Alimony when not married

[xerx]

I was surfing a MGTOW sub on reddit out of morbid curiosity, and I noticed this topic:



story

In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with Climans. She ruled they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate home, they lived under one roof at Latner’s cottage for part of the summer, and during winter vacations in Florida. Shore ordered him to pay her $53,077 monthly indefinitely. Latner appealed.

Fair or not? Also, given the fact that fewer people are choosing to get married, is the regulation of informal arrangements the future of relationships? FWIW, common-law marriages have long been a thing in Canada.

[xerx]

FWIW, this probably isn't just a men's issue. In some reverse situations, women, when they were making more, have had to pay alimony to their spouses after divorce.

[FreelancePoliceman]

If courts have figured he can afford to pay $6,000,000 to her I can't really work up the motivation to care one way or the other, especially since I know zilch about what went into their relationship. With that kind of money he had the opportunity to ground himself and figure out what he needed to be happy. If she was a whore -- he shouldn't have lost sight of that. If he was an asshole -- should have been more of one. Or less. If she tricked him -- that sucks for him. Hopefully he'll recover soon; hopefully his money can help him with that.

Personally, given the picture in the link, I don't like either of them, so it doesn't matter to me.

In general I'm not sure how to feel about alimony. I think I like it mostly as a punishment. If the higher-earning partner simply loses interest and wants to divorce, I generally support it. If the lower-earning partner does this -- not so much. When a man and woman live together I think they have certain responsibilities toward each other. A tendency to not only blow off these kinds of responsibilities but to consider them not to exist has become common, and probably will become more so, in the continued absence of any social pressure against it. That tendency is dangerous; it destroys community, and it ought to be opposed.

[xerx]

I was hoping that someone would bring this up:

When a man and woman live together I think they have certain responsibilities toward each other. A tendency to not only blow off these kinds of responsibilities but to consider them not to exist has become common, and probably will become more so, in the continued absence of any social pressure against it. That tendency is dangerous; it destroys community, and it ought to be opposed.

Combined with alimony, this sounds like marriage by another name. I wonder if this is the direction that the West is heading (back) towards.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I was hoping that someone would bring this up:



Combined with alimony, this sounds like marriage by another name. I wonder if this is the direction that the West is heading (back) towards.

What direction? People living together without being formally married? Or these relationships being increasingly recognized as marriages? If the latter, I doubt it unless liberal ideology declines. The idea behind liberalism is to treat every human relationship as a (business) contract; libertarianism is its natural conclusion, and the "West" is hurtling quickly in this direction. Relationships that aren't explicitly defined won't be recognized as such except in places with a strong legal tradition of recognizing these, and I don't see any reason to believe this tradition won't erode.

[SGF]

the only thing worse than a feminist... MGTOW libertarian bachelors.
Reasons to be a nationalist: to shoot MGTOW tryin to pick up women for a "pump and dump" at the border.

... relation between the sexes are fucked.

[timber]

What a cunt.

[xerx]

What direction? People living together without being formally married? Or these relationships being increasingly recognized as marriages? If the latter, I doubt it unless liberal ideology declines. The idea behind liberalism is to treat every human relationship as a (business) contract; libertarianism is its natural conclusion, and the "West" is hurtling quickly in this direction. Relationships that aren't explicitly defined won't be recognized as such except in places with a strong legal tradition of recognizing these, and I don't see any reason to believe this tradition won't erode.

That may be true, but anything that's contractual and transactional is usually followed by people who want to regulate it. I'm curious about whether we'll come full circle by reinstituting older ideas about marriage, with the main question being how natural and commonly-desired these ideas are to begin with.

[Singu]

I think too many people have contradictory desires, or are unable to see cause and effect.

Presumably, he made her dependent on him (or she got dependent on him, who knows). Even if she lead a "lavish" lifestyle because of it, it is true that she got dependent on him, by say quitting her job or not making as much as money as before. Presumably, this is what he liked and what he wanted, or at the very least this is what the couple wanted. You're simply forced to deal with the responsibilities that come with being in a relationship, let alone being married. If you're not willing to take that responsibility, or are unable to see the very obvious causal connection, then don't get into a relationship in the first place.

If these MGTOW type of people want to invest in sex bots or something, then fine, but then don't start whining about how they deserve a "real" woman after that because they're not satisfied with sex bots, because they're unable to provide them "real love", or got bored of it, or something. But I doubt that these people will still be able to see such causal connections. They'll treat sex bots like trash, and then next, they'll treat real women like trash. Little wonder then that they'll be going "their own way". There is logical consistency in that.

[The Reality Denialist]

Too arbitrary if this was consensual. If this was not consensual then the result might be OK but that would be unlawful imprisonment situation and totally different case. What next?

[SGF]

Fair or not? Also, given the fact that fewer people are choosing to get married, is the regulation of informal arrangements the future of relationships? FWIW, common-law marriages have long been a thing in Canada.

this is why one should properly evaluate one's relationships be4 committing to anything even near cohabitation or marriage. There seem to be a lot of people out there who seem fine at first, but then screw you over for money or some other reason like another man / woman. Personally I test women and look for red flags from the start because of this. Many ppl are untrustworthy and have massive baggage / mental illness, no morals and so on .. it is basic common sense imo. This is fairly common, for example my grandmother snared my grandfather in like this to provide for her son (from another guy), had a daughter with him (mom) who she then mentally abused for decades.

Governments are full of feminists and lefties these days, courts favor the woman and while I completely disagree with MGTOW regarding not having kids and leaving family life behind to become a materialistic libertarian hedonist bachelor.. they often make good points and are right about female and male nature.

It has simply become too dangerous to date long term or even cohabitate or consider marriage. Very risky.

EDIT: On top of this being socially detrimental it is also destructive when it comes to developing deep meaningful romantic relationships.

[timber]

I think too many people have contradictory desires, or are unable to see cause and effect.

Presumably, he made her dependent on him (or she got dependent on him, who knows). Even if she lead a "lavish" lifestyle because of it, it is true that she got dependent on him, by say quitting her job or not making as much as money as before. Presumably, this is what he liked and what he wanted, or at the very least this is what the couple wanted. You're simply forced to deal with the responsibilities that come with being in a relationship, let alone being married. If you're not willing to take that responsibility, or are unable to see the very obvious causal connection, then don't get into a relationship in the first place.

If these MGTOW type of people want to invest in sex bots or something, then fine, but then don't start whining about how they deserve a "real" woman after that because they're not satisfied with sex bots, because they're unable to provide them "real love", or got bored of it, or something. But I doubt that these people will still be able to see such causal connections. They'll treat sex bots like trash, and then next, they'll treat real women like trash. Little wonder then that they'll be going "their own way". There is logical consistency in that.

I think this is totally hilarious in a not funny way because, what I interpret you saying is that the man should have been aware of the consequences of his relationship with the woman, and this means it is his personal responsibility to have foreseen where it would end up. "he reaped what he sowed"

Which is generally true, but that doesn't negate the corruption of the Justice system that used its own technicalities that help others in less fortunate circumstances and allowed this woman to profit off the situation. I think the sympathy the courts showed her just goes to show that a double standard is very much real. I wouldn't forsee the same outcome if the tables were turned and it was him looking for the alimony from her.

That the State intervenes here in such a dramatic and unfair way is atrocious. Its not like she can't find a job and support herself, being an adult. But I suppose being a woman who might not have earned a life for herself, nor trained her self in some vocation is still excuse enough.

If one wants true equality, then why is common law and alimony even still practised, if it creates unfair advantages for a party that never earned the benefit but received by virtue of their sex?

I would say the same thing of a gay couple in a common law where one leeched of the efforts of another. I think this special privilege the courts awards a supposed couple is unfair.

For her to have possibly become dependent on him just goes to show that socially constructed or not, its still accepted that a dependent woman is a normal course of events and that a man should be providing for her, even after their relationship has ended, without children. So, what the court is saying here is that it supports the normalized, socially constructed, or natural, or both, way in which a woman's financial relationship to her partner is conceptualized.

So, way to be, progressive (not really though) Court system. If true equality is demanded, as it should be, then sick or swim, bitch. You are on your own, just as all the other guys are in this world too.

I've been divorced, I know what I'm talking about first hand.

But marriage in the eyes of the Courts is a transactional relationship, and the way in which its handled is a financial and rights domain. So, go, go, true love. Small wonder less and less people are becoming married. Not if it can sink a person 7-10 years out and disrupt any children in the picture.

[Poptart]

His family is worth 1.12 billion dollars. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

[Singu]

For her to have possibly become dependent on him just goes to show that socially constructed or not, its still accepted that a dependent woman is a normal course of events and that a man should be providing for her, even after their relationship has ended, without children. So, what the court is saying here is that it supports the normalized, socially constructed, or natural, or both, way in which a woman's financial relationship to her partner is conceptualized.

Then why else would he lavish gifts on her, give her "allowances" to spend every month, and (probably) ask her to quit her job? Knowingly or not, these are all moves to make her financially dependent on him.

The fact is that he had flexed his "financial muscle" to lure women to him. This is what he wanted, he wanted to make a woman dependent on him. Of course the reverse can apply, some women want to make men (financially) dependent on them. This is what he wanted and it's a choice that he himself had made. You're simply forced to deal with the consequences of having made that choice.

[ouronis]

Who the fuck needs 50,000 a month to survive

[FreelancePoliceman]

Who the fuck needs 50,000 a month to survive

I don't think the idea is for her to merely 'survive.'

[ouronis]

I don't think the idea is for her to merely 'survive.'

Sorry, forgot that maids and a mansion are necessary components of life

[FreelancePoliceman]

Sorry, forgot that maids and a mansion are necessary components of life

Again, the idea isn't that they're necessary.

[timber]

Then why else would he lavish gifts on her, give her "allowances" to spend every month, and (probably) ask her to quit her job? Knowingly or not, these are all moves to make her financially dependent on him.

The fact is that he had flexed his "financial muscle" to lure women to him. This is what he wanted, he wanted to make a woman dependent on him. Of course the reverse can apply, some women want to make men (financially) dependent on them. This is what he wanted and it's a choice that he himself had made. You're simply forced to deal with the consequences of having made that choice.

I'm not saying he doesn't' share some of the responsibility, I am saying that the court, apparently the paragon of progressive thought in regards to the equal rights of people, regardless of sex, has decided to continue its perpetuation of the standard norm. By agreeing to perpetuate it, it has also agreed to support it: a financially dependent woman must be paid for in perpetuity because her sex gives her the right to what she is owed. This is why I see the special privilege the court awards a couple, just for cohabiting the same place, as a massive overreach. But, I guess it protects some, and then makes still others, like this woman, rich. In the court's eyes, she was always rich because the couple is "one".

Its like, no wonder woman over all still must rely on men for sustenance, even if its lavish. I mean, she must have what she is accustomed to, and in no way could she start from the bottom again and survive on her own merit. Obviously this is no business of the court, as its following the letter of the law. She took advantage of laws that are meant to protect people from exploitation and children's future well being and used it to exploit her ex. The courts, being places of precedence, went along with it. This is not Justice.

What it says is that woman want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to be equal (which they are imho), but then they don't want the implications to that end. Because being equal would also mean they need to earn their own way through this world, just as all men are expected to be the in dominating culture, not including any exceptions like disability.

I think the law needs to be updated on the whole. Because without any cynicism, we all know a man could not claim the same thing in the same circumstance, even if he had the legal leg to stand on, no judge would die on that hilltop. Welcome to reality 101.

[ouronis]

Again, the idea isn't that they're necessary.

I don't care what the idea is. It's not hers, she doesn't need it, she shouldn't have it

[FreelancePoliceman]

I don't care what the idea is. It's not hers, she doesn't need it, she shouldn't have it

Should he have it? Does he need it?

[ouronis]

Should he have it? Does he need it?

What does that have to do with anything? Someone's money doesn't become free to dole out at will just because your living arrangements change. It's not even on the table.

[timber]

His family is worth 1.12 billion dollars. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

"Well I ain't saying she's a gold digger, but she ain't messin' with no broke, broke."

[timber]

What does that have to do with anything? Someone's money doesn't become free to dole out at will just because your living arrangements change. It's not even on the table.

According to the law of the land, it does, and it is.

Just one more way that 'the system' further alienates healthy normal interaction. The results being more men will avoid having his partner move in with him for fear of financial loss and ruin.

Edit: hell people should be afraid because now they don't even need to be living together to claim common law.. lol progression that is actually regressivism.

[timber]

Should he have it? Does he need it?

If she sat on the couch while he earned it through his efforts, I see nothing wrong with his entitlement. I further extend that to his inheriting the $ through family, or business. His claim is greater than her's, even if she contributed in some small or large way to to its creation. Somehow I doubt it. Being a morale support is not the same as actually doing the work.

What the court is saying is that simply living together entitles all parties to a piece of what is earned, no matter who was the provider, or provided, or both. Further, that alimony can also apply to non-married relationships. And child support for no children? I fail to see how this is not a feminist power grab? Can you imagine him being awarded this if it was her money? Can you see the same thing of a gay couple? Hah, I cannot.

But its not like this is not the standardized situation. I mean everyone expects Melania to split with Trump and get her payment for playing the dutiful wife part.

What is sad over all is these common laws are meant to protect people, not used as tools of exploitation. I see this woman as a greedy person.

And sure he might have been a nimrod for playing into it, maybe he loved her or something?

And I'm fully aware of my own embitteredness. I went through similar circumstances. There is nothing enjoyable about decoupling and involving the courts. Its institutionalized white collar theft. I mean I don't even see the difference between this and a woman's family providing a dowry 400 hundred years ago.

[SGF]

What does that have to do with anything? Someone's money doesn't become free to dole out at will just because your living arrangements change. It's not even on the table.

I agree. She is basically stealing his money.

FreelancePoliceman is manifesting slave morality. Kinda disgusting.

[Poptart]

It’s not exactly theft if he willingly signed a contract to marry this woman. He was rich before they met. He comes from a billionaire family. Honestly it’s his fault for not signing a prenup.

[SGF]

It’s not exactly theft if he willingly signed a contract to marry this woman. He was rich before they met. He comes from a billionaire family. Honestly it’s his fault for not signing a prenup.

They didn't marry, they merely dated long term aka no kids, no marriage contract, didn't purchase property together nor moved in. He tried to have her sign a contract several times, but she refused.
Why would my girlfriend for 3 years be entitled to my stuff if I leave her ? WTF

(do you even read stuff? I see a pattern now where you just skim through things and don't read posts attentively.. ADD? ^^ its in the title ffs "not married")

EDIT: e_e this shit is getting out of hand, the courts will pump the man for money for dating a woman. Might as well buy a blowup doll and watch porn, at least that is safe.

[Poptart]

They didn't marry, they merely dated long term aka no kids, no marriage contract, didn't purchase property together nor moved in. He tried to have her sign a contract several times, but she refused.
Why would my girlfriend for 3 years be entitled to my stuff if I leave her ? WTF

(do you even read stuff? I see a pattern now where you just skim through things and don't read posts attentively.. ADD? ^^ its in the title ffs "not married")

EDIT: e_e this shit is getting out of hand, the courts will pump the man for money for dating a woman. Might as well buy a blowup doll and watch porn, at least that is safe.

Ah, I see. And, yeah I probably need to pay better attention. My eyesight has started to go, and I’m usually reading from my phone which has a small screen, so sometimes I miss things.

[Poptart]

I only love men with money and big cocks.

[Singu]

So you lavish her with gifts and allowances, tell her to quit her job and complain that she's greedy 🤔

.

Don't try to lure or control women (or men) with money in the first place. The person who becomes financially dependent also becomes devastated. The laws are only there to compensate that loss.

[Number 9 large]

I was surfing a MGTOW sub on reddit out of morbid curiosity, and I noticed this topic:



story



Fair or not? Also, given the fact that fewer people are choosing to get married, is the regulation of informal arrangements the future of relationships? FWIW, common-law marriages have long been a thing in Canada.

thats like having an arrangement where the woman must provide the man pussy for the rest of his life

[Number 9 large]

So you lavish her with gifts and allowances, tell her to quit her job and complain that she's greedy 樂

.

Don't try to lure or control women (or men) with money in the first place. The person who becomes financially dependent also becomes devastated. The laws are only there to compensate that loss.

what about men who get sexually dependent on one woman, after she told him he cant fuck other women and they break up? should the woman at least provide some pussy to that guy untill he gets another girlfriend? dont be a simp against ur own gender.

the woman doesnt get to have the guys money after the relationship fucking ends, period. we dont get to fuck their pussies after it ends either do we? fucking move on. let her get another man to leech money of off and let us get another hole to fuck. fair is fair. goddamn.

a lot of laws are there to put money from rich men into the lawyers and womens pockets. the time where women couldnt provide for themselves have long ended. the woman can get another job. go feminism. hands off our fucking money whores.

this is why ill NEVER get married.

[Number 9 large]

His family is worth 1.12 billion dollars. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

if i married u and we broke up, would you agree there being a law where you would supply me a lifetime of pussy, because you know, im a man with manly needs that i cant take care of myself?

[Poptart]

if i married u and we broke up, would you agree there being a law where you would supply me a lifetime of pussy, because you know, im a man with manly needs that i cant take care of myself?

That’s what your hand is for bro.

[Aster]

Wow. I didn’t read the other comments, just the article. But that law is a strange one, never heard of it. Sometimes I wonder how many laws I’m breaking, just because I don’t know about them. And ignorance, I doubt?, is an excuse in courts. Not a lawyer here, but I’m just assuming. I suppose that’s one reason lawyers often get labeled as snakes because they know these laws, the loopholes. Just how to screw people over no matter if they are guilt/not guilt right/wrong. My husband recently was talking about talking in his phone while driving and I told him he’s going to end up getting a huge fine. Turns out he had no idea (think it was about a year ago) that it’s now illegal in Indiana to even hold your phone while driving. And that doesn’t mean just texting, it means talking on it and driving, too. I figured he was just being a rebel, but no-totally clueless. Been passing cops yapping away on his phone.

anyway, personal opinion that that law is BS and should be gotten rid of. If the guy didn’t know about this law, and that women did from the beginning, well that’s dirty dirty. Well, it’s dirty anyway, but that would be double dirty.

[Number 9 large]

That’s what your hand is for bro.

Exactly, and thats what mcdonalds is for, woman. Go work there and leave us and our money alone

[Poptart]

Exactly, and thats what mcdonalds is for, woman. Go work there and leave us and our money alone

Alright see you there.

[Singu]

what about men who get sexually dependent on one woman, after she told him he cant fuck other women and they break up? should the woman at least provide some pussy to that guy untill he gets another girlfriend? dont be a simp against ur own gender.

the woman doesnt get to have the guys money after the relationship fucking ends, period. we dont get to fuck their pussies after it ends either do we? fucking move on. let her get another man to leech money of off and let us get another hole to fuck. fair is fair. goddamn.

a lot of laws are there to put money from rich men into the lawyers and womens pockets. the time where women couldnt provide for themselves have long ended. the woman can get another job. go feminism. hands off our fucking money whores.

this is why ill NEVER get married.

lol well you're not losing anything when you're having sex with her, in fact you're gaining something by having free sex. Also marriage is supposed to be monogamous, so you're not supposed to be having sex with other women anyway.

If a couple gets married and ask the wife to become a housewife, and they get divorced after 10 years, then you have practically destroyed a woman's life if she were not financially compensated for that. While what does the man lose? Well practically nothing, other than that perhaps he had gotten 10 years of free labor of a servant.

I mean sure, don't get married if you don't want to take any risks. But consider that it's actually much more of a risk for a "stereotypical" woman to get married than a stereotypical man.

[Number 9 large]

lol well you're not losing anything when you're having sex with her, in fact you're gaining something by having free sex. Also marriage is supposed to be monogamous, so you're not supposed to be having sex with other women anyway.

If a couple gets married and ask the wife to become a housewife, and they get divorced after 10 years, then you have practically destroyed a woman's life if she were not financially compensated for that. While what does the man lose? Well practically nothing, other than that perhaps he had gotten 10 years of free labor of a servant.

I mean sure, don't get married if you don't want to take any risks. But consider that it's actually much more of a risk for a "stereotypical" woman to get married than a stereotypical man.

yea go simp somewhere else u bottom feeder