Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I'm sure you've seen this: A thread about women complaining that "all the good ones are either taken" or "men only go for younger women". The women on these threads always agree among themselves that the decks are stacked against them. Finally some sanity arrives...............
A divorced guy posts about his experience and tells them:
1) He got severely screwed in divorce and men should be warned.
2) The laws are stacked against men, WRT marriage, divorce, child rearing and other relationship issues.
3) Therefore, all the unmarried experienced (older than 35) men he knows, divorced or not will never consider marriage again.
How long before there will be a shaming post:
"You're so bitter. Its not like that, but no woman would want you anyway!"
I've never seen a guy write back to say: "Good, I guess that I've been saved!"
Can you imagine a safety site warning about auger safety. A guy who lost his arm, trying to clear a jam, warns men not to do this.
A woman then writes to say:
"You're just bitter. There will be no problem if you clear the jam with your other arm, but what auger would want to work for you anyway!"
Is there a difference?
Yeh, I've seen loads of women come here and post that there are no good men left and start telling us their sob stories.
Anyway, the men who are not in favour of marriage are usually the divorced men who have been done over and bum raped, and subsequently became bitter [can't blame them sometimes]. I have never been married. But I will probably get married one day, and eventually get divorced [the stats and odds are against me lol] and then I will probably swear of marriage forever and grow a bit resentful. Ah, life is so smooth and trouble-free.
Well, I'm not getting married any time soon. And I hope I never do,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorrans
But I will probably get married one day
Anyway.
While the OP is correct, the system can be biased in favour of the woman, particularly when it comes to children, it's not a reason not to get married.
It's a reason to choose more carefully.
I speak from experience, I was left bankrupt, lost two houses, and then the court put in an access order, which, as she refused to obey it, proved to be virtually unenforceable.
If I do it again, I'll either pick a better woman, or I'll hire a better lawyer !
Why is divorce so expensive ? Because it's worth it.
... the system can be biased in favour of the woman, particularly when it comes to children . . . I speak from experience, I was left bankrupt, lost two houses, and then the court put in an access order, which, as she refused to obey it, proved to be virtually unenforceable.
That's my point about gender bias - if the situation were reversed and the father had custody and there was an access order in place and he refused to obey it, they WOULD enforce it and probably remove custody from him and throw his hairy a$$ in jail. Women play their games witholding the children out of spite and the system turns a blind eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman
... Why is divorce so expensive ? Because it's worth it.
There is a many valid reasons why courts generally favor women in divorces.
1. Women generally raise the children, and that is WAY expensive, and usually will cost more than whatever she is getting from her ex
2. If she has kids, she needs the house, the car, etc.
3. Historically, women have been the ones to stay home and take care of the household, thus relinquishing their place in the workforce, making them close to unemployable when they re-enter.
A valid point with regard to mothers staying at home and then trying to reenter the workplace, especially in a down economy.
My problem (and I'm not divorced...not yet anyway ) is that most child support amounts and alimony amounts are based not on what is required to support the children or the ex-spouse, but rather on percentages of income and the "standard" to which they've "become accustomed." To me, that's where the father gets raped.
I make a decent income and have large 401K and other savings. I would never deprive my kids of money to buy food, clothing, and shelter. I would also take pride in voluntarily giving my kids additional comforts and material things. It's not about the willingness to provide for my children.
What I object to is a court telling me that because I'm successful, my wife is entitled to half my pre-tax earnings from my net pay, leaving me to live on the remaining net amount, which would be significantly less than what she would get (based on the formulas in my state). On top of that, there is no enforcement to be sure that the money actually goes to the kids. The wife could blow the money on anything and the kids could be eating macaroni and cheese, and there would be almost nothing I could do.
Fathers (or mothers) should be held accountable to provide the basic money necessary to provide food, clothing, and shelter. That doesn't mean that if you owned a mansion and drove a Mercedes when you're married that you are entitled to that after divorce. The mother and kids may have to adjust to a more subdued lifestyle after the divorce. The father, who actually earns the money (in my case) should be entitled to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor.
I guess this is why I swallow my pride on some things and plan to remain married until my kids are all over 18 (youngest is 12). Then who knows.
Exactly.
I was paying 35% of my income toward my son.
No, I don't object to paying for him, before anyone leaps on me.
However, her and her new husband both worked in good jobs, and earned four times what i did. She was a midwife, and he was some sort of social worker.
I was a part-time mechanic.
I'd already given over my half of the house, so she wouldn't need to sell it, and the kids had somewhere decent to live.
What got my goat was the money wasn't spent on him ? He was neglected, he ate ok, but she wasn't buying him clothes, or toys, or giving him pocket money.
Her and her new man were spending the money on alcohol and drugs.
It was pocket money to them.
One Christmas, my family gave him cash, he wound up getting £150. ($240 ish) from us.
They stole it from his pocket while he was in bed.
I mean, come on, you can't get lower than stealing an 11 year old boy's Christmas money ?
And yet the court gave her custody, despite the fact I'd been his sole carer for 3 years.
The court put in an access arrangement that I should see him for at least one day a week.
I didn't see him for nearly two years after that. My lawyer said there was nothing he could do. They could start legal proceedings, but they'd be lengthy, and expensive.
Ultimately, if she's breached the order. she could have been jailed, however, my lawyer explained that with other children in the house, the chances of jail were minute.
Meantime, as I found out later, she was feeding him stories about how I hadn't been getting in touch, and hadn't wanted to see him.
Where's the justice there ?
Personally I'd rather they had only got 10% of the maintenance, and the other 25% had gone in trust for him for if he goes on to university.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
A valid point with regard to mothers staying at home and then trying to reenter the workplace, especially in a down economy.
My problem (and I'm not divorced...not yet anyway ) is that most child support amounts and alimony amounts are based not on what is required to support the children or the ex-spouse, but rather on percentages of income and the "standard" to which they've "become accustomed." To me, that's where the father gets raped.
I make a decent income and have large 401K and other savings. I would never deprive my kids of money to buy food, clothing, and shelter. I would also take pride in voluntarily giving my kids additional comforts and material things. It's not about the willingness to provide for my children.
What I object to is a court telling me that because I'm successful, my wife is entitled to half my pre-tax earnings from my net pay, leaving me to live on the remaining net amount, which would be significantly less than what she would get (based on the formulas in my state). On top of that, there is no enforcement to be sure that the money actually goes to the kids. The wife could blow the money on anything and the kids could be eating macaroni and cheese, and there would be almost nothing I could do.
Fathers (or mothers) should be held accountable to provide the basic money necessary to provide food, clothing, and shelter. That doesn't mean that if you owned a mansion and drove a Mercedes when you're married that you are entitled to that after divorce. The mother and kids may have to adjust to a more subdued lifestyle after the divorce. The father, who actually earns the money (in my case) should be entitled to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor.
I guess this is why I swallow my pride on some things and plan to remain married until my kids are all over 18 (youngest is 12). Then who knows.
Chances are I will probably meet a woman who will sweep me off my feet and treat me like a true King, my love for her will have no boundaries. - I wouldn't push for marriage though. That's what I meant. Oh well...
Men don't do it.
Ask yourself what in the world makes you want to marry this person knowing the damaging results if it doesnt work out.
No matter how much you love this person what is the benefit.
If the marriage fails divorce will be forever damaging. If you have kids in most cases she wins and your left paying child support payments. She probably gets the house while you look for a place to live in the separation of which you have to support yourself, your kids and now your soon to be ex wives living expenses. Even if she works you will be paying while everything is still in your name as she lives in your house with your kids and your left alone in an apartment.
Until you go thru a divorce you have no idea the emotional and financial damage a divorce will do to you. While many of us HOPE the other person will be reasonable and look for a FAIR financial break women don't do that. They believe they are entitled since they idea of marriage and or dreams did not come true. They don't know what yours is yours and what mine is mine is.
Women see this as if you BROKE a promise and the most sweet normal women you married treats you like she doesn't know you exist and goes insane. While you may think this wont happen what happens if it does.
So if a women loves you then she shouldn't love your money and you shouldn't love hers. If you have any sanity before you marry PREN UP I don't care if your making no money PREN UP!!! That any money you make is yours at the time of the divorce. Because when its over your left broke and struggle to pay the bills while she gets a second income like your still married when in fact your NOT. The system is set up to status quo the marriage which makes so sense because your getting a divorce.
When you get a divorce do not I repeat do not go thru a lawyer first. Try a a third party to debate and discuss your agreement only as a last resort should you be sitting in a divorce lawyers office.
Lawyers suck you dry they make mistakes on paper work over and over and look for ways to bill you. No matter what SELL THE HOUSE!!!!
I love you doesnt mean you have to give up everything you ever worked for to be happy or to live with this person. It doesnt mean you have to let another person CONTROL your life after they decided they didnt want to be married anymore and that goes for the both sexies. MONEY is control and with money those who have it can move on and those who dont have it are starting over in so many ways.
PS women who are working moms and making alot of money should consider the samething that your money at the time of the divorce and your income are not subject to be taken and the person your divorcing has not right or say to 401K, and income status.
Women want the benefit of marriage the income and the security then think in having a divorce that should continue. I'm sorry your divorcing the person and in divorcing that person you have choosen to give up that security and that income and start over. MEN, the system is not interested in justice and fairness it only wants to keep status quo economically for the women and legally break the marriage. Dads and men are screwed because most men dont get full living residance cust of the kids which means they dont get to see their kids everyday as they did in the marriage. They are luck for they get every other weekend. They dont get to have the benefit of a shared income, shared living arrangments but are required to pay as if he was still there no matter what the reason for the divorce is. Assuming you want to pay 15,000 in lawyer fees and time in court to roll the dice that the judge will agree with you.
PS marriage doesnt equal more sex..
For most married men it = less sex.
It is because men think with the wrong head and the only one getting screwed is the guy looking the in mirror every morning.
Fair... will be word you can your move from your vocab.
Dude I have never read a post on here that was more accurate and true as this one. EVERYTHING you said was true true true. Men dont do it!!!!
Child support is backdoor alimony. That's why there is ZERO obligation for the custodial parent to cough up any reciepts or proof the money was used on the child.
If the courts actually cared about the children and wanted to be fair to parents (hint: both can be achieved), then the courts would look at all the expenses and split them down the middle as a start, modifying costs based on custody after. Instead we get a lump sum judgement based on nothing more than gross pay. Hello wealth transfer! The more money they can transfer away from the higher earning parent, usually the man, the more matching federal funds the states get! It's honestly really that simple.
The whole system is a crock and yet people still feed the monster by getting married and having kids. On the flip side there's a lot of men who are learning from the examples being set by the state from what happened to their brothers, cousins, uncles, and fathers. Why do you think there's such a huge market for $7000 robot sex toys and foreign brides? If the system was even remotely fair there would be no need for MGTOW and MRAs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women play their games witholding the children out of spite and the system turns a blind eye. 
) is that most child support amounts and alimony amounts are based not on what is required to support the children or the ex-spouse, but rather on percentages of income and the "standard" to which they've "become accustomed." To me, that's where the father gets raped. 
- I wouldn't push for marriage though. That's what I meant. Oh well...