What makes you think she was lying? because he said so? Fuck that. he fucking lied. He shoulda kept his dick in his pants.
Men are jealous of women. and men CONSTANTLY lie and cheat. Girls have it made Girls have more fun Girls have their way To get lovers anytime they want Anytime she needs some lovin' Anytime she just gives a sign It won't take her long to find a man to oblige Guys got to plot Guys got to plan Guys got to lie, cheat, steal Do anything he can Anything to get her to love him Anything to make her agree That's the way it's been since Adam and Eve Girls can get it anytime they want Girls can get it where a man often won't Everybody's always after some lovin' now and then A woman gets it faster than any man can Girls can get it anytime they like Girls can get it a fact of life If she calls you for some lovin' in the middle of the night She can get a man runnin' at the speed of light We all look for love Somewhere, sometime Girls find it first They find it morning, noon and night And it's a wonder of nature, eighth wonder of the world That a man's got to chase her if he's gonna get the girl Oh, when a woman wants love A woman gets love And it's for sure she's gonna find it Before the sun comes up Girls can get it, they pick and choose Girls can get it, men are always in the mood If she calls you for some lovin' in the middle of the night She can get a man runnin' at the speed of light Girls can get it anytime they like Girls can get it a fact of life Oh, you know she'll find it easy You know that she can It's like givin' a little water to a thirsty man Girls can get it anytime they want Girls can get it where a man often won't
Both are true. Neither justifies paternity fraud. And securing commitment before having sex is one way of hedging against a "smash and dash" kind of dude. In a world where most divorces weren't filed by WOMEN, anyway.
Explain to us how a system without no-fault divorce would work, in your view. As I understand it (which admittedly isn't necessarily very well, as it's not the type of law I practice and I don't have first hand experience with divorce), no-fault divorce allows parties to go forward with divorce without having to show infidelity or other reasons why a divorce should be granted. Repealing that would mean prolonging how long the marriage is intact and some showing of proof as to why the marriage should be ended. I'm not sure why that would be a good thing. If the problem is that cheaters can sue for alimony, shouldn't the issue be reforming the alimony portion of things rather than making it more complicated to get a divorce in the first place?
Why does it matter that women are the ones to file for divorce? Has it occurred to these crybaby men that if they hadn't acted like fucking dicks, their wife wouldn't have left them?
Or do you think once a woman is married she now belongs to that man and unless he does something wrong, she must stay in the marriage regardless?
Divorce is granted if either party wants it, but in cases of infidelity, abuse or violation of prenuptial contacts, no spousal support is awarded. I am in no way in favor of forcing anyone to get OR stay married. That is one of the problems. Among the possible others are custody and paternity.
Sure. Just as it occurs that women get bored or find a better meal ticket. It matters in the discussion of who is more likely to leave the marriage, and who suffers more in the divorce.
So basically, it would be no-fault divorce, except that it would have a layer allowing people to make a case for fault to prevent spousal benefits. That is different, of course, from what is being talked about here. They are talking about instituting covenant marriage, which would require proof of fault or separation for a year or more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage
As I know, the women in your life do not behave the way you seem to think all women behave, I am perplexed at why you would think that what someone you don't know says is happening, you're not demanding proof from him. and just because statistics show women are more likely to initiate a divorce than men doesn't mean women are fucking over men. It just means men are content to continue to fuck over women longer than a woman is willing to put up with it.
Personally, I would do away with spousal support entirely, and impose massive reforms on family courts. Also law enforcement, for that matter. Nothing to do with me.
Alone it doesn't. In conjuction with things like paternity fraud and custody awards, it absolutely fucking does mean men are getting fucked over. And what is it the feminists say? "It's not that all men do. It's that all men COULD." Well that sentiment goes both ways.
If a wealthy man marries a woman just for her looks, knowing she is human and will grow old, then bitches because she gets alimony, then he's the fucking dick in this scenario. Doesn't matter who's money it was originally. he should have just paid for a lease on a high end call girl. Again, it's the man at fault. not the woman.
It has to do with various opinions you've been making in this thread, including: There is indeed a reason to keep no-fault divorce on the books when the primary alternative to it being discussed is where you can only get divorced through more restrictive conditions, at least some of which will involve unhappy couples staying together longer, at least some of which will allow abuse to continue, and at least some of which will require issues around proving fault that will lead to problems (either because, for example, one side can engineer fake proof of fault, or one side can shield true proof of fault).
Trans people have to bottle up their identity until the grave without the release of suicide, but god forbid a hetro man have to just empty his balls with his hand.
Oh, yeah. She totally isn't a gold-digging mercenary. Just an innocent cherub in your scenario. The FUCK it doesn't. That's the old joke. A man approaches a woman in a bar and asks "Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?" She looks at him, thinks about it and answers "Yeah. Sure." He then asks "OK, then would you have sex with me for ONE dollar?" She angrily replies "Hell no! What do you think I am?!?" He answers "We've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating the price. " Because pretending to care for a man so she can access his resources is just that entrepreneurial spirit.
I'm assuming this is regarding the assumption UA is anti trans. He's stated he isn't - just about kids, which, like you, I think he is misunderstanding the situation. So, not really understanding your reason for bringing that into this conversation.
Doesn't matter. He's the one with the money. He's the one who's going to bitch about alimony. No, it really doesn't. He used his money to lure a gold digger, he should know already what he's buying. So ..., some random woman approaches you and asks if you'll help her move for a million dollars and you say yes, you wouldn't get upset if she changed the parameters and now asks if you'll do it for a dollar. Would you still do it? Because pretending to care for a woman so you can stick your dick in her is all about love and she should never be allowed to ask for a divorce.
You're arguing men should have no accountability for their lying and cheating and fucking over everything in his path, so yea. sure.
Ah, so integrity, fidelity and accountability don't matter. Only who is better able to pay their bills. He used it to lure her. She didn't notice it on her own and persue him to get at it. I wouldn't do it in either case, because I wasn't born yesterday. I'd be looking for hidden cameras and microphones as I walked the fuck away. Both are liars and should expect to part company without any further benefits or obligations. And once again, if she wants a "commitment man," her first recourse should be to secure that commitment before having sex. "Then HEE should.." What? Do a background and credit check on her first? Get a full dossier of her relationship history to get some indication of her priorities? Be a man and ask random women about the explicit details of their past. See how well that works out for you.
I don't know how you're getting that. Men who cheat or abandon their children are scum. Women who cheat or lie about who the daddy is are scum. The difference is that women are by and large the ones who are rewarded for exiting the marriage. Women face no consequences for paternity fraud, and men are routinely forced to pay for someone else's child, both for the same bullshit reason: the "best interests of the child." Define "fucking over." It's not women languishing in destitution until they end up dead or in prison after that family court shoe gets rammed straight up their asses.
