As for when girls are clearly interested in a dudes financial situation and not the dude himself (Anna Nicole Smith as an example), and simply is waiting for the man to die so they can take the fortune, they are also sacrificing in a different way. Anna is one of the most beautiful girls on the planet and was in the prime of her life, and she traded the opportunity to be sleeping with tons of hot guys in her prime, in and instead had to sleep with an old decrepit slim bag for several years. That is also sacrifice as that would be some of the highest value years for seeking out a quality partner and she deserves compensation for that sacrifice too. She also made that old creepy dude extremely happy simultaneously and deserves are fair share of the value of their collective family fortune to be added to her account too. She's not just kissing him out of the goodness of her heart, and that creepy old man is clearly with her for her looks as opposed to being able to relate personally to her in any way. They are both using each other for their own respective reasons and equally benefiting from it so there is no reason not to finalize the exchange of that benefit in the end.
Could have been much shorter I guess...
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
but she decided to marry an A-hole so she's responsible for her financial difficulties and she can still get a job. And about child support, when you look at it logically, the parent who cannot look after the kids financially, shouldn't get the custody in the first place.
@alwaysintosomething Just because people get divorced it doesn't always mean someone was an asshole. Shit happens. A woman with 4 kids and no work history can't get a job with any living wage. Child care for 4 kids would cost more than she makes so child support is definitely needed as well as alimony.
exactly, that woman cannot afford to raise 4 kids, meaning she shouldn't get custody. When a marriage fails I blame the man and the woman. Even if they are decent people, they made a big mistake when they decided to have 4 kids when they weren't sure that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Taking money out of the man's paycheck and giving it to the woman to sit on her ass, is society bending over backwards to please a woman who doesn't even want to work hard to raise her kids.
@alwaysintosomething You sound jaded because you got screwed in a divorce. A lot of the men would not want custody of their children because they wouldn't be able to go carousing around for a one night stand anymore. Plus, like I said, the cost of child care would mean they wouldn't have much money either if they didn't have a 6 figure income.
lmao. I'm 24. What divorce?
@alwaysintosomething You sound like a cantankerous old goat.
It's called being smart. Instead of reading the thesaurus all the way through, try reading some other books maybe about gender issues and you'll understand what I'm saying.
Every job requires a boss. If the man ends up paying her a salary then that would make him her boss.
@Beth12345 wth are you talking about?
@alwaysintosomething I don't even think you know what you are saying. Maybe if you were a housewife for 15 years and got divorced you would know what I'm talking about. But being a hard core misogynist I don't think you would accept it because you think that with every divorce it was because someone was an asshole. Only an asshole would assume that so put that in your pipe and smoke it. Shit happens in everything, even marriages. And there is something else to smoke in your pipe, but maybe dry cow plop would work better for ya.
Failing at something doesn't make you an authority at that. I have never been married but I know a thing or two about failed marriages. Marriages never fail without mistakes. If this is too personal of a topic for you to discuss we can stop. I never meant to offend you. But don't call me a misogynist just because I gave you an opinion that you didn't like.
Then she should lose the kids. Period.
Actually as far as the comment "A lot of the men would not want custody of their children because they wouldn't be able to go carousing around for a one night stand anymore" This may have been true once, and may still be true for a very small percentage of men, however I've personally known more men to fight for custody in a divorce than women. Women just assume they'll get custody whether they deserve it or not and sadly our legal system is weighted HEAVILY against men in custody battles. So if what feminists are calling for is true equality in all things that means all the special privileges need to go away. A man should not be forced to pay alimony, if he loses the kids in a fair custody battle he should pay child support... but that custody case needs to be heard by a judge that won't go into the case with the mindset that the mother wins. I know some people don't think this happens but I saw it personally. My baby sister is truly a POS human being and when she was fighting for custody the judge gave her 5 freaking chances to pass a drug test, she failed all 5 before the judge ruled in the case and gave custody to her ex. I've NEVER heard of a man getting more than 1 chance to prove they should have the kids... let alone pass a drug test
@heymikeylikesitWell if the guy cheated on her I wouldn't blame her. Sometimes a woman spurned can be like a witch because he goes his merry way and she lies in ruins.
@Daniela1982 doesn’t matter, she’s getting half the assets and cash anyways, he shouldn’t be paying her to live every month too until she marries again
Women don't automatically get half of everything. It is on a case by case basis and you also have a lot of prenups so that too would be a factor. But I agree. You see some of these Hollywood divorces where the guy has to pay his wife $20,000 a month child support, or more. Must be they are used to rich living but that is ridiculous.
Well that should apply with the woman earning more and the husband was just a house husband and had no job. Well buddy, you get no alimony so I guess you will be homeless since your job you got at Walmart wouldn't even pay you enough to rent you a couch in someone's basement. At least not in good ole' California.
@Daniela1982 well if men had as many shelters as women have, they wouldn't become homeless and yes you can apply the same rule to men who are "house husbands" as few as they are.
@Daniela1982 Yes, it would apply as well if the woman earned more. It doesn't matter what sex someone is - the y need to be self-reliant. And if that means a househusband needs to get himself a big boy job, then so be it. About time he does.Or if he wishes to live off his Walmart salary, he really ought to move someplace with a lower cost of living than California. Hell, anyone who wants a more affordable life should move out of insanely high cost of living cities. Family and friends will stay in touch if they are good folks, and a new city could do a fresh divorcee good.
@Daniela1982 No problem. Most cases will affect women not men. And about time.
You're talking a tiny tiny tiny percentage of cases. There would be 98% of cases women wouldn't get alimony. Men wouldn't apply for it. Plus in cases where men could lose half their assets, even assets accumulated before he met she, this would be more than welcome.
I agree but then he/she would never see their kids.
That's a decision they have to make.But personally I think they'd be a terrible parent if they balk at the prospect of getting a harder job or spending the time and money to reskill themselves into a higher paying career just to stay involved in their kids' lives.Living, and especially parenting, requires sacrifice.Househusband/wife is gonna have to choose.
@Daniela1982 A house husband with no job happens once in how many cases? One in one hundred thousand?Give it a break.We're talking women who believe they are entitled. That's an issue.
@coffeewithcream I know 2 guys actually that I worked with at different times. Their wives had really good paying jobs so they quit to take care of the kids while she worked. I mean it must be nice, right?
@Daniela1982 I'm not coffeecream, but figured I'd toss my two cents in. It might be nice... But I know I'd go mad if I was stuck at home, and honestly having had a stay at home mother, I think it's better for the child if both parents work. Even if the dad only works part-time, it sets a good example for the kid and allows dad some time to be his own person.I know a man who's a househusband for 6-8 months of the year. The summer months, he works as a beekeeper. The wife works in the education sector, so often they end up "switching" who's the stay at home. He earns some income to supplement the family, the kid sees both parents working, and mom gets time with kiddo, too.But if they chose to divorce, I wouldn't support alimony for the husband. It just breeds dependence, and unjustly punishes the more affluent partner.We already see so many deadbeats who marry and divorce to build up alimony cheques. It devaules marriage as an emotional bond and makes it about dollar values. It seems backwards to me.
@Daniela1982 I've never known anyone like that. Nor have I met any man who would do that. Still, the issue is women getting money from males virtually for life once the relationship is over, no matter if the male ends up sleeping in their car.Women are blood sucking leaches. The rest are gold digging whores. Except my mother. She's independent and nice. :)
@Smoke-n-Growls The problem with both parents working is that they are working to pay child care. If it is only one child it wouldn't be too much, but if you had 4 little ones you might pay $1,000 a month or more. With COVID-19 you may have to stay home and take care of the kids as you will be lucky to find childcare if you can at all. So who would be the one to stay home? The one making the lower salary you would think. The way things have been going you may have to do that for quite a long time. So being a house wife or husband could be a necessity.
@Daniela1982 If the parents can't afford to properly pay for their child, they shouldn't have had a child in the first place. That's quite backwards thinking removing income potential in order to try to save money. That's proven not to work. Shack up with an in-law and work out alternative solutions to childcare.Also, how is any of your point relevant to the original question about alimony? At this point it's an entirely different question.
@smoke-n-growlsWhen they had children years ago there was no COVID so your statement they shouldn't have had kids is a bit out of line. No one knows the future and having kids is a personal choice between the man and woman so they are both responsible for their care.
@Daniela1982 The question was about alimony, not childcare. Are you confusing the two? I agree there should be mandatory child support payments. A child is a shared responsibility. This means both parents need to share in the financial burden of childrearing.And you're right. No one knows the future.All the more reason to prepare as best you can.Being financially stable enough to afford children is a reasonable, logical, and honestly responsible thing to have as a "milestone" to hit before procreating.A child has no say in their birth. It therefore falls to the parents to ensure they are doing everything they can to set that child up for success.If that's not possible for a prospective parent to keep in mind before they have a child, it's only going to get harder when they do have a child.And then it's not just the parents suffering. It's the child - the one who had no control, no say, and no agency in the choice.Parenting is a big deal, and must be treated as such.
Child care costs have a lot to do with alimony and child support, especially the latter.
Child care, yes. Alimony not necessarily. You're answering a different question.
ex wives usually reap the benefits of both-they are both dumped into her checking account to use as she pleases. There is no accounting required of her to assure child support is spent on the kids. It does favor divorce and women initiate 80% of them.
Ah ok thanks for responding
the question was gender neutral. And I would expect that any non-working spouse would be completely responsible for the domestic sphere
This is why I generally think it’s best if both partners work.