Would you still live in North America if you had to pay alimony to every girl you date?

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 myself
    25% (1)0% (0)12% (1)Vote
  • I'd probably work to change it back the way it was, Negotiations
    25% (1)50% (2)38% (3)Vote
  • I'd probably change country or continent
    25% (1)25% (1)25% (2)Vote
  • I'd probably change sex over night. To female
    0% (0)0% (0)0% (0)Vote
  • I'd probably think of something not mentioned (be creative)...add below or debate this.
    25% (1)25% (1)25% (2)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
5|8

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" link

    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."

    0|1
    0|0
    • Point is, absent some legal basis such as a contractual "duty," there is no "obligation" to pay which a court can go ahead and enforce. If a court would try and create one, you would have 13th & 14th Amendment issues (i.e., prohibition against slavery, and fundamental right of privacy).

    • Wicked cool! 13th & 14th amendment

    • Yeah, so by all means, please feel free to go ahead and date, without worrying about being hauled into court in order to pay maintenance in the event of a break-up lol

What Girls Said 5

  • In marriage like relationship I would say it makes sense, but other than that it's completley absurd and it's not gonna happen

    0|0
    0|0
  • i don't think guys would

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think men would do it. They want our vaginas way more than women want d*ck

    0|0
    0|0
  • It amazes when men actually think women came up with alimony.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I know guys assume women love the alimony rule, but I never have. I think it's completely ridiculous that a woman (whether working or not) gets paid by someone she is no longer with. The ONLY time I agree with alimony, is if the marriage was set up in a traditional sense where the man wanted his wife to stay home with the kids while he went to work. Therefore, she has had no paying job to accrue money of her own, and no job experience to make her marketable. All because she was contributing to the family in a sense the job market does not value. Even then, alimony shouldn't be forever. That is the only sense I could see that being okay.

    1|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 7

  • That'd never happen. You'd have a better shot at winning the powerball in back to back drawings.

    To entertain you no. Because a lot of it would probably be rubble

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'd pump and dump. No dating allowed.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The good news is Alimony does not apply if you were never married to someone you dated (Except in child support cases) Where did you get the idea anyway? I've dated alot, and I'm not paying anyone at all!

    0|0
    0|0
  • What does North America have to do with any of this?

    0|0
    0|0
  • That wouldn't make any sense

    0|0
    0|0
    • The idea of alimony is to "pay for the time they were off the market/less desired while dating you." The idea was that one (usually the woman) would stop working so they could support the other (usually the man) and thus they were given compensation for that time not working.

      If he's extrapolating it to an even more ridiculous level, I could see his point. But it is a bit absurd it'd ever get that far.

    • Show All
    • Wow, that bitch is an idiot.

  • To be honest, this wouldn't happen, because basically it would be dividing pay among various women.

    You'll notice that women get very upset about alimony, when their new bf/husband is paying too much to his ex so she can't have his money.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It sounds ridiculous. Then again, LOTS of legal changes happen, even if they sound totally far-fetched.

    I would stop dating immediately. And eventually leave the country.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...