Republican Steve King: if not for incest and rape 'would there be any population left?'

[Boris Farage 353]

8 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Just as YOU are living proof that the courts are biased in favor of women getting spousal support.  WHY?  No man was supporting you prior to marriage, so why should your ex support you after the marriage?  Why not just get a divorce and go back to who/what you were prior?

^Precisely.

[yuna628 9,530]

18 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Just as YOU are living proof that the courts are biased in favor of women getting spousal support.  WHY?  No man was supporting you prior to marriage, so why should your ex support you after the marriage?  Why not just get a divorce and go back to who/what you were prior?

It's my personal standpoint, that unless a contract is signed explicitly stating that if a said marriage is broken due to infidelity or some other negative reason, other than just 'grown apart' that no support should be paid whatsoever - unless of course children are involved. I don't believe that an ex (of any gender) should milk their ex-spouse for support, unless they have done something to warrant it. Even then, in cases of infidelity or abuse, I think it should be one lump sum as payment for their transgression and jailtime if it were due to abuse.

 

But I'm a burning bridges kinda gal. I don't need a dude to support me if a marriage dissolved due to his stupidity. If there's babies involved though, his stupidity doesn't absolve his responsibilities toward them. BTW, even if the ex-spouse offered their support out of some niceness, I'd have a pause even thinking about accepting it. I suppose it's fine if both agree and either party doesn't have a problem with it.

Edited August 26, 2019 by yuna628

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It's my personal standpoint, that unless a contract is signed explicitly stating that if a said divorce is broken due to infidelity or some other negative reason, other than just 'grown apart' that no support should be paid whatsoever - unless of course children are involved. I don't believe that an ex (of any gender) should milk their ex-spouse for support, unless they have done something to warrant it. Even then, in cases of infidelity or abuse, I think it should be one lump sum as payment for their transgression and jailtime if it were due to abuse.

 

But I'm a burning bridges kinda gal. I don't need a dude to support me if a marriage dissolved due to his stupidity. If there's babies involved though, his stupidity doesn't absolve his responsibilities toward them.

Exactly.   Supporting children has nothing to do with a split; that is simply a responsibility of each parent.

 

But women who take money from their exes instead of taking care of themselves... no respect from me.  Kind of takes away from their claims of "I want equality for women", when you think about it.  Oh well, one must do what one must to get ahead, I reckon.

 

Autonomy isn't such a popular topic when it comes to self-support.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by ALFKAD

[laylalex 7,247]

22 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Oh fine then. If I concede that luckytxn has the right to an abortion, even if he (or she, I agree I did make an assumption about his (or her) sex) doesn't have the correct plumbing for said procedure, can I be then be let back in to the politically correct club?

 

This again. The fact that there has to be a men's rights movement clearly indicates how over-stated gender bias actually is, and how movements such as #metoo have completely put men on their heels, afraid to even have a one-on-one interaction with a woman behind a closed door, for fear of being falsely accused. Because for men now, being falsely accused is the same thing as being found guilty.

I somehow think you were NEVER a member of the politically correct club!

 

I see I touched a nerve with you about #metoo, I know you have personal experience with being falsely accused. But do you really now limit your one-to-one interactions with women behind closed doors? I mean, I know I was raked over the coals when I posted about a former friendship with a professor where I was in his office with him alone, even with the door partially opened. Should men REALLY adopt that silly Billy Graham rule? 

17 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Just as YOU are living proof that the courts are biased in favor of women getting spousal support.  WHY?  No man was supporting you prior to marriage, so why should your ex support you after the marriage?  Why not just get a divorce and go back to who/what you were prior?

Well, a court determined that I was entitled to support. My ex had convinced me to quit my job -- a job where I was just beginning to move up the ladder -- to focus on being a wife to him, and hopefully a mother. By the time I got out, I faced serious setbacks in trying to re-enter my field of work without the experience I needed. My ex provided me with an excellent standard of living -- never wanted for a material thing, big house, nice SUV, etc. -- and if I tried to go it alone, I would have been hard pressed to have anything close to what I was used to. I mean, not even close. You can sneer at me as being a pampered princess who never had to work, and who made out well in the divorce. But if I had had my way, I never would have quit my job, and I never would have been in the position I was in after 7 years of marriage, with a big hole in my resume. Try telling an employer that you stopped working so you could keep house and essentially be decorative for most of that time. It doesn't matter where I got my undergrad degree, I'm still considered a lightweight, a trophy wife. Don't feel too bad for my ex, he is doing just fine for himself, lives in an apartment where the rent is nearly $10k a month by his own choice, new BMW, trips to Bali and the Maldives and wherever. He even paid to fly my sister-in-law-to-be down to LA from SF on a private jet the other day. (I don't want to get too much into that, suffice to say my ex is never happy unless my life is in chaos.) He can afford what he pays me. He even offered to increase the amount the other month because he wants me to have a car, which I don't want.

 

If I had never married him, if I had done what I should have done all those years ago and refused to take him back, I would be doing just fine. It's down to his demands that I never made a career for myself.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well, a court determined that I was entitled to support. My ex had convinced me to quit my job -- a job where I was just beginning to move up the ladder -- to focus on being a wife to him, and hopefully a mother. By the time I got out, I faced serious setbacks in trying to re-enter my field of work without the experience I needed. My ex provided me with an excellent standard of living -- never wanted for a material thing, big house, nice SUV, etc. -- and if I tried to go it alone, I would have been hard pressed to have anything close to what I was used to. I mean, not even close. You can sneer at me as being a pampered princess who never had to work, and who made out well in the divorce. But if I had had my way, I never would have quit my job, and I never would have been in the position I was in after 7 years of marriage, with a big hole in my resume. Try telling an employer that you stopped working so you could keep house and essentially be decorative for most of that time. It doesn't matter where I got my undergrad degree, I'm still considered a lightweight, a trophy wife. Don't feel too bad for my ex, he is doing just fine for himself, lives in an apartment where the rent is nearly $10k a month by his own choice, new BMW, trips to Bali and the Maldives and wherever. He even paid to fly my sister-in-law-to-be down to LA from SF on a private jet the other day. (I don't want to get too much into that, suffice to say my ex is never happy unless my life is in chaos.) He can afford what he pays me. He even offered to increase the amount the other month because he wants me to have a car, which I don't want.

 

If I had never married him, if I had done what I should have done all those years ago and refused to take him back, I would be doing just fine. It's down to his demands that I never made a career for myself.

So you married a rich guy, quit working, enjoyed a cush life, then tired of it all, divorced him, and now want me to support you in receiving alimony?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  Your choices are just that.  If you can live with yourself being a free leader, that is all that matters, really.

 

That a court decreed it thusly does not change who you were nor how you chose to get ahead.  The fact is, you are ahead today of where you were when you got married.  All thanks to your ex.  You should send him a nice Xmas present.

Edited August 26, 2019 by ALFKAD

[yuna628 9,530]

laylalex: I don't think anyone here has the right to judge your relationship. I can only say that if I were in your shoes I wouldn't have accepted a dime from him, unless he broke the contract of marriage through abuse, harm, or infidelity. That's just because I believe some sort of consequences should be handed out in the event a serious contract of marriage is broken and harm is caused by the breaker. As I said before, I've been on the receiving end of an abusive man trying to control every facet of my life. It wasn't easy to leave, but after leaving it all became easy with greater clarity the freedom offered. Support in a way allows them to still exert some control over the ex-spouse's life, especially if their purposes are more nefarious than kind (and it better not be pity either).

 

It's okay.. you don't need to justify the choices you've made on this forum. It's your life.

[Boris Farage 353]

10 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I see I touched a nerve with you about #metoo, I know you have personal experience with being falsely accused. But do you really now limit your one-to-one interactions with women behind closed doors? I mean, I know I was raked over the coals when I posted about a former friendship with a professor where I was in his office with him alone, even with the door partially opened. Should men REALLY adopt that silly Billy Graham rule? 

Yes, it IS a silly rule, isn't it? And yet... yes, I do. It is silly, but the alternative is that I risk everything. I risk my job, my status, my repuation, and conceivably my freedom. I hate that it has to be this way, I would much prefer to treat the fairer sex equally, but this is the environment that has been created by those who act under the guise of equality, but really just want the power for themselves.

 

6 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

So you married a rich guy, quit working, enjoyed a cush life, then tired of it all, divorced him, and now want me to support you in receiving alimony?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  Your choices are just that.  If you can live with yourself being a free leader, that is all that matters, really.

 

That a court decreed it thusly does not change who you were nor how you chose to get ahead.  The fact is, you are ahead today of where you were when you got married.  All thanks to your ex.  You should send him a nice Xmas present.

This bears repeating, and is a prime example. I know for a fact that if the tables were turned, if you were the wealthy one, and you divorced your much poorer husband, there would be no court order for you to support him. He would have simply have to go back to his life as it had been before.

[Boris Farage 353]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

laylalex: I don't think anyone here has the right to judge your relationship. I can only say that if I were in your shoes I wouldn't have accepted a dime from him, unless he broke the contract of marriage through abuse, harm, or infidelity.

Such a shame, all the good ones are always taken. We would have made such a wonderful divorced couple. 😉

[laylalex 7,247]

Just now, ALFKAD said:

So you married a rich guy, quit working, enjoyed a cush life, then tired of it all, divorced him, and now want me to support you in receiving alimony?  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  Your choices are just that.  If you can live with yourself being a free leader, that is all that matters, really.

 

That a court decreed it thusly does not change who you were nor how you chose to get ahead.  The fact is, you are ahead today of where you were when you got married.  All thanks to your ex.  You should send him a nice Xmas present.

I didn't divorce him. HE divorced ME. He took away from me my way of earning a living. I am trying to rebuild my career from nothing. I have a job. I am learning a new skill that will eventually lead to a new career.

 

When I married him, I was middle middle class, raised by a doctor and a lawyer, on my way up to an upper middle class lifestyle. I married him, he treated me like dirt for years, but I was so brainwashed I didn't even realize it until I started talking about what I was going through. If I received nothing from him, refused the money, I would have been WORSE off than if I had never married him. Even now, my life is much smaller than it was before. I make economies. I don't drive a car. I don't go off on fabulous vacations. I don't even take any money from my fiance! 

 

And about that Xmas present? He'd just say, like he did the other month when I saw him, that it was his money paying for everything anyway, so why should I insist on paying the bill when he could pay for it directly? 

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

laylalex: I don't think anyone here has the right to judge your relationship. I can only say that if I were in your shoes I wouldn't have accepted a dime from him, unless he broke the contract of marriage through abuse, harm, or infidelity. That's just because I believe some sort of consequences should be handed out in the event a serious contract of marriage is broken and harm is caused by the breaker. As I said before, I've been on the receiving end of an abusive man trying to control every facet of my life. It wasn't easy to leave, but after leaving it all became easy with greater clarity the freedom offered. Support in a way allows them to still exert some control over the ex-spouse's life, especially if their purposes are more nefarious than kind (and it better not be pity either).

 

It's okay.. you don't need to justify the choices you've made on this forum. It's your life.

Thank you, yuna.  He broke the marriage through his treatment of me, in my opinion. He definitely uses the money now still to control me, dangling extra amounts of cash for this or that, but I won't take it. It is often tempting, but so far I have refused.

[Ban Hammer 12,840]

51 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Just as YOU are living proof that the courts are biased in favor of women getting spousal support.  WHY?  No man was supporting you prior to marriage, so why should your ex support you after the marriage?  Why not just get a divorce and go back to who/what you were prior?

chris rock has something to say about alimony............

[Boris Farage 353]

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I didn't divorce him. HE divorced ME.

Because of your infidelity, as I recall from a previous post.

[yuna628 9,530]

4 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Such a shame, all the good ones are always taken. We would have made such a wonderful divorced couple. 😉

Dude... no.

 

 

[laylalex 7,247]

Just now, Boris Farage said:

Because of your infidelity, as I recall from a previous post.

He was convinced I cheated on him, but it did not happen. You and I have different opinions on what counts as cheating, and I respect that, but no, it was not infidelity.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

35 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

It's my personal standpoint, that unless a contract is signed explicitly stating that if a said marriage is broken due to infidelity or some other negative reason, other than just 'grown apart' that no support should be paid whatsoever - unless of course children are involved. I don't believe that an ex (of any gender) should milk their ex-spouse for support, unless they have done something to warrant it. Even then, in cases of infidelity or abuse, I think it should be one lump sum as payment for their transgression and jailtime if it were due to abuse.

 

But I'm a burning bridges kinda gal. I don't need a dude to support me if a marriage dissolved due to his stupidity. If there's babies involved though, his stupidity doesn't absolve his responsibilities toward them. BTW, even if the ex-spouse offered their support out of some niceness, I'd have a pause even thinking about accepting it. I suppose it's fine if both agree and either party doesn't have a problem with it.

 

    I know someone who worked 2 jobs to pay the bills while her husband went to medical school. That included forgoing higher education herself. As soon as he started practicing, he filed for divorce. I'm not sure what else went wrong in the marriage, but it's a damn straight fact they were both OK with her giving up her career so he could have his, and she got compensated for that.

[yuna628 9,530]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

    I know someone who worked 2 jobs to pay the bills while her husband went to medical school. That included forgoing higher education herself. As soon as he started practicing, he filed for divorce. I'm not sure what else went wrong in the marriage, but it's a damn straight fact they were both OK with her giving up her career so he could have his, and she got compensated for that.

And that's fine, both parties agreed on the compensation, I assume?