Would you still live in North America if you had to pay alimony to every girl you date? We all have experienced some form of rejection in our dating life and people nowadays are so scared to commit to a relationship that you almost have to manipulate your way into peoples life in order to be successful. Now, what if some group of feminist extremist managed to changed our legal system in a way that Men have to pay alimony to girls they date. She doesn't even have to be pregnant, simply you dated her (I'll let the word dating - Undefined) and the government sends his hounds (lawyers, police, army and bureacracy) on your hard earned effort and strips you of your money every now and then because somebody you dated has close tabs on your PAYCHECK.
- I'd probably kill myselfVote A
- I'd probably work to change it back the way it was, NegotiationsVote B
- I'd probably change country or continentVote C
- I'd probably change sex over night. To femaleVote D
- I'd probably think of something not mentioned (be creative)...add below or debate this.Vote E
Most Helpful Guy
Ugh, why do people call it alimony? It's "spousal maintenance."
Secondly, I recently had this discussion with a female attorney practicing in Florida. The question was whether a high-earning male should be obligated to pay a non-earning female he has been in a relationship with for over 12 years and has 2 children with.
Right off the bat, the issue of children goes out the window. We have child support laws for that. Child support takes care of the children regardless whether the couple is married or unmarried.
Next, onto the issue of spousal maintenance. Her belief, as the attorney for the non-monied female partner, was that he should be liable for maintenance. My question, as the court's question would have been, was "under what legal basis does he owe her money?"
You see, "marriage" is a "contract." By entering into marriage, you're agreeing to two key things: (1) to split up your "property" in the event two people are no longer together, and (2) to give the other person your "income" in the event two people are no longer together. It's a pretty sh*tty deal if you're the one who stands to lose more property and income. Conversely, it's a pretty sweet deal if you're the one who stands to gain more property and income than you would have had without the marriage. Hence, why historically, one sex has zealously advocated for and praised what a wonderful thing marriage is (hint: it wasn't men).
But, the "obligation" to pay spousal maintenance arises from the contractual "duty" of the marriage contract. Absent that voluntary assumption of and change of legal relationships between two people, there is no duty to "maintain" the lifestyle another enjoyed.
So, in the context of our unmarried friends in Florida, if the woman no longer wanted to be with the man, he wouldn't enjoy her p***y, and she wouldn't enjoy his financial resources. Plain and simple. They're no longer together, they no longer enjoy the benefits of being together.
Now, I know what you're thinking. What if this woman sacrificed her promising and lucrative career as a history major in order to perform "the most difficult job in the planet" http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=rwPg2oarG_c
She can bring a suit against him for unjust enrichment (restitution), to recover for the value of services rendered. The value is measured by the FMV of services from him POV, not from her POV. So, if she watched the kids to enable him to work and earn $400,000 a year - that fact is irrelevant. All that's relevant is that a babysitter's services are worth $15-20 per hour, multiplied by however many hours she claims she babysat for the children.
The problem with that? Counter-claims. All of a sudden, all those "dinners" and "lunches" were not "gifts," but "food financing."1