weekends and some holidays. Wonder why the kids are alienated and in many cases, end up calling some other guy "dad." yet, he still pays the bills and makes sure they're provided for, yet is spit on every chance she and the kids get. If the court were really advocating in the interests in the child, one side of the parenting equation would not be limited in such a way. Studies show one parent household children are much more likely to be abused, depressed, poor school performance and more likely to commit crime, to name a few. And most of those "single" parent households are women.

Nobody should have to pay a lifetime check? Wrong again, if we were truly advocating the interest of being fair, your scenario, again, narrow and myopic in scope, would be considered an investment. You invest say, 500k and you usually get a certain percentage in return, your ROI. A good ROI would generally be considered 10%. If you got more than that, you're doing excellent. So you're suggesting that a 500k investment or so should be worth 75k annually for the rest of his life? You don't invest 500k and get 80 thousand a year, that's called indentured servitude.

 

[BeExcellent]

Why you're on here, a forum for men, I have no idea.

I've already answered that question elsewhere.

I didn't protect my assets from my wife before we got married. I was naive and noble in intentions but I never expected my wife to behave like an entitled brat. She presented herself much differently when we were dating.

She doesn't do her part. I never, ever, would have expected her to act like this.

My husband was similar to your wife in this way. He presented one way and was in fact not as advertised. I never expected my husband to behave in an entitled and utterly lazy way. I too was naive and noble in intention. I got married expecting to be so until death, as I expect you did also. But each of us is only in charge or half the relationship as we both discovered in our respective situations. That is a tough thing to realize.

Being nice is not a crime. Being a good person is not something to be looked down upon.

But please, don't pretend like it's something that the "nice" guy is doing wrong.

These are things I've never said. I think being a good person is great. That's different than "nice guy game" - where the dude is angling for something because he's acting in a certain way with a hidden agenda. I think "nice guy game" is disingenuous. Being a good man is all good.

So I've never run people down for being good men/genuinely nice people. If you think I did...quote me. You are projecting. I'm not your ex wife.

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, PERIOD!!!!

OK. I disagree obviously. No worries.

 

[BeExcellent]

Let's see, taking to the cleaners, there's no way to tell what would have happened. Perhaps she would have quit her job and gone back to school. And once again, you're wrong, or at least, leaving things out. It is also taken into account just as much, how much the man made when they entered the relationship and what he made when the relationship is exited. You have 100k going in and 10million going out, not going to matter that she could have made a max of 1 million, she's getting 5 and she's getting child support. The child support will coincidentally enough, be factored on the 10 million you're worth, not the 5 million you're leaving with. So your formula is a bit off (I'm being nice, I think you're lying but oh well, why bicker of splitting hairs, you're still wrong)

Nobody's child should be taken away? yep, that's why most guys only see their kids on the weekends and some holidays. Wonder why the kids are alienated and in many cases, end up calling some other guy "dad." yet, he still pays the bills and makes sure they're provided for, yet is spit on every chance she and the kids get. If the court were really advocating in the interests in the child, one side of the parenting equation would not be limited in such a way. Studies show one parent household children are much more likely to be abused, depressed, poor school performance and more likely to commit crime, to name a few. And most of those "single" parent households are women.

Nobody should have to pay a lifetime check? Wrong again, if we were truly advocating the interest of being fair, your scenario, again, narrow and myopic in scope, would be considered an investment. You invest say, 500k and you usually get a certain percentage in return, your ROI. A good ROI would generally be considered 10%. If you got more than that, you're doing excellent. So you're suggesting that a 500k investment or so should be worth 75k annually for the rest of his life? You don't invest 500k and get 80 thousand a year, that's called indentured servitude.

Now you really are projecting complete nonsense. Can you read English? Serious question. I answered the questions Tenacity posed. Tenancity asked for my opinion on the items above. MY OPINION DIFFERS FROM THE WAY THE COURTS BEHAVE.

I also explained the rationale the courts use. NOT ME, the COURTS. My father was a divorce attorney for many years and my own divorce attorney was a judge on the bench in family court for 25 years. My mother and father both worked as lawyers for a state Attorney General. That is why I stayed OUT of court. I KNEW if I ended up in court I would get hosed. I didn't get hosed because I know the landscape and made the necessary adjustments (negotiating an agreement with my ex that serves the needs of all involved.)

You are again howling because you don't like something. Go gripe to the court system. Not my fault and not my problem. Go read case law and see for yourself. Read the state statutes and look at how they are interpretted. It varies county by county and judge by judge to a point, but the statutes are what they are. I didn't create them. But you want to tell me they are wrong as though I wrote them? What non-sense.

 

[highSpeed]

Now you really are projecting complete nonsense. I answered the questions Tenacity posed. I also explained the rationale the courts use. NOT ME, the COURTS. My father was a divorce attorney for many years and my own divorce attorney was a judge on the bench in family court for 25 years. My mother and father both worked as lawyers for a state Attorney General. Trust me I know what I'm talking about. That is why I stayed OUT of court. I KNEW if I ended up in court I would get hosed. I didn't get hosed because I know the landscape and made the necessary adjustments (negotiating an agreement with my ex that serves the needs of all involved.)

You are again howling because you don't like something. Not my fault and not my problem. Go read case law and see for yourself. Read the state statutes and look at how they are interpretted. It varies county by county and judge by judge to a point, but the statutes are what they are. I didn't create them. But you want to tell me they are wrong as though I wrote them? What non-sense.

These "laws" were put in place to facilitate the billions that flow through family court each year. The intention, supposedly, was to right the wrong and imbalances that women experienced before the advent of no fault divorce. What actually happened was for men to be over exposed to draconian rules. For men like myself, caught between older generations and newer ones, the ground literally changed overnight. If you sat me down and gave me the real facts ahead of time, I most likely never would have gotten married. I had no idea what I was walking into and no one to really guide me. The people who pushed for these laws were largely women, so your gender has had a huge hand in making society this way, combined with a bunch of white knighter men who bent over backwards to screw over other men.

I know the law, I've been through family court. I know what's on the line for a man, forget about the emotional loss and loss of connection with children. You're pedaling information that is false, I know it to be false. Child support and divorce cares little for what the woman makes. They only care about what the breadwinner makes. In your case, again rare, you were the breadwinner. It wouldn't have mattered what your husband could have made. It only would have mattered what you made at the time. And by the way, for child support, even after the divorce, if you begin to make more, you can be taken back to court to reassess what your penance is.

Your exhusband, most men, are not going to go to court to battle the woman, even if she is the breadwinner, so again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Women know the court is their ticket to get paid. How many women you know avoid court when they know they can get paid and be nice? yep, I'll be waiting for awhile for you to find that unicorn.

The point is, your "rationales", are mostly based on your experience, not the majority. I know from my own situation and from watching the documentary, divorce corp, that I'm right. Women, you're included, have been working hard to destroy society. You peddle falsehoods and then wonder why someone calls you on it? Are you that obtuse?

 

[Tenacity]

......

Okay you are back on Ignore. Have a nice day.

 

[Tenacity]

My husband was similar to your wife in this way. He presented one way and was in fact not as advertised. I never expected my husband to behave in an entitled and utterly lazy way. I too was naive and noble in intention. I got married expecting to be so until death, as I expect you did also. But each of us is only in charge or half the relationship as we both discovered in our respective situations. That is a tough thing to realize..

I also explained the rationale the courts use. NOT ME, the COURTS. My father was a divorce attorney for many years and my own divorce attorney was a judge on the bench in family court for 25 years. My mother and father both worked as lawyers for a state Attorney General. That is why I stayed OUT of court. I KNEW if I ended up in court I would get hosed..

So B.E. here's the thing, these two quotes above, are literally every thing I've been stating in relation to recommending that the majority of Men do not get married. Let's recap:

- The status and structure of the relationship at the time of your marriage, completely changed during the middle of it due to NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN, but due to the fact that your partner completely changed. Despite all of your efforts, staying in the relationship would have been a disaster. This is in spite of you thinking positive, listening to Joel Osteen tapes, repeating positive affirmations, having faith, and doing all of the Positive Thinking stuff you talked about. None of that changed your husband back into being a responsible adult.

- The Courts are setup in a way, based on the Marriage Contract, to take the person to the cleaners that was the most financially responsible and secured if the other spouse sees "fit" to do so. Which means, once again, through NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN you can be financially bankrupt or set back.

B.E. the reason I've been against the Marriage Contract, is for these same reasons. Reasons that are ALL out of my control. I can't think positive, have faith, listen to Joel Osteen tapes, or do anything of the sort to remove these very problems with the Marriage Contract.

I'm just confused B.E., because during the Marriage Thread Debate, when I was stating these same reasons for why Men should NOT get married.....you told me I was too negative and I needed to listen to some Joel Osteen tapes, SMILE, and be more positive. You said THAT was my problem (I'm too negative), not that the Marriage Contract is inefficient.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Blatantly disrespectfull, what in the actual fvck do you know of anything other, than modern? Not trying to pick on you, but it's rediculous at this point.

Have you by any chance ever watched television? Or seen a movie with the slightest hints of romance? Or read any sort of Greek tragedy or novel tied in with the slightest bits of anything even remotely related to the concept of man and woman ever? Ever asked your father or mother about marriage and their understanding of it?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how things used to be like throughout history up until this point. These are things most normal people run across throughout their life.... At least I thought so anyway.

 

[Macaframalama]

Have you by any chance ever watched television? Or seen a movie with the slightest hints of romance? Or read any sort of Greek tragedy or novel tied in with the slightest bits of anything even remotely related to the concept of man and woman ever? Ever asked your father or mother about marriage and their understanding of it?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how things used to be like throughout history up until this point. These are things most normal people run across throughout their life.... At least I thought so anyway.

I have. I also watch NCAA and NFL football and despite playing highschool ball, I don't pretend to know what it's like to play at that level. I can speculate, but that's just what it is. Speculation. Television, art and ppl's recollection of the past are normally, highly romanticized. The Scarlet Letter was written in the 1800's and King Henry the VIII had his wife's head lopped off for suspicions of cheating. One thing I do know, trends will come and trends will go. An emergence of values will precede a resurgence, but regardless there will be those that stand steadfast in their beliefs.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I have. I also watch NCAA and NFL football and despite playing highschool ball, I don't pretend to know what it's like to play at that level. I can speculate, but that's just what it is. Speculation. Television, art and ppl's recollection of the past are normally, highly romanticized. The Scarlet Letter was written in the 1800's and King Henry the VIII had his wife's head lopped off for suspicions of cheating. One thing I do know, trends will come and trends will go. An emergence of values will precede a resurgence, but regardless there will be those that stand steadfast in their beliefs.

Understand this: the belief I had as a small child about how women were is the way that BE is saying how many women today are. I say it is not true, they exist only in a certain way. Then I gave general criteria for how said women exist. BE said that’s what she was trying to say all along, but the wording was very poor in her previous thread to where no one would be able to discern that from it (or perhaps she wasn’t, only claims to have been saying that; who knows at this point?). I simply redefined what she was saying to fit the type of woman that you can actually find. You can add to it Atom Smasher’s ideas about molding into it as well. There’s your unicorn. Affect her for life, and she’s yours forever. That’s the basic premise of it. I’m just combining what others have said. “You’re 18, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about” then neither do the 60 year olds on the website.

 

[ubercat]

As one of the lurking silvertips I can't unashamedly say I've learnt plenty from some of the young guys here nothing wrong with fresh perspectives. I also had plenty of pm's from young guys asking advice on a personal level. The smart ones know how to pick up what is useful.

 

[Tenacity]

Here's where I stand on the things you mention in the paragraphs above:

1. Nobody should be taken to the cleaners. I concur. However the courts take a different stance that there must be (and this is what the courts try to do) some assignment of equity to say, a stay at home spouse who relinquished earning an income to instead contribute to the wealth of the family by enabling the working spouse. The courts are pretty formulaic about this honestly. And most typically that applies to marriages with children born of the marriage. Step children and kids who are not products of the marriage (unless they were legally adopted) are not seen in the same way. Think about it this way. If the non-working spouse had earning power of 100K per year and didn't work for 10 years, that's a million dollars of non-realized earnings. The courts factor stuff like this in when they figure alimony and child support obligations.

But who told her to stay home? Most of the women I'm meeting who want the "marriage stuff" all talk about how once they have a baby, they are going to DEMAND to be home with the baby for at least the first 1 to 5 years before the baby heads off to grade school. So let's say she can earn $60,000 that would be a loss of $300,000.

So the woman can DEMAND and make herself a stay at home spouse, and I have to be on the hook to pay for it?

As you know, I'm black, nearly 80% of our households are single mother households. The argument that you need one spouse to stay at home to "watch the kids" is a very outdated argument as the black community is prime example as to how you don't need that at all.

The spouse that could earn $75k to $100k per year should have remained working and the couple could have paid a day care or other family members to watch the kid. That's the plan I would want to follow, but literally NO WOMAN I'm meeting with the "marriage stuff on her mind" believes in that. Hmmm...I wonder why (*cough* they want that alimony *cough*)?

2. Nobody's child should be taken away or "time with the child" reduced down to 4 days out of a 30 day month. Again I concur.

Now obviously there are exceptions to that in the case of abusive or dangerous or negligent parents, but barring that I agree with you. This is why in most states you have the week with mom/week with dad joint custody arrangement as the default setting in no-fault divorce cases. The court is the advocate for the interests of the minor children first, and the adults second. Or at least that is how its designed to work in most states in the US at the current time.

The problem is that it happens far too often though. You know how easy it is for a chick to put a guy in jail for Domestic Violence? Literally, the rules are that if the cops are called for it and show up, somebody has to be put in jail. A chick could call DV on you for literally nothing and the cops believe it. You could have just gotten your a.ss beat and she could say you beat her a.ss. So chicks can LIE and the system far too often believes their lies.

3. Nobody should have to pay a lifetime monthly check to someone they are no longer married to. To this I say it depends.

One of my friends is a doctor. When he was in college he married his first wife. She paid his way through medical school with her income. Once he was in practice she did not work outside the home as he preferred and she assisted him in running his practice without a salary. She raised the children until they divorced and was a full time at home spouse. She's got a college degree and her paycheck and career supported him through his professional education to the tune of six figures. He didn't have med school loans or the associated interest because her income put him through school. She had the ability to earn 80-100K annually, which she gave up at his request. They were married 10 years so this is approaching a million dollars in unrealized income she could have generated. Alimony is reasonable in a case like this because she made the financial investment and bet on his future and the family future. He was assigned to pay her 75K annually.

So this is one of those "perfect examples" for assigning alimony, even though in this example I don't believe alimony should have been assigned. I don't believe in alimony at all. If a chick legitimately HELPED me build my business, she should get an upfront CUT of that and be done.....no on-going fvcking residuals for life. That is insane.

Plus if alimony is to maintain the lifestyle of one spouse (the non paying spouse) why isn't the lifestyle of the paying spouse not required to be maintained? So in your example, why isn't the chick required to STILL come and help him run the practice if he's going to be required to keep paying her? Answer that question...........

So believe me @Tenacity I understand the beef you have with the marriage contract. At this point I have essentially the same beef where I'm concerned personally.

This is a very PERSONAL thing to me as well. If I marry some chick and the divorce occurs, I run back on this forum and I have to listen to you or @guru1000 tell me that I was the MAIN CAUSE of the divorce because I missed steps #13 and #135 in the "150 Things A Man Must Follow To Maintain A Good Marriage", I will be further enraged.

Story short, you see how I blow up on here? There will be no more blowing up. This time I would actually do something that would either put me in prison or in a grave, or hell.....both. So it's best I do not participate in this. Maybe yourself, Guru, and others can be taken to the cleaners, or have a bad divorce, or whatever....and "just SMILE about it and go on with life". I can't do that.

If a chick takes my fvcking hard earned money, that she had NOTHING to do with helping me build....I will be on CNN News. I guarantee you that. It's not a threat, it's a promise. I don't play around with bytches trying to take my hard earned money from me.

She had NOTHING to do with helping me get it, I don't give a fvck about some "she stayed home with the kids" argument (when I didn't even WANT her a.ss to stay home, she demanded to stay home), in the black community the GRANDMA usually raises the kid(s) while the Momma and Daddy are off working. So why doesn't GRANDMA get a fvcking lifetime residual check then?

The whole Family Court system is bullshyt and I will never participate in it. Everrrrrrr. There isn't shyt that's efficient about it. Hell, I know chicks right now with kids from Ray Ray and Pookie, the Family Court doesn't make Ray Ray get a job, get a degree, or do shyt to even buy a Happy Meal for his kids. But the good man, the working man, the educated man, and the stand up man....all have to be fvcked in the a.ss?? I will neverrr participate in this shyt. Everrrrrrr.

 

[BeExcellent]

So B.E. here's the thing, these two quotes above, are literally every thing I've been stating in relation to recommending that the majority of Men do not get married. Let's recap:

- The status and structure of the relationship at the time of your marriage, completely changed during the middle of it due to NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN, but due to the fact that your partner completely changed. Despite all of your efforts, staying in the relationship would have been a disaster. This is in spite of you thinking positive, listening to Joel Osteen tapes, repeating positive affirmations, having faith, and doing all of the Positive Thinking stuff you talked about. None of that changed your husband back into being a responsible adult.

- The Courts are setup in a way, based on the Marriage Contract, to take the person to the cleaners that was the most financially responsible and secured if the other spouse sees "fit" to do so. Which means, once again, through NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN you can be financially bankrupt or set back.

B.E. the reason I've been against the Marriage Contract, is for these same reasons. Reasons that are ALL out of my control. I can't think positive, have faith, listen to Joel Osteen tapes, or do anything of the sort to remove these very problems with the Marriage Contract.

I'm just confused B.E., because during the Marriage Thread Debate, when I was stating these same reasons for why Men should NOT get married.....you told me I was too negative and I needed to listen to some Joel Osteen tapes, SMILE, and be more positive. You said THAT was my problem (I'm too negative), not that the Marriage Contract is inefficient.

No need for confusion Tenacity. Not every marriage includes a partner that goes south. Good lasting marriages do not. I picked the man I married and I've sometimes wondered if I had it to do over would I have still picked him. I think so.

My father insisted that my mother be an at home wife and mother. Despite my mother being a lawyer too...she only reentered the workforce (which she resented being removed from) when we were all older. My father insisted that my step mother was a stay at home spouse. I know many couples where the woman stays home as it is the husband's strong preference she do so. There is a very conservative large Catholic community where I am. The families are large and many drive 8 passenger vans to haul the broods of kids. Those families are intact and the wife stays home. Kinda necessary with 5 or more children. These are good solid families. They stay together and the ones I know well could only be described as happily married.

If you read and Google you'll find the it's becoming a status thing to have more children and afford the luxury of an at home spouse/parent. In affluent circles it's always been what was expected in the way of family structure. I can't think of a single instance in my own family where the wives went to work outside the home other than in my generation.

But I'm from a different cultural time to a degree as I have statedand family dynamics expectations were different. My grandmother was born the year the Titanic sank and my dad was born during the Great Depression.

So back to my point that whether or not you ought to marry is an individual choice made at an individual level based on the two people in the relationship. And no...you cannot remove ALL downside risk aka whether your spouse is going to become different. I mean you can't remove all sorts of risk, such as whether your spouse gets disabled or crippled or dies either.

Life has risk. Make choices based on what you can mitigate/what's acceptable to you individually. That's called every person looking out for their own best interest. Find someone whose views line up with your own.

Not rocket science.

 

[Tenacity]

My father insisted that my mother be an at home wife and mother.

I can't think of a single instance in my own family where the wives went to work outside the home other than in my generation.

But I'm from a different cultural time to a degree as I have statedand family dynamics expectations were different. My grandmother was born the year the Titanic sank and my dad was born during the Great Depression.

Completely different time, culture, and market B.E. The women back then got married to ONE guy when they were 18 to 21. There was no Ray Ray and Pookie "thug dyck amusement park riding" going on back then, then once the chick turned 28 she looked to settle down with some dude and make him take care of 4 kids from 4 thugs who are locked up in 4 different prisons.

You can't compare that Generation to my Generation (Millennials). You can't compare that. Plus, just the difference in cost of living, women now being able to get jobs EASIER than a lot of men can, etc.

And no...you cannot remove ALL downside risk aka whether your spouse is going to become different. I mean you can't remove all sorts of risk, such as whether your spouse gets disabled or crippled or dies either.

Exactly.

Life has risk.

But I'm not sure why you keep repeating this specific statement lol?

- B.E., do you walk into a restaurant to eat where there's mice running across the floor? WHY? It's because it's a health risk right? So what if I told you: "Well, B.E., life has risk.....anywhere you eat can have a health risk, so just go ahead and sit down and let this filthy restaurant serve you." What would you say to that lol??

- So B.E., I have a piece of property I want you to buy. But you inspect the property and the area, and determine that it's not worth investing in because your analysis shows that you probably won't be able to turn a profit flipping the house nor renting it out. So what if I told you:"Well....B.E.....life has risk, many properties aren't profitable, but you have to take a risk. So where do you want to sign at for the purchase of this property? Would you be paying via Cashier's Check?"

- So B.E., I'm a Sales Rep for Comcast. I want to sell you my TV, Phone, and Internet Package. You like the customized package I've provided but you notice that the term of the Agreement is 10 years with a $15,000 early cancellation fee. You request that I reduce down the early cancellation fee and I say: "Well....B.E....life has risk, we are a solid company and you won't need to cancel, but should you need to cancel, the $15,000 cancellation fee is just a part of Life. Again, life has risks. So how would you like for me to send you the contract to sign? Via email or fax? Could you fax it back today?

You don't SIGN UP for things that make your life more risky WITHOUT any identified rewards, benefits, advantages, or any life enhancements whatsoever to be acquired. If someone is presenting you a bad deal, a bad contract, a bad arrangement.........the last thing anybody should say to you is that "Life Has Risks" as some sort of justification to sign a BAD CONTRACT.

Lol, B.E. I could just imagine saying something like that to a client. I mean let's just say I really put some hidden fees in there, bump up his early termination fee, all types of shyt to where it's just a very bad contract.....then when the client asks me to modify the very bad contract....I tell his a.ss: "Sir, Life Has Risks"

 

[Bible_Belt]

And this lady is no saint...she also knew how to work the laws such that my friend was having to pay the alimony even though she was living with another man (which by statute causes the alimony to cease in IL, where they all live.).

Just to elaborate on what you said so no one misreads it, she was living with another man who had income. Household income is what causes the alimony to cease. She can have as many new men as she likes and still keep the alimony, until she lives with one who has a job.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

Just to elaborate on what you said so no one misreads it, she was living with another man who had income. Household income is what causes the alimony to cease. She can have as many new men as she likes and still keep the alimony, until she lives with one who has a job.

In my state it's known as a "supportive relationship". And yes, it takes time and $ to prove the supportive relationship.

And until you can prove it in court (if you can), you get the joy of paying the rent when your ex and her boyfriend live.

-Augustus-

 

[Sho-No-Luv]

Completely different time, culture, and market B.E. The women back then got married to ONE guy when they were 18 to 21. There was no Ray Ray and Pookie "thug dyck amusement park riding" going on back then, then once the chick turned 28 she looked to settle down with some dude and make him take care of 4 kids from 4 thugs who are locked up in 4 different prisons.

You can't compare that Generation to my Generation (Millennials). You can't compare that. Plus, just the difference in cost of living, women now being able to get jobs EASIER than a lot of men can, etc.

Yeah man. I hope I don't get banned for saying this but honestly, I wish that part of the black community would just die off!!!

That's what needs to happen at this point, because black women love the worst type of black men that they can find, and ignore the scholarly types until later. But honestly, I have to conclude that most black women have inferior intellects, they along with thirty percent of black men have ruined the community and need to be eradicated.

Sorry mods..

Yes, I said it, I wish all the thugs and thug lovers, along with the simp enablers would just die!!!