My proposal for a new alimony law

[Ex-Terminator]

I can't take credit for this because I got the idea from another board I frequent.

Anyway, here is a way to make alimony laws much more fair, and in the process, reduce the divorce rate in the USA:

Any time a man is ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife, the ex-wife should be required to have sex with him three times a week.

Think about it; if a woman divorces her husband, yet is still being financially supported by him, is it fair that he get nothing whatsoever in return? No, it's not. She left him. She didn't love him anymore. What she is basically saying is, "I want you out of my life. I no longer love you or care about you. Oh, but here's the address to send the checks."

To hell with that. Let's make this fair for once. Does her new boyfriend have a problem with her three-times-a-week sex requirement with the ex? Tough! Then she can relinquish the alimony. I just get sick and tired of seeing men, who built great wealth long before even meeting their wives, having to basically give her 50% or more or everything they've worked for after she walks out the door.

[DaCougarMech]

alimony's a bitch
unfair as ****

[King Makaveli]

**** marriage

[Jordyn]

spousal support can be pretty unfair in a number of situations....
but lol, sometimes the last thing on earth a person wants is to sleep w/ the person they just got a divorce from. sometimes they become bitter enemies.

[limniade]

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Why should the wife be forced to prostitute herself, literally, for alimony payments?

Just about the only time a woman gets alimony granted to her is when she was obligated to stay out of the workforce, or only work part-time, due to prior marital agreement and then can't support herself on her salary. For instance, when the husband and wife agree that she stays home with the kids and then they get divorced when the last kid enters HS. Or, if it can be documented that she supported the husband while he started a business or went back to school or whatever. Then she's entitled to whatever share of the assets he gets because of that support, because she basically was an investor in his future income.

The chances of anyone having to pay alimony is pretty f'n small. 9 times out of 10, your future wife will already have a career and will work even if you have children. And there's a pretty good chance she'll make as much money as you and bring assets into the marriage. And either way, this can all be avoided if, were you to marry someday, you married someone who contributed equally to the marriage in terms of finances. Seriously, that can't be difficult.

[Below 30]

There doesn't need to be any new law. There just needs to be guys who stop getting married, problem solved. If a guy is dumb enough to have lots of money and marry a woman, then he deserves it when she takes him to the financial cleaners.


-30-

[limniade]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, more and more women are choosing not to get married.

Fewer marriages = less alimony.

Or, just marry someone who makes more than you. Then if you get divorced, she has to pay you. Problem solved.

[Below 30]

It really doesn't matter how much she makes, the man is going to lose something to her.


-30-

[limniade]

Yeah, so? And the woman is going to lose something to him, too, usually a lot more than he will. Statistically speaking, the woman is almost always worse off financially after divorce, and the man is better off.

Personally, I think that guys who obsess about alimony payments when they're not even married are a couple sandwiches short of the proverbial picnic.

[Below 30]

98& of Alimony is handed out to women, but woman are more financially worse off in a divorce?


-30-

[limniade]

Originally Posted by Below 30

98& of Alimony is handed out to women, but woman are more financially worse off in a divorce?

-30-

Yes, BECAUSE they're paid alimony in order to compensate for the income they gave up during their marriage.

Women who don't need alimony are not granted alimony.

Here's a FAQ on alimony:

http://www.divorceinfo.com/alimony.htm

But the laws on granting alimony vary by state.

[Below 30]

So if a woman needs the alimony, she gets it from the dude she divorced. So why you mentioned that women are worse off finacially in a divorce made not much sense. So women who have low income potential, will be given alimony by the man, thus she is not worse off finacially, the man is.


-30-

[limniade]

Originally Posted by Below 30

So if a woman needs the alimony, she gets it from the dude she divorced. So why you mentioned that women are worse off finacially in a divorce made not much sense. So women who have low income potential, will be given alimony by the man, thus she is not worse off finacially, the man is.


-30-

Because when you're married, you have a combined income, right? You're taxed on the combined income even if your salaries are significantly different.

So, a man makes $100K and a woman makes $30K. Combined, their income is $130K. They get divorced and she gets the kids. Even if he pays $1000/mo in combined alimony and child support, he'll be making $88K and she'll be making $42K, but:

a) She's supporting herself AND the kids on it while he is only supporting himself, and

b) Her basic necessities, like food, clothes, housing, school, daycare, etc are going to take up a lot more of her income than his will take out of his income.

So the man is supporting himself on twice as much money as she is, and she's supporting herself and children.

Therefore, her position is worse and his is better because her standard of living just went WAY down while his basically stayed the same.

[limniade]

Of course, you don't have to pay ANY alimony if you never get married, so do everybody a favor.

[Below 30]

Let's you and me do everybody a favour.


-30-

[limniade]

I've already decided not to get married. Although after reading threads like this all night, it seems I'm doing myself the favor.

[Below 30]

Well my plan worked I've blocked your dreams of marriage and dissolved the need to update the Alimony laws. Now I can take that unnesseary vaction I'm not entitled to.


-30-

[Jordyn]

Originally Posted by limniade

Just about the only time a woman gets alimony granted to her is when she was obligated to stay out of the workforce, or only work part-time, due to prior marital agreement and then can't support herself on her salary. For instance, when the husband and wife agree that she stays home with the kids and then they get divorced when the last kid enters HS. Or, if it can be documented that she supported the husband while he started a business or went back to school or whatever. Then she's entitled to whatever share of the assets he gets because of that support, because she basically was an investor in his future income.

The chances of anyone having to pay alimony is pretty f'n small. 9 times out of 10, your future wife will already have a career and will work even if you have children. And there's a pretty good chance she'll make as much money as you and bring assets into the marriage. And either way, this can all be avoided if, were you to marry someday, you married someone who contributed equally to the marriage in terms of finances. Seriously, that can't be difficult.

i agree w/ your 1st paragraph.

however, there are many cases of spousal support; there are a lot of stay at home moms.

[limniade]

Originally Posted by Jordyn

i agree w/ your 1st paragraph.

however, there are many cases of spousal support; there are a lot of stay at home moms.

Yes, but if a guy doesn't want to be responsible for alimony, one would think that not marrying a woman who would become a SAHM would be elementary.

[Below 30]

There you are right. I don't get it either why men don't just stop falling for marriage then. That's why I think it serves those dudes right when they have to pay up.


-30-

[Jordyn]

Originally Posted by limniade

Yes, but if a guy doesn't want to be responsible for alimony, one would think that not marrying a woman who would become a SAHM would be elementary.

people and their circumstances, along with their thinking, attitude, etc etc change a lot throughout the 5, 10, 20 years of marriage. what you want at 20 isnt necessarily what youre going to want at 40.

your attitude changes when youre in love vs. when you become bitter enemies. at one time, one might have been willing to support the one he/she loves financially (eg, stay at home mom), but after X yrs of marriage and the various problems associated with it, that "agreement" is no longer agreeable.

now, why the f*ck is my avi all screwed up???

[limniade]

Originally Posted by Jordyn

people and their circumstances, along with their thinking, attitude, etc etc change a lot throughout the 5, 10, 20 years of marriage. what you want at 20 isnt necessarily what youre going to want at 40.

your attitude changes when youre in love vs. when you become bitter enemies. at one time, one might have been willing to support the one he/she loves financially (eg, stay at home mom), but after X yrs of marriage and the various problems associated with it, that "agreement" is no longer agreeable.

now, why the f*ck is my avi all screwed up???

Which is a good argument for a pre-nup, really, even though those can be touchy too. But especially in these days when it's very likely that both parties will be bringing assets into the marriage, I think that it's only prudent to plan what to do with those assets in the case of a divorce WHILE people are still happy with each other and thus much more inclined to deal with each other fairly.

And in no cases should this include sex. The ex-husband's failure to get ass is his own goddamn problem.

[Jordyn]

Originally Posted by limniade

Which is a good argument for a pre-nup, really, even though those can be touchy too. But especially in these days when it's very likely that both parties will be bringing assets into the marriage, I think that it's only prudent to plan what to do with those assets in the case of a divorce WHILE people are still happy with each other and thus much more inclined to deal with each other fairly.

And in no cases should this include sex. The ex-husband's failure to get ass is his own goddamn problem.

i can be wrong here, but i believe in some states the courts will take a "second look" at the pre-nup to evaluate its fairness at the time of divorce. if it doesnt appear "fair" at that time (eg, 1 spouse is broke as f*ck while the other isnt), that pre-nup will not hold any water. im also not sure if one can contract out of marital assets and debts and support.

i think there was a man who put in the pre-nup: if wife cheats on me, she gets no alimony. i forgot how the case turned out.

[limniade]

See, I vote for just living together. The worst they can do is take your dog or your favorite chair. They can't take the deed to your house.

[Bladerunner5]

Originally Posted by Ex-Terminator

I can't take credit for this because I got the idea from another board I frequent.

Anyway, here is a way to make alimony laws much more fair, and in the process, reduce the divorce rate in the USA:

Any time a man is ordered to pay alimony to his ex-wife, the ex-wife should be required to have sex with him three times a week.

Think about it; if a woman divorces her husband, yet is still being financially supported by him, is it fair that he get nothing whatsoever in return? No, it's not. She left him. She didn't love him anymore. What she is basically saying is, "I want you out of my life. I no longer love you or care about you. Oh, but here's the address to send the checks."

To hell with that. Let's make this fair for once. Does her new boyfriend have a problem with her three-times-a-week sex requirement with the ex? Tough! Then she can relinquish the alimony. I just get sick and tired of seeing men, who built great wealth long before even meeting their wives, having to basically give her 50% or more or everything they've worked for after she walks out the door.

While I usually agree with your posts, and agree that the laws relating to divorce in many western countries are ridiculously biased towards women, you can't seriously propose that a woman prostitutes herself to her ex for alimony payments. Besides, I wouldn't expect a guy to want to sleep with his ex anyway.

I'm hoping this is a joke aimed at bringing attention to the unfair laws and not a serious post...

[forgot password]

Originally Posted by limniade

See, I vote for just living together. The worst they can do is take your dog or your favorite chair. They can't take the deed to your house.

what about common law marriage? doesn't that exist?

What does a man do when his working wife asks to stay home w/her baby for just one year and then maybe drags it out to more years?

what if wifey refuses to work can hubby quit to and they lose everything?

Prenups are worthless in your 20's since you've just started accumulating wealth and the prenup is only for what you had before marriage. As was said before prenups can be disregarded.

Love should not be contracted.

[forgot password]

Originally Posted by limniade

Because when you're married, you have a combined income, right? You're taxed on the combined income even if your salaries are significantly different.

So, a man makes $100K and a woman makes $30K. Combined, their income is $130K. They get divorced and she gets the kids. Even if he pays $1000/mo in combined alimony and child support, he'll be making $88K and she'll be making $42K, but:

a) She's supporting herself AND the kids on it while he is only supporting himself, and

b) Her basic necessities, like food, clothes, housing, school, daycare, etc are going to take up a lot more of her income than his will take out of his income.

So the man is supporting himself on twice as much money as she is, and she's supporting herself and children.

Therefore, her position is worse and his is better because her standard of living just went WAY down while his basically stayed the same.

In cases like this a guy who makes 100k will net around 60-(67-68ish)k based on tax laws of different states. Alimony and child support are PRE-TAX. So now figure 20% to alimony and another 20% to child support. That's 40k. Now the manwho grosses 100k nets 20-28k and the woman who makes 30k(who's net is prob 20k) now nets 60k. How's the man supposed to live now? alot of men move back in w/their parents after divorce cause they're too poor. Lol and if that guy suddenly pays less good luck on getting your payments adjusted. That sometimes can take years.

[Ex-Terminator]

Originally Posted by limniade

That's the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Why should the wife be forced to prostitute herself, literally, for alimony payments?

If the husband was rich when she met him, she most likely prostituted herself to get the ring on her finger in the first place.

[Ex-Terminator]

Originally Posted by Below 30

There doesn't need to be any new law. There just needs to be guys who stop getting married, problem solved. If a guy is dumb enough to have lots of money and marry a woman, then he deserves it when she takes him to the financial cleaners.


-30-

Damn. It won't let me rep you again so soon.

[Ex-Terminator]

Originally Posted by limniade

Well, if it makes you feel any better, more and more women are choosing not to get married.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That is seriously the best spin I've heard on anything in a long time! Yeah, you're right; all of those single moms in their mid-30's are "choosing" not to get married.

As of right now, I'm "choosing" not to date Drew Barrymore.



EDIT: Maybe I'll go pick up a copy of Grooms magazine this afternoon so I can dream about planning my wedding. Oh, wait. It doesn't even exist!