patrick.net

Eman says

She had to support me while I was making the transition. Someone had to bring home the bacon during those years.

Now, she works because it’s flexible and she can do whatever she wants while keeping the health benefits for the family. If her boss pisses her off, her boss can have her job back. It’s a great to be in a position of strength. 😂

Ok that's what I thought, that makes sense. That's a rare find. But she got rewarded now. The community property during marriage is something I would like to see modified, similar to child support. You have tax returns for all these years and a list of assets, it should go to whomever is on the title and proportionally based on money earned. Of course child reading should be taken into account at going rates as well. But if both share childrearing 50% and one brings home 1 million per year additionally and the other one 50k, then 50/50 split on divorce is totally bogus and incentivizes divorce.

Based on her and her parents and siblings, I don’t expect it to happen. If it happens and she takes me to the cleaners, I’m totally okay with it. I know I can make it back with another lady who is willing to support me while I’m rebuilding. 😂

Our current legal is unfair to men, but it is what it is. Can’t change it. Have to vote out all the current politicians and rebuild the system. I don’t see the chance of it happening so just do what we can control.

You can't change the laws but you can write a contact for the female to sign to avoid the laws.

Eman I wasn't clear enough; in Mexico you can choose to avoid the community property aspect of marriage.

Even if you have 'written agreements', it doesn't protect you from the rapacity of the legal process itself, or even necessarily the outcome. All it does is give you a gauge about how things might go once you are in the meat grinder. It doesn't avoid the meat grinder.

Contracts can be as endlessly litigated as lack of contracts, and you will wind up in a similar spot where you will have to negotiate concessions just to escape the exhaustion of the legal process. All a contract does is give you a foundation for litigation, it doesn't obviate litigation if you have a motivated adversary (hysterical wife fucking the brains out of a divorce attorney?).

For most ordinary people, it is the legal process itself that takes the marital resources. They just have to inflame one of the partners into the endless fight.

mell says

The point is that if your wife decides she's done the "laws" will allow her to take you to the cleaners, unless she makes significantly more, in which case she will likely take the kids from you and have no legal problems with it.

I'm surprised by the lack of legal knowledge here on patnet on many levels. My wife wouldn't (won't) get a dime from me. Most men become pussies in divorce. Not cut throat. Don't know law. Don't know their rights.

Most men are dumb asses and think they need to cut the cable and give the woman everything. Nope. Guys gotta learn. I know for a fact that my wife would owe me $6-7k/mo. I make and have made as much and would owe her nothing. I have no interest in divorce and am no where near that level, but if you get to that level you can blame the pussies that didn't fight or know their rights in divorce. Women got a lot of dudes by the balls and the dudes are fucking retarded.

Ceffer says

Even if you have 'written agreements', it doesn't protect you from the rapacity of the legal process itself, or even necessarily the outcome. All it does is give you a gauge about how things might go once you are in the meat grinder. It doesn't avoid the meat grinder.

California throws out almost 50% of pre-nups.

"Ooh, I'm was just a poor dumb 31-year old Master's Degree from UCLA holder, yer honor. I was coerced into signing!" - California Girls.

mell says

That's not the point. The point is that if your wife decides she's done the "laws" will allow her to take you to the cleaners, unless she makes significantly more, in which case she will likely take the kids from you and have no legal problems with it. Opportunity makes thieves. Also as much as I want to believe that some married perfect wives this never held true when I met them. Good if you're on that train though, wish it holds a lifetime ;) I'm still advocating marriage if you want kids, but there are huge tradeoffs people should be aware of.

Thanks Mell for bringing it home!

You're at her mercy. The gal you Married 10 years ago might Eat.Love.Pray herself into Exploring and Finding Herself Media and Mentality.

To get back in the weeds for a minute:
There's a viral one now about a chick from rural Idaho, not bad looking, blonde, etc. about how all she wanted in her early 20s was to be a wife on a farm, eventually have kids, etc. and she got it. Married a dude with a farm in her early 20s. About 30 she decided she DIDNT want kids, DIDNT want to live on a farm and be a farmwife, but to party hardy like she did before she was married and explore and discover and find herself in lots of booze and on many strange cocks. So she divorced his ass to get back on the Cock Carousel around 30.

Guess how she feels now at 39? "Boo hoo hoo, I should have stayed married and had kids." Much of that is probably her fading looks and the dwindling supply of men near her age who want a party girl with increasing wrinkles and female pattern baldness and this is her cope.

Anyway, point is here's a nice, rural Idaho chick with a religious upbringing and she's shifted gears to completely different lifestyles 3 times in her adult life.

TikTok is FULL of these. Fuck, there are women who filed for nofault a few months ago whinging about having to take out the trash and not being able to have a Sugar Daddy Husband do all the work and bring in all the money, while they get to live like Single Women. That's what many women really want, play the pretty princess sometimes, but have Sugar Daddy to pay for and help with kids so she can look like Supermom when that suits her. That's why the answer to "Open Marriage" requests the Media is hyping and the gals are making is "Great, go pack your stuff. You can come over Friday between 8-11PM". That's not what they want, they want the reliable guy to pay the bills, dry their tears, and play fetch, while they bang Chad on the side.

"Women have a right to change their mind!"

The issue is married men have no protection against that.

I don't have the video but it's out there.

You are never 'protected' from lawyers (conflict tax collectors whose motive is to keep you in conflict), incessant lawfare, or crooked Kommie judges (apparently rampant in Family Law).

WookieMan says

My wife wouldn't (won't) get a dime from me. Most men become pussies in divorce. Not cut throat. Don't know law. Don't know their rights.

Lol I wouldn't try that. Doubt the great state of IL has you covered but any state with community property will take half of you. And even if they don't you need ironclad prenups. Reminds me of the best Tyson quote ever: "everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face." Or so ;)

Ceffer says

You are never 'protected' from lawyers (conflict tax collectors whose motive is to keep you in conflict), incessant lawfare, or crooked Kommie judges (apparently rampant in Family Law).

Yep

AmericanKulak says

Guess how she feels now at 39? "Boo hoo hoo, I should have stayed married and had kids." Much of that is probably her fading

Right, the tragedy is it often destroys 2 lives, their own and the ex. Government disincentives so many presumably "bad" things. But they almost prompte divorce. It should be a last resort imo in case of violence or other unfitness or otherwise the divorcing party should get nothing for it.

Ceffer says

You are never 'protected' from lawyers (conflict tax collectors whose motive is to keep you in conflict), incessant lawfare, or crooked Kommie judges (apparently rampant in Family Law).

This is it.

This is where the difference is between TrueTrads and FauxTrads: The latter thinks you just need to "Choose better, bro" (ignoring the fact that Women are notoriously changeable... "she's never wrong, she just changes her mind" as the old song goes) and that a fella can Mannity Man Uppity Uppity out of every difficulty of a woman changing her mind. They ignore what happened to Crowder, Tom Brady, Billy Joel, etc. etc. as well as dozens of men they've known in life because their operating rubic can't encapsulate it.

Ignoring the whole "Coffee Bean/Penny in the Jar" wisdom of the ages, which I first heard from a WW2 vet in the 90s, and he heard it from his dad who was born in the 19th Century.

In the end, the changeable emotional one can do as she pleases if the Law allows her. Change the Laws!

Old Saw: "Women marry men thinking the men will change and the women will be the instrument, but men don't. Men marry women thinking they will never change, but they do, not always for the better."

Fact is, with all the clamor for 'absolute honesty' (sucker punching for emotional turmoil), an absurdity flogged for relationship health, especially by fake media, women tend to be purposely quite the artificial object manipulating male fantasy to achieve the contractual cock cage. I think biologic narcissism makes women inherently dishonest and manipulative, although you might meet an occasional straight shooter (prolly lesbian).

AmericanKulak says

In the end, the changeable emotional one can do as she pleases if the Law allows her. Change the Laws!

In fact just adding the government into the mix by opening a court case with the agencies can add so much overhead and pain/conflict to ones new life that it will break many. Advise balls of steel...

Present laws do not clearly define the obligations of people getting married. Those who get married are then subject to the whims of the family court when one of the spouses decides to divorce.

I think that Alabama simply records the marriage, and gives it legal status, but it does not record the marriage contract. I say change the laws that in order to marry the two parties must sign a contract in which they each commit to certain obligations. The law would allow for divorce only if the one seeking divorce can prove that his spouse has breached the marriage contract. Damages would be awarded strictly according to the marriage contract.

Sure, some people will still take advantage of the legal systems and try to screw their soon-to-be-exes, but for most people this will be a vast improvement. Over time a few standard contracts will develop and people will chose according to their values. This wouldn't make marriage easier, but it would reduce frivolous divorces.

Should there be an effort to make such legal changes, I don't see why it wouldn't appeal to people all over the political spectrum. For those who are interested, they can still have no-fault divorces by making it easy to breach the contract. Some can agree to have equal rights and responsibilities with their spouses. Other can contract for a traditional marriage in which the man owns all the community property, requires the woman to live with him, and is the final authority to make choices for the children.

Evolution required women to develop skills of seduction, guile, subterfuge, backstabbing, stealing, lying, and other behaviors because of her biological goals.

1. Secure resources sufficient to survive gestation and nursing a baby (estimated over 1 million kcals). She will find a "provider". She may use all kinds of subterfuge to achieve this, and the provider's needs are not the priority. All females have this instinct deep down; when angry they will always say "you fucked me" if they are asked to pay for something once.

2. Find the source of DNA which will provide the most robust offspring; this is not the same person as the "provider". Thus, women are attracted instinctively to "bad boys." So, if you are the unlucky "provider", you can fully expect she will fuck some other guy(s) behind your back if she is motivated.
Typically they like to seek out "revenge fucks"; she lets a random guy fuck her because you argued and she wants to pay you back.

I have some amazing stories but I'll stop here. Don't expect a female to act against her instincts, you'll be disappointed.

Female prerogative strikes again; i.e., bitches do shit thinking there are no consequences - just another learning opportunity. Just like everyone else, they'll run out of learning opportunities, and, with the empty nest, be discarded. I had higher hopes for this one.

Learned a new one today - "mouth noises." Gold, Jerry, gold!

Let's try it out. Her, "Why don't you . . " Me, "That's the way it is, and no amount of mouth noises on your part will change it. In fact, can the mouth noises." This is a little bit kinder than "STFU bitch."

End lifetime alimony. If unemployment insurance is only good for like maybe 6 months max, so should alimony.

The Quakers were considered enemies of Crown in England because they refused, as a general principle, to swear any oath of allegiance to anything other than their God. For this, all Quakers were branded as traitors and jailed, because they would not swear allegiance to the King. There were so many Quakers that the jails filled up, and so to make more room, all the real criminals were let loose to rob and pillage (this is the origin of the highwaymen stories). After many years of the King's courtiers being robbed and assaulted, the King offered William Penn, the leader of the Quakers, his own colony in America, if he would only take the rest of the Quakers with him. Once the Quakers were gone, they English could go back to filling their prisons with the traditional criminals as opposed to housing "Traitors to the English Crown."

At least up until a several years ago, a person could not be convicted of treason for an act that he did NOT do (i.e., fail to swear an oath), but only for acts that he actively committed to betray his nation. This is the legacy of Willam Penn and the suffering of the Quakers.

During the Civil Rights Protests, there was the Children's Crusade in Birmingham Alabama:

https://www.history.com/news/childrens-crusade-birmingham-civil-rights

The segregationists locked up hundreds of young adults until the jails were full, then kept the overflow in cattle pens for days in the pouring rain and mud, but they kept having to jail more and more of them.

Now that men are being put in prison to somehow convince them to pay child support for children that are not theirs, how many men will it take, unjustly jailed, until justice is again dragged kicking and screaming to the tune of the millions who suffer to prevail upon the great evil that befalls men?