Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Boethius]

Majority of divorces are initiated by women because they have large financial benefits from this.
Make the divorce more interesting financially for men and it will reverse the curve

In such cases, a woman is typically getting half the assets, because the marriages are long term.  Still, she has a statistically higher chance of ending up poor in old age than she would have had she stayed married.  See the below links.

I think you discount a lot of reasons why people divorce.  It isn't all about money.   

http://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr31.pdf

http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2014/09/why-do-we-still-believe-divorce-leaves-men-worse-women

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25orce-women-research

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151211132229.htm

[Trenchcoat]

Maybe for men who are naïve but I certainly wouldn't be in the situations TC have been in. Many times he visited and got involved with women who aren't interested in him. Wasted time and money. He is not reading women right and it has molded him into a man who will not even trust a wife. Some people get involved with all the wrong people more than others. We've given him advice to get to know women better. He may have a hard time identifying quality women and women that are into him. I do know he doesn't spend enough quality time communicating with women before committing to a visit. He needs to figure it out. I did.

Not many times but twice, yes I did get involved with women that weren't interested in me (the first on is still a bit odd for me, but there was no clear move from her). I don't feel time & money were wasted, valuable experience was gained, and I got more accustomed to their culture, both are important I believe, sure it can be done without but it should stand me in good stead for next time (plus I needed a holiday anyway so might as well spend it there). Next time I am going in better equipped & highly organised, I've got my head around the situation more now. I know what to look for it was just a weird situation first time and a wrong strategy the second. I know now to guard against girls that are friendly, good communicators and seemingly very nice but no chemistry being apparent. Next time I will have a more comprehensive game plan and a longer commitment there to sort out a good girl with chemistry for me, sure there are no guarantees but I am confident.   

[Noch1]

Problems with sex and money cause most divorces.
Likely lack of one or both

[Gator]

There are a LOT of women over 50 who don't want to live with a man. 

And vice versa. 

[Trenchcoat]

Maybe for men who are naïve but I certainly wouldn't be in the situations TC have been in. Many times he visited and got involved with women who aren't interested in him. Wasted time and money. He is not reading women right and it has molded him into a man who will not even trust a wife. Some people get involved with all the wrong people more than others. We've given him advice to get to know women better. He may have a hard time identifying quality women and women that are into him. I do know he doesn't spend enough quality time communicating with women before committing to a visit. He needs to figure it out. I did.

Why how much time did you spend communicating with women before going? I think you said before that you were 100 percent confident that it would work for you. Even still though as I recall, if I recall correct the woman you went to see was a no-show and you ended up call up your back up plan and one of your back up's was the woman you met with and finally married. 

[BC]

There are a LOT of women over 50 who don't want to live with a man. 

And vice versa.

And probably a LOT over 50 that desire great looking mate 20-30 years their junior



Don't have a pic of TG and VWRW.. 

[BillyB]

Why how much time did you spend communicating with women before going?

I made decisions to visit ladies when I knew they were happy to hear my voice on the phone, they invested lots of time with me on the phone, and the important questions were answered and our beliefs and goals seem to align. I didn't factor a minimum or maximum time of communicating into my decision.

if I recall correct the woman you went to see was a no-show and you ended up call up your back up plan and one of your back up's was the woman you met with and finally married.

You got the wrong guy. All the women I visited showed and if it didn't work out, I used backup. My wife was a primary woman I visited, not a back up. Most of the women I dated home or abroad, I dumped. One mistake men make is they will try to make something work when nothing is there. Expect to dump and be dumped many times before you find the right woman.

[Patagonie]

In such cases, a woman is typically getting half the assets, because the marriages are long term.  Still, she has a statistically higher chance of ending up poor in old age than she would have had she stayed married.  See the below links.

I think you discount a lot of reasons why people divorce.  It isn't all about money.   

http://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr31.pdf

http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2014/09/why-do-we-still-believe-divorce-leaves-men-worse-women

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/25orce-women-research

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151211132229.htm

"In such cases, a woman is typically getting half the assets, because the marriages are long term"

I don't see any reason that women get half the assets as a rule or typically:

1/ I don't see any reason to halve the assets i earned or bought prior to the marriage.

2/ I don't see any reason to give back half of all the inheritance that i got prior the marriage.

3/ I don't see any reason to give back half of the inheritance i can get after my marriage.

4/ I don't see any reason to split my business, grocery, company or whatever you want, to sell it to be able to pay half to
ex wife or get crazy debt, all good reasons to send me to the sidewalk.
And  i don't see any reason to do this as generally wifey has absolutely nothing to do whith this business, and none of the requirements to make this business a success. 

[Boethius]

In almost all North American jurisdictions, property acquired before marriage is exempt from matrimonial division.  The increase in value of that property during marriage is not exempt, unless there is a prenuptial agreement, in which case, the agreement will override legislation.


In all North American jurisdictions I can think of, inherited property is exempt from matrimonial division.  That is property inherited before, or during, the marriage.  The increase in value in that property is also exempt from matrimonial division, provided it is maintained separately.  What often occurs is that the property is mixed with matrimonial property, such as for a down payment or improvements to a home.  In those cases, unless the property can be traced to its original source, the increased value will be exempt.  Again, this is easily rectified by maintaining records with respect to the inheritance, or keeping those assets separate.

[Patagonie]

http://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr31.pdf

To have a clue of what will happen just who is the writer : "Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing."

She is using a recent study from the University of Essex, saying
"Women continue to see living standards fall by more after separation than men, especially when children are involved, but even for couples with no children. Mothers and children from high-income families see especially large drops in living standards, because the loss of the man’s earnings is in no way compensated for by higher income from alimony, child maintenance, benefits and tax credits, and having fewer mouths to feed."

The reason number ONE and the consequence ONE of a divorce is that people are splitting.
It means that the man's earning is no LONGER existing, because it is supposed to go along with the man. I know that feminists put great effort to cut as money as possible from the man and to avoid this money leaving with him.

In Canada, as men are totally fed up to be the financial slaves of the divorce state robbery, a lot have stopped to marry, however many have childrens. Feminsists are working to a new law to get more money from the not married ones having children. That's in progress.


So the study is totally biaised because they make the substraction of total income of the household minus income's men.
What the man has to do with this single woman freshly divorced, the funniest part is that is generally her decision ???
They have therefore nothing to do together because they are no longer existing as a couple. There is nothing to compare.
What does she have to do with M. Dupont, crossing the street at this second? Nothing , no link.


So compare incomes of a single divorced with her the total incomes of her previous married couple is insane.
COmparing her actual income with what would have happened if she  had stayed alone all her life make sense.
This substraction makes sense to show NOT the substraction as the writer is crying all along her article but the SUM in her bill favor.

IF any divorced guy was selling all his assets and burning all the money, shooting himself in the head, i could understand her lamentations, but the truth is that the bill is very often a PLUS, a SUM compare to the single life she would had had WITHOUT MAN.
So men are almost always giving a bonus to women compare to what they have been before or what they would have become later, as a single (with or without children).

[Boethius]

In Canada, as men are totally fed up to be the financial slaves of the divorce state robbery, a lot have stopped to marry, however many have childrens. Feminsists are working to a new law to get more money from the not married ones having children. That's in progress.

In all Canadian jurisdictions except Alberta and Quebec, 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.  Furthermore, men in all Canadian jurisdictions are already subject to support obligations for their children, whether they have lived together or not, and have been for decades.

[Boethius]

I do a lot of planning for couples who split.  Granted, these are couples with significant assets (usually over $3 million, and usually involving a business).  Typically, the business is the primary asset, the wife usually worked in the business, but only part time, and was home raising the couple's children.  The last plan I did was for a couple in their fifties, married in their early twenties, five children which the wife stayed home to raise, and she maintained the company's books. 


The husband decided he wanted a newer, younger woman.  So, he ran off with another woman half his age.  Yes, that feminazi and her children should have received nothing, right?


I have done dozens of these.  In no case have I ever witnessed a man who did not recover and do as well, if not better, financially, after divorce and a division of assets.  Of course, I'm not working for "wage slaves", I am only working with couples who have significant assets to begin with.

[LiveFromUkraine]

I do a lot of planning for couples who split.  Granted, these are couples with significant assets (usually over $3 million, and usually involving a business).  Typically, the business is the primary asset, the wife usually worked in the business, but only part time, and was home raising the couple's children.  The last plan I did was for a couple in their fifties, married in their early twenties, five children which the wife stayed home to raise, and she maintained the company's books. 


The husband decided he wanted a newer, younger woman.  So, he ran off with another woman half his age.  Yes, that feminazi and her children should have received nothing, right?


I have done dozens of these.  In no case have I ever witnessed a man who did not recover and do as well, if not better, financially, after divorce and a division of assets.  Of course, I'm not working for "wage slaves", I am only working with couples who have significant assets to begin with.

There seems to be a weird disconnect going on.  I don't quite get it.  Many guys are looking for stay at home mom's/wives.  Afterall, that is part of the allure of FSU women according to many here.  Even after being married for 10/20 years they don't think the wives should be taken care of. 


Personally, I think if guys are worried about divorce and being taken for half they need to be marrying women that earns the same amount as they do.  In the event of a divorce, the woman will have marketable skills that will help them survive past the marriage.

[Faux Pas]

There seems to be a weird disconnect going on.  I don't quite get it.  Many guys are looking for stay at home mom's/wives.  Afterall, that is part of the allure of FSU women according to many here.  Even after being married for 10/20 years they don't think the wives should be taken care of. 


Personally, I think if guys are worried about divorce and being taken for half they need to be marrying women that earns the same amount as they do.  In the event of a divorce, the woman will have marketable skills that will help them survive past the marriage.

I don't know why many insist that they got screwed in a divorce because they have a penis, they didn't. The law is relatively clear in all 50 states what happens to property in a divorce. Those that do make that claim obviously didn't know the ;aw before getting into it.

I'll be the first to admit I didn't before my first marriage. I did however have an awakening during the divorce. Half of everything obtained after the marriage is communal property or wealth. Some of the the property obtained prior is also subject. Know the law before marrying. It's not brain science

[LiveFromUkraine]

I don't know why many insist that they got screwed in a divorce because they have a penis, they didn't. The law is relatively clear in all 50 states what happens to property in a divorce. Those that do make that claim obviously didn't know the ;aw before getting into it.

I'll be the first to admit I didn't before my first marriage. I did however have an awakening during the divorce. Half of everything obtained after the marriage is communal property or wealth. Some of the the property obtained prior is also subject. Know the law before marrying. It's not brain science

I wasn't married that long but found my judge to be very fair.


I wasn't aware that property obtained prior to marriage could be pulled in. 

[Boethius]

I wasn't aware that property obtained prior to marriage could be pulled in.

It depends on the jurisdiction.  Typically, that property is exempt, but the increase in value is not, unless there is a prenuptial agreement.

[LiveFromUkraine]

It depends on the jurisdiction.  Typically, that property is exempt, but the increase in value is not, unless there is a prenuptial agreement.

Ah, gotcha moment.  haha  For some reason I thought FP meant something else.   It is the same where I live as well.

[Patagonie]

It depends on the jurisdiction.  Typically, that property is exempt, but the increase in value is not, unless there is a prenuptial agreement.

That's the problem.

I have heard that, depending the state, your prenup is nuts in USA.
In France we have a different situation.
85% of men marry with the classic (common except inheritage) marriage.
You can marry with the separate assets marriage. This one solves the problem of the increase of the value of the assets as you said Bo.

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$

[Boethius]

In most North American jurisdictions, it is difficult to overturn a well drafted pre nuptial agreement,


I am in Canada.  The courts here adhere to pre nuptial agreements fairly strictly, provided both parties had independent legal advice and the agreement wasn't signed under duress (on the church steps).  In one situation, our Supreme Court even upheld a prenup signed on the church steps, because the bride was a lawyer, and should have understood what rights she was signing away.  In that case, she stopped working to raise a family, IIRC, which is why it was litigated.

[Patagonie]

In all Canadian jurisdictions except Alberta and Quebec, 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.  Furthermore, men in all Canadian jurisdictions are already subject to support obligations for their children, whether they have lived together or not, and have been for decades.

Thank for this information, i was not aware of it.
Things are worse than i thaught.
NB : alimonies for children are right, except when the fathers are not the real ones and obliged to pay it.

[Boethius]

Why are they worse?  Shouldn't men be responsible financially for the children they help create?

[Patagonie]

I do a lot of planning for couples who split.  Granted, these are couples with significant assets (usually over $3 million, and usually involving a business).  Typically, the business is the primary asset, the wife usually worked in the business, but only part time, and was home raising the couple's children.  The last plan I did was for a couple in their fifties, married in their early twenties, five children which the wife stayed home to raise, and she maintained the company's books. 


The husband decided he wanted a newer, younger woman.  So, he ran off with another woman half his age.  Yes, that feminazi and her children should have received nothing, right?


I have done dozens of these.  In no case have I ever witnessed a man who did not recover and do as well, if not better, financially, after divorce and a division of assets.  Of course, I'm not working for "wage slaves", I am only working with couples who have significant assets to begin with.

If the women don't have an official wage or if they are co-associates it's clear that the court should give them back something.

But you are not answering for the most numerous cases concerning women with no link at all with the businness. And there are many guys who are their own boss and what make their living  will not survive or it will survive but they have to give up everything else barely.

In this case my position is very clear : women can have alimonies for themselves, alimonies for children, part or half of asset that are not  bought separatly, but for men's business, when she is not involved with, NUTS, ZERO.

[Boethius]

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?


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.

[Patagonie]

Why are they worse?  Shouldn't men be responsible financially for the children they help create?

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.

[Slumba]

Why are they worse?  Shouldn't men be responsible financially for the children they help create?

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.