Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Boethius]

That's criminal, unfair, and rude to take half of his asset to a man just because he lives with a woman, that's what i think. That's a RAPE.

It will be half the assets accumulated during the time they cohabited, plus the value of any assets he had which have increased in value.

My province does not recognize common law marriages.

I don't think it is rape.  It is intended to get around the results of a landmark legal case, Pettkus v Becker.  You can read about it here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pettkus_v_Becker

[Boethius]

In USA at least,  if a man is listed as the father on the birth certificate, even if he is not aware of it, he can be on the hook for 18+ years of support. Even if DNA testing proved he was not the father.

If a man is married and the wife has a kid that is not his, and it is discovered at any point, she should be liable for fraud and all reasonable support that he paid for should be required to be repaid in the event of divorce.

I believe a man has to sign a birth certificate to be named on it, does he not?


The support is for the child.  If a man stands in loco parentis, then he should pay support.  If he has doubts about paternity, he should ask for a DNA test before signing a birth certificate, or living with the woman.


Perhaps a man in such a situation would have a claim for fraud, if a woman knowingly named him the father of a child she knew was not his.  But in most cases, I suspect she doesn't know who the father is.  Plus, in most such cases, we are not discussing people with significant assets.

[Slumba]

I believe a man has to sign a birth certificate to be named on it, does he not?


The support is for the child.  If a man stands in loco parentis, then he should pay support.  If he has doubts about paternity, he should ask for a DNA test before signing a birth certificate, or living with the woman.


Perhaps a man in such a situation would have a claim for fraud, if a woman knowingly named him the father of a child she knew was not his.  But in most cases, I suspect she doesn't know who the father is. 

Plus, in most such cases, we are not discussing people with significant assets.

A man does not have to sign a BC, the woman's word alone is enough. 

Assets are not relevant or even worse a lack of assets increases penalties, in those parts of the USA where you can have your passport pulled, face other penalties, or even face jail time for not complying with child support orders.

Michigan: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/gone-viral/os-man-pay-support-kid-not-his--20141029-post.html

Texas: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010327/I-went-without-electricity-days-didn-t-eat-Fury-man-forced-pay-child-support-13-years-girl-s-never-met-despite-DNA-test-proving-s-not-his.html

Florida, the state Supreme Court ruled in 7-0 decision that he can't sue for fraud: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.html

Only a 1 year deadline , despite the potential for some $200K or more in support payments. Completely out of line IMHO.

There are many, many more such cases.  Note that they all go in favor of the woman and never in the man's favor.  Starting to get it yet?  Starting to see a pattern?

[Patagonie]

But if she is at home, cooking his meals, cleaning their home, caring for their children, doing his laundry, and overall ensuring he is more efficient in running his business, why should she not be entitled to benefit from her work?

I don't see any equivallence between the husband and the wife, eco


If she has her own business and career, and they contribute equally to all household chores and child rearing, I would agree.  But that typically is not the case.

I don't see any economical equity  between the husband and the wife.
Lets say that she is doing this 20 hours per week for 15$ per hour, it's 1200$ per month.
And you work with couples having assets of few millions $. So i would say the guys are earning between 10 and 20 grands per month.

So you see a big disparity bewteen she and he, and that's if not worth halving the business with a 50% for the woman.

Many women don't have the smartness and the skills to get such money. In some jobs they don't have the strengh.

Nothing is said about what the man has done during his marriage. Women want to be granted for caring, cooking, laudrying, but they never want to grant the man when he repairs the plumbery, put together a furniture, cut the grass, repare the car, etc. They don't want also to grant them when they go to the war for them and do the most dangerous jobs, dying in average 6 years before them (having an outstanding workplace accident rate).

Last it is not proved that the men are not playing the same volume of cooking, caring at home. I met a lawyer who has divorced. He told me : my wife was not working with three kids, and i was doing all at home.

So, when it's about to halve the business i don't see the women in position to claim something, except to be paid as nannies, which put them on the very low wage scale. And as i have explained many men do their part (ok less than women of course), but if you add  their home  and specific skills it largely cancels what is claimed and asked by women.

[Patagonie]

In USA at least,  if a man is listed as the father on the birth certificate, even if he is not aware of it, he can be on the hook for 18+ years of support. Even if DNA testing proved he was not the father.

If a man is married and the wife has a kid that is not his, and it is discovered at any point, she should be liable for fraud and all reasonable support that he paid for should be required to be repaid in the event of divorce.

In France the man has only six months to disavow the kid, after he is hooked for 18 years.
So let me how it is possible to guess that the kid is not your, except if you are a white couple, and your GF banged a black or a chinese? 

[Boethius]

A man does not have to sign a BC, the woman's word alone is enough. 

That doesn't appear to be the state of the law, unless the parties are married, or have married within about a year of the birth of a child.


http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/legal-definition-of-father-by-state.html


In both the cases you linked, the father's support was in fact, cancelled.  Had they moved on those cases more quickly, the support would have been cancelled earlier.


The Florida father could still sue the mother, and the real father as well.


If this is a big issue, men should be lobbying to change the law for cases where paternity is not established, as well as statutory time periods.

[Patagonie]

It will be half the assets accumulated during the time they cohabited, plus the value of any assets he had which have increased in value.

My province does not recognize common law marriages.

I don't think it is rape.  It is intended to get around the results of a landmark legal case, Pettkus v Becker.  You can read about it here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pettkus_v_Becker

You are right, that's not a rape, that's a robbery. A legalized robbery. It has no sexual character, only financial character. 
It just means that you cannot have any children in Canada.
Or you need to live in your own appartement, but i doubt that a court will be blind about such trick.

I  don't care about the landmark legal case, it's totally immoral that the state takes 50, more likely 60 or 70% of what i own JUST because i live with a woman and have a kid.

[Boethius]

I don't see any economical equity  between the husband and the wife.
Lets say that she is doing this 20 hours per week for 15$ per hour, it's 1200$ per month.
And you work with couples having assets of few millions $. So i would say the guys are earning between 10 and 20 grands per month.

Then what type of family relationship are you looking for? 

A man can choose not to marry a woman who can only earn $1200 per month.  He can always choose a feminazi high earning physician, or lawyer, or accountant.

So you see a big disparity bewteen she and he, and that's if not worth halving the business with a 50% for the woman.

The man would not be earning that money were it not for a woman at home ensuring his children are fed, driven to school, have clean clothes, etc. 

Many women don't have the smartness and the skills to get such money. In some jobs they don't have the strengh.

I could say the same of many men.

Nothing is said about what the man has done during his marriage. Women want to be granted for caring, cooking, laudrying, but they never want to grant the man when he repairs the plumbery, put together a furniture, cut the grass, repare the car, etc. They don't want also to grant them when they go to the war for them and do the most dangerous jobs, dying in average 6 years before them (having an outstanding workplace accident rate).

I have 3 neighbours on my block who are stay at home mothers.  They don't repair the cars, but I see them taking out the garbage and cutting the grass.  I suspect they hire plumbers.  In any event, other than garden work, these are not daily chores, so are not comparable.

Last it is not proved that the men are not playing the same volume of cooking, caring at home. I met a lawyer who has divorced. He told me : my wife was not working with three kids, and i was doing all at home.

I doubt that was the case.  Who was taking care of the children while he was at work?

So, when it's about to halve the business i don't see the women in position to claim something, except to be paid as nannies, which put them on the very low wage scale. And as i have explained many men do their part (ok less than women of course), but if you add  their home  and specific skills it largely cancels what is claimed and asked by women.

I would say that, overall, your post demonstrates the flaws in Western society.  Everyone wants to pull the blanket on him/herself, and not see the overall picture.  You put a worth on a woman's labour, and dismiss it because it has no monetary value to you.  I guess I am old fashioned.  I think a couple is in it 50/50.  If they can't think in these terms, then they should just draw up contracts on everything - who does what chores, and how often, who reads to the kids on what days, who helps the kids on what days, who buys their clothes on what days, who drives them to school and picks them up on what days, how often the parties should have sex, and for how long and in what positions/what type, how much weight each party can gain before the contract is voided, etc., with pecuniary penalties for any recorded breach.

[Boethius]

You are right, that's not a rape, that's a robbery. A legalized robbery. It has no sexual character, only financial character. 
It just means that you cannot have any children in Canada.
Or you need to live in your own appartement, but i doubt that a court will be blind about such trick.

I  don't care about the landmark legal case, it's totally immoral that the state takes 50, more likely 60 or 70% of what i own JUST because i live with a woman and have a kid.

In a divorce in Canada, the guidelines are stipulated in the Divorce Act.  Those guidelines take into account the income of both parents, as well as custody arrangements and they never reach 50%.  So they are very fair.

In situations in which the parties did not live together, the support will be based again on both parties' incomes, and custody.  So no, it is not inherently "unfair".

[Boethius]

Also, alimony here tends to be short term if a wife hasn't worked.  Typically, it is enough to allow her to retrain in a profession.  The courts have refused to extend alimony in many reported cases.

[Brasscasing]

Nop, that's not what i said. Men should be responsable for their children, of their DNA, ONLY. (which is not the case, men cannot abandon children, they will be always be prosecuted, women can abandon a baby in France, but we don't care about the father, that's shit). I have no probem with this.
Without forgetting to consider however that rich  and well off men are giving more than an alimony for the children.
They in fact give a compensatory alimony for the women as soon as  the alimony is consistently more than the average national alimony for children. We perfectly know that having a full control on high men's profiles alimonies, a lot of women use it partially to improve their own situation and the money go not totally to the children.

You wrote about Canada:
"a man living with a woman in a common law relationship (no marriage, but living together) is subject to the same division of assets laws as is a married man. "

That's criminal, unfair, and rude to take half of his asset to a man just because he lives with a woman, that's what i think. That's a RAPE.

Pat, you're kinda confusing three separate issues...

1) Child Support - Scheduled in all provinces of Canada. You can pretty well look up what you as the person in primary care and control of the children will receive. In Canada it's not a given the mother will receive care and control. I had primary care and control of my children.

Plug in your own numbers choose a province and see what you'd be paying (approximately) here if you like...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/look-rech.asp

2) Separation of marital assets. Bo's pretty well covered that.

3) Spousal support. This is the most contentious and litigated area of divorce in Canada. It is separate and apart from Child Support and is normally ruled on by a court. It can be altered, stopped, reinstated at the court's discretion upon either the petitioner or respondent's filing for a hearing (if required). This is where one or the other party can be hurt financially. I know of just as many successful career women who are/have paying/paid spousal support to their former husbands as vice versa.

Brass

[Slumba]

That doesn't appear to be the state of the law, unless the parties are married, or have married within about a year of the birth of a child.


http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/legal-definition-of-father-by-state.html


In both the cases you linked, the father's support was in fact, cancelled.  Had they moved on those cases more quickly, the support would have been cancelled earlier.


The Florida father could still sue the mother, and the real father as well.


If this is a big issue, men should be lobbying to change the law for cases where paternity is not established, as well as statutory time periods.

It's even worse ...

"Carnell Alexander of Detroit was supposed to receive a court order in 1987 notifying him of the child, but Alexander was in prison and was never told about the order. Because the person who delivered the order wrote that Alexander refused to sign it, a warrant was put out for his arrest.

That arrest came in 1991 when Alexander was pulled over and the officer informed him of the warrant.

Problem was, Alexander never knew about the child because it wasn't his. The mother, Alexander's ex-girlfriend, wrote Alexander's name down on a welfare application form because a father's name is required and she didn't know who the father was, the TV station reports."

So it wasn't even a BC, just another government form.

Note that his rights were violated multiple times:

1. person who was supposed to serve him, lied and doesn't seem to have been punished i.e. person acting under authority of the government or court didn't fulfill their duty, lied to the court

2. he was arrested due to #1

3. He had to spend additional money to clear his name both for child support and the (unresolved at time of writing) welfare bills.

You don't have any sympathy for men in such situations?  They just have to shut up and take it?

[Slumba]

Note that the thread title doesn't mention Canada, it says "AW" as in American women. Canadian law affects almost no one on the forum.

[BillyB]

Lets me explain to readers:
your parents gives you a house of 200000$. You marry, you divorce ten years after, the house is worth of 400000$, so you own 100000$ to her.
This house has no link with your wife, she don't put a cent or a minute on it, but in this case she gets 100000$

Even if the house doesn't increase in value, a spouse can get a piece of separate or inherited property if community money was spent on remodeling or fixing the place up. The judge can use a lot of discretion how much percent a spouse can take. Discretion is how people get the raw deal in divorce since it can be used to get around law. It's a way a judge can get one party more and the favored party is usually women. There are no men's activist groups and judges do not want a women's activist groups to put their name in the paper for being unfair. Also groups with money lobby. Lobbyists can help a judge get elected should they go for a higher position or into politics.

[Boethius]

Note that the thread title doesn't mention Canada, it says "AW" as in American women. Canadian law affects almost no one on the forum.

Tell Pat.  I was responding to his post here -


http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=21167.msg443023#msg443023

[Brianinaz]

That seems equitable.  They each received half of all assets and, presumably, half of all debt.  Whether she worked as much as he did is subjective, and you, from the outside, can't know the truth.

Wow, I want some of what you're smoking!

[Boethius]

So what is a spouse entitled to after two decades of marriage?  A handshake and a thank you?

[Patagonie]

Even if the house doesn't increase in value, a spouse can get a piece of separate or inherited property if community money was spent on remodeling or fixing the place up. The judge can use a lot of discretion how much percent a spouse can take. Discretion is how people get the raw deal in divorce since it can be used to get around law. It's a way a judge can get one party more and the favored party is usually women. There are no men's activist groups and judges do not want a women's activist groups to put their name in the paper for being unfair. Also groups with money lobby. Lobbyists can help a judge get elected should they go for a higher position or into politics.

Very intereting. Billy.

That's a data unknown in Europe as judges are not elected.
An other reason for men to be hammered through the "political correctness".

[Patagonie]

Pat, you're kinda confusing three separate issues...

1) Child Support - Scheduled in all provinces of Canada. You can pretty well look up what you as the person in primary care and control of the children will receive. In Canada it's not a given the mother will receive care and control. I had primary care and control of my children.

Plug in your own numbers choose a province and see what you'd be paying (approximately) here if you like...

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/look-rech.asp

2) Separation of marital assets. Bo's pretty well covered that.

3) Spousal support. This is the most contentious and litigated area of divorce in Canada. It is separate and apart from Child Support and is normally ruled on by a court. It can be altered, stopped, reinstated at the court's discretion upon either the petitioner or respondent's filing for a hearing (if required). This is where one or the other party can be hurt financially. I know of just as many successful career women who are/have paying/paid spousal support to their former husbands as vice versa.

Brass

Brass i know the different type of issues, you listed smartly in three categories, i came in post by post excepted the third one.
This one is the one i consider the fairest. If your wife don't work and have no other income the man has to help her for a while. But here in France with have a large range of government helps. I guess that spousal support is less frequent in Europe.
 Don't forget that a man with some money pays it twice : first every year though the taxes and separately during a divorce.

[BillyB]

That's a data unknown in Europe as judges are not elected.
An other reason for men to be hammered through the "political correctness".

Most judges in America aren't elected but any judge may want to get an elected position in the future. Also judges that are appointed/hired by are government are subject to their past performance. Many will not get hired if they had bad publicity.

Other ways separate or inherited property can become community property is if the person who owns separate and community property decides to sell it and the cash goes into community bank. Judges can use discretion on issues like that too. If a man sold his heirloom for $50,000 but at the time of divorce he has a job, wife doesn't have a job and they are both in debt, the judge will have the man assume all the debt, pay spousal support and she won't have to pay back the money from the sale of the heirloom even if she's responsible for gambling it all away.

[Muzh]

The point of the post was when a woman looses interest in sex for whatever reason, assuming for a moment the husband is interested and wants sex yet his passion is refused then there are few options left to him.

Should that be the case as is said in the article then the man's choices are clear.

Live celibate
Have external sexual affairs
Divorce and move on

Right, because white, old men can do no wrong.


Or has it ever ocurred to you that you are:
1) Speedy Gonzales?
2) Cro-Magnon man?
3) Sports is your turn-on?


Nah. C'mom let's be serious.
let's look at your options.


Remain celibate. Maybe your solution is at hand but you are just giving up and playing the victim card so you can...


Have extra marital sexual affairs. The solution WILL hit you in the face and you still be oblivious. I'll spell it for you E X C I T E M E N T. Things get stale and, of course, it is up to the little woman to bring up some excitement. Now, the moment she does that she has turned into the world's dirtiest whore so you decide to...

Divorce and move on. What a man!!! Lose your house. Lose your kids. Lose your pension. Lose your dog. Lose your man-cave. Ah, but at leaset you are free from that sniveling dirty whore and now can hit on your daughter's girfriends.


Yep, it's always the woman's fault.

[Muzh]

I met them both in 1977, spent many a night at their house playing cards with them and my wife, and still know them both quite well to this day.  Outside/inside call it what you want.  She never worked a day in her life except at the gym staying thin.  I know the truth inside and out, including the two guys she cheated with.  I also know the many she has been with since.  She dates by financial statement rather than emotion.   

And naturally you think it was fair.  BTW the only debt was what my friend ended up with, in getting rid of her.  Now I might agree it was worth it, but certainly not equitable.  It is funny to see you are even willing to defend someone like her, rather than just admit there could be a case now and then where the man gets raped by the system.

Heh


And that is what AW do, right? At least the majority of them. Sure.


Also, you are going to tell me that the majority of American men are like your buddy; faithful, hard working, and supporting of their wives, right?

[Muzh]

The vast majority of FSUW who are single and wanting to marry are more likely to be educated than their American counterparts. I believe it was you that posted a link earlier saying educated American women rarely divorce so they aren't available in huge numbers. I was astounded by the FSUW engineers, doctors, and attorneys I was able to date compared to what's available in America. Go to dating sites in both countries and compare what's available to men. Keep in mind, the most appealing profiles on American dating sites are fake. Foreign dating sites aren't the only ones that play games.

Just curious and not an insult to your wife, what was her level of education when you two married?

[Muzh]

Do you think that a man should be exactly as proud of a girl at 197 as at 124? Assuming she was married to a man, would you say that she is putting in the same amount of effort in the relationship, at 197?

Can you say the same in reverse?

[Slumba]

Can you say the same in reverse?

If was at a similar BMI , yes I suppose so.... although women often look at a number of traits, so it could be the level of the man's ambition, his charisma, etc.