Some conservatives want to ban no-fault divorce

[jerryskids 5,211]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It very well could be decades of seeing men getting raked over the coals and losing everything (money, kids, etc...) in our "justice" system regarding divorce.  The pendulum has swung so far in the other direction to protect women that men are being ignored and outright being screwed.

Not saying you are wrong, but he is only in his 20's IIRC, so he doesn't have that life experience.

[Stryker Ryker 176]

Don’t agree with it. Every state should be an “at fault” state. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

Not exactly, but setting aside your strawman for a moment I do think there is something more here to delve into.  They see the nuclear family under attack from woke idiots and BLM etc....and if we accept that a big problem with kids and success is the lack of that family, they are hoping to encourage the family unit.

Now, anything....I mean ANYTHING....the government gets involved with....they ruin....so I am tepid on this entire thing of course. But it might be more useful to develop some counter-narratives to the feminazi/marxist excrement that assails white males, males in general and the family in general and demonstrate why these historically good things remain good.

Rather than compel, we need to deprogram the indictrination

I don’t exactly disagree with much of what you say here, but it’s stupid to basically require people to stay legally married or screw over one of the spouses’s in the divorce because it’s their “fault” the marriage ended.

You are speaking to a societal issue but these right wingers want to legally force people (women, mainly) to stay in marriages, which is insane.

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t exactly disagree with much of what you say here, but it’s stupid to basically require people to stay legally married or screw over one of the spouses’s in the divorce because it’s their “fault” the marriage ended.

You are speaking to a societal issue but these right wingers want to legally force people (women, mainly) to stay in marriages, which is insane.

I think we agree on alot. I think the notion of compelling people to stay together is deeply flawed, but at the same time I lament the transactional nature of marriage today.  

It might be true, and I am not certain that it is.....that incentives could be the way.  We incentivize staying together, to encourage people to work out their differences where possible.  But abuse is not limited to physical harm.  It can take the form of verbal, emotional and psychological damage.  And people who want to escape that should be able to do so for sure.

[BeachGuy23 512]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think we agree on alot. I think the notion of compelling people to stay together is deeply flawed, but at the same time I lament the transactional nature of marriage today.  

It might be true, and I am not certain that it is.....that incentives could be the way.  We incentivize staying together, to encourage people to work out their differences where possible.  But abuse is not limited to physical harm.  It can take the form of verbal, emotional and psychological damage.  And people who want to escape that should be able to do so for sure.

Is the divorce rate any higher now than say 50 years ago?

While we do want to incentivize marriage for all the stability it brings, forcing folks to stay together who are miserable is way more harmful.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

8 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

You can tell who is still wet behind the years. Lol - Most in here aren’t millennials like 90’s.

Because I don't sign unconscionable contracts? Marriage being between you and the church makes sense, now it's just a document that allows women to financially screw over men.

 

Two things I'll never do in a life

1. Bet against myself 

2. Take care of someone else's kids 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Not saying you are wrong, but he is only in his 20's IIRC, so he doesn't have that life experience.

How many years of life experience do you need to properly asses the pros and cons of signing a contract?

[jerryskids 5,211]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think we agree on alot. I think the notion of compelling people to stay together is deeply flawed, but at the same time I lament the transactional nature of marriage today.  

It might be true, and I am not certain that it is.....that incentives could be the way.  We incentivize staying together, to encourage people to work out their differences where possible.  But abuse is not limited to physical harm.  It can take the form of verbal, emotional and psychological damage.  And people who want to escape that should be able to do so for sure.

Would not everything listed here fall under "fault" divorce?  The issue at hand is no-fault.

Quote

In contrast, a no-fault divorce does not require one party to prove a fault of the other spouse in order to obtain the divorce; one spouse can file simply because they believe the marriage is irretrievably broken.

 

[jerryskids 5,211]

7 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

How many years of life experience do you need to properly asses the pros and cons of signing a contract?

Honestly, with your attitude towards women, I sincerely hope that you never get married.  I would pity any woman in such a toxic environment.  You have a long way to go before worrying about treating a marriage like buying a car.

While you are at it, do a financial analysis for having a child.  Pro tip -- it's a negative financially.  So no children, right?  Winning$#@!

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Honestly, with your attitude towards women, I sincerely hope that you never get married.  I would pity any woman in such a toxic environment.  You have a long way to go before worrying about treating a marriage like buying a car.

While you are at it, do a financial analysis for having a child.  Pro tip -- it's a negative financially.  So no children, right?  Winning$#@!

News flash guy, you can have a life long monogamous relationship without getting a marriage license and it's becoming more and more common. You can also still have kids, did you know that? You can even have a ceremony, just don't sign contracts where the other person has an incentive to break it. Get it?

[RLLD 3,455]

19 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Is the divorce rate any higher now than say 50 years ago?

While we do want to incentivize marriage for all the stability it brings, forcing folks to stay together who are miserable is way more harmful.

As I have noted elsewhere the concern has actually improved over the last 10 years.

I do not suggest we force people to stay together by any means. We should not trust the government with anything really.  But the correlation between success and elements such as a two-parent home are established.   It's but one element in a multi-variant system, but one of the most important.  So if we can incentivize staying together I think that could help, but is by no means the only method.

[RLLD 3,455]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Would not everything listed here fall under "fault" divorce?  The issue at hand is no-fault.

 

My stance is that people get a divorce for reasons other than "fault".  Our culture has incentivized divorce.  Life is hard, relationships can be challenging, they are not always sunny-happy....

But people still need an avenue where differences are irreconciliable.  My initial post around this was to help clarify the "why" which was the question asked. And my response was simply that there is a correlation between success and a two-parent home. I surmise that is the "why". And I further stand by my assertion that I would rather the government stay out of it.....they suck, plain and simple, and anything they touch they will ruin

[MDC 5,895]

You are more likely to divorce:
    •    If you were raised in a single-parent home than if your parents remained married
    •    If you frowned in photographs taken of you when you were young. Only 10 percent of people who smiled in early photographs had gone through a divorce later in life compared with 31 percent of those did not smile.
    •    If you are a choreographer than if you are a mathematician. Your chance of getting a divorce if you’re a dancer or choreographer is 43 percent compared with only 19 percent among mathematicians.
    •    If you are a woman who got married before you turned 18. You have a 48 percent chance of getting a divorce within ten years.
    •    If you are a woman who wants a child much more than your spouse does. Couples who do not agree on how much they do or don’t want to have children are twice as likely to end their marriage.
    •    If you have a childless marriage. The absence of children leads to loneliness, and at least 66 percent of divorced couples in the United States are childless.
    •    If you have two sons, you have a 36.9 percent chance of getting a divorce. Couples with two daughters have a likelihood of 43.1 percent.
    •    If a husband is nine or more years older than his wife or two or more years younger, the risk of getting a divorce is twice that of couples who are closer in age.
    •    If you and your partner lived together before marriage, you are at greater risk of getting a divorce than if you had not cohabitated. Sociologists suggest this is because living together strengthens a belief that marriage is not a sacred bond.
    •    If there are stepchildren, it may create conflict that stresses a relationship and tends to lead to higher divorce rates.
    •    If only one partner smokes, the chance of divorce nearly doubles. If both people smoke, the chance of divorce increases by nearly 2.4 times than if neither individual smokes. One theory is that smokers tend to participate in more risky activities and are more likely to end a marriage. Another is that smokers are more likely to be economically disadvantaged, and this population tends to be at higher risk for an unstable marriage.
    •    If you have a child that dies after the twentieth week of pregnancy or soon after labor, you are 40 percent more likely to divorce than if you never lost a child.
    •    If you are a woman who has recently been diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis, the chances of divorce are sixfold greater than if your husband has been diagnosed with the same diseases.
    •    If you are a man with a high testosterone level, you are 43 percent more likely to get a divorce than a man with low testosterone.
    •    If either partner has ever suffered a brain injury, there is a 17 percent chance the marriage will end in divorce.
    •    If either partner drinks more than two drinks per day, the chances of divorce are higher. If both drink three or more daily, they have nearly twice the risk of divorce than if neither individual drinks to excess. Suggested reasons include heavy drinkers may not choose good mates and alcohol can get in the way of being a good spouse.
    •    If you have a child who has ADHD, you are 22.7 percent more likely to divorce before the child reaches his or her eighth birthday than parents of a child without ADHD.
    •    If you are woman who is actively serving in the military, you are 250 times more likely to get a divorce than if a man is serving actively in the military.
    •    If you are a white woman who is separated from her spouse, there is a 98 percent change you will get a divorce within six years of the separation. Hispanic women have an 80 percent chance, while African-American women have a 72 percent chance.
    •    If you are an African-American woman, your first marriage has a 47 percent chance of ending in divorce within ten years. The likelihood is 34 percent for Hispanic women, 32 percent for white women, and 20 percent for Asian women.
    •    If you are a farmer, your chances of getting a divorce are low, only 7.63 percent. Nuclear engineers have a 7.29 percent chance while optometrists face a 4.01 percent likelihood.

Link

[jerryskids 5,211]

20 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

News flash guy, you can have a life long monogamous relationship without getting a marriage license and it's becoming more and more common. You can also still have kids, did you know that? You can even have a ceremony, just don't sign contracts where the other person has an incentive to break it. Get it?

Sounds like a great deal.  I bet you have women lined up applying for this position.   

Also, what is the incentive to break the contract?

[jerryskids 5,211]

19 minutes ago, RLLD said:

My stance is that people get a divorce for reasons other than "fault".  Our culture has incentivized divorce.  Life is hard, relationships can be challenging, they are not always sunny-happy....

But people still need an avenue where differences are irreconciliable.  My initial post around this was to help clarify the "why" which was the question asked. And my response was simply that there is a correlation between success and a two-parent home. I surmise that is the "why". And I further stand by my assertion that I would rather the government stay out of it.....they suck, plain and simple, and anything they touch they will ruin

I do not believe that people should get divorces because "Life is hard, relationships can be challenging, they are not always sunny-happy...."  

Particularly if you have kids.  

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I do not believe that people should get divorces because "Life is hard, relationships can be challenging, they are not always sunny-happy...."  

Particularly if you have kids.  

So then, we agree.....  

I am getting a sense that you might want to go back and read from the start..... someone asked why "Republicans" would try to do this and all I did was offer an explanation.

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

20 minutes ago, RLLD said:

My stance is that people get a divorce for reasons other than "fault".  Our culture has incentivized divorce.  Life is hard, relationships can be challenging, they are not always sunny-happy....

But people still need an avenue where differences are irreconciliable.  My initial post around this was to help clarify the "why" which was the question asked. And my response was simply that there is a correlation between success and a two-parent home. I surmise that is the "why". And I further stand by my assertion that I would rather the government stay out of it.....they suck, plain and simple, and anything they touch they will ruin

And I completely agree with this, along with MDCs statement of why would anyone want to stay together if the other person wants out? I certainly wouldn't if Zirra approached me and said he was done, even tho I've done nothing. 

The situation in which there is an incentive to get divorced I think is a bit misleading, as many couples end up bankrupt with much much less than they had together. "It's cheaper to keep her" type of scenario. 

I don't think that women go into marriage thinking that they will "come out ahead" if they just stick it out for a few years and pop out a couple of kids. There's not much incentive for women TO get married, either really just as there really isn't much for men as you stated earlier.  If the couple is unbalanced financially to start with one of them making much more than the other, then yes...sign the prenups. If you both go into it with virtually nothing, divorcing can end up destroying credit, children's lives, etc. 

I guess I don't see an incentive to get divorced, but hubs and I came into our relationship on the poorer side of things (I actually paid off quite a bit of his debt, took care of a past eviction, among other things). My BFF going through a divorce that she initiated is coming out severely poorer and with virtually nothing, despite being TOLD to stay home and raise children while he went out and made money. She has nothing, had to move in with her parents at 47 and shares a room with one of her kids. Hardly an incentive to have left him. 

[RLLD 3,455]

Just now, TheNewGirl said:

And I completely agree with this, along with MDCs statement of why would anyone want to stay together if the other person wants out? I certainly wouldn't if Zirra approached me and said he was done, even tho I've done nothing. 

The situation in which there is an incentive to get divorced I think is a bit misleading, as many couples end up bankrupt with much much less than they had together. "It's cheaper to keep her" type of scenario. 

I don't think that women go into marriage thinking that they will "come out ahead" if they just stick it out for a few years and pop out a couple of kids. There's not much incentive for women TO get married, either really just as there really isn't much for men as you stated earlier.  If the couple is unbalanced financially to start with one of them making much more than the other, then yes...sign the prenups. If you both go into it with virtually nothing, divorcing can end up destroying credit, children's lives, etc. 

I guess I don't see an incentive to get divorced, but hubs and I came into our relationship on the poorer side of things (I actually paid off quite a bit of his debt, took care of a past eviction, among other things). My BFF going through a divorce that she initiated is coming out severely poorer and with virtually nothing, despite being TOLD to stay home and raise children while he went out and made money. She has nothing, had to move in with her parents at 47 and shares a room with one of her kids. Hardly an incentive to have left him. 

I appreciate your point of view here, and you have given me some opportunity to think about this more deeply. 

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I appreciate your point of view here, and you have given me some opportunity to think about this more deeply. 

I really think it's possible to have good discussions here. I like seeing your point of view as well - others here not so much. 

[Strike 3,980]

12 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I guess I don't see an incentive to get divorced, but hubs and I came into our relationship on the poorer side of things (I actually paid off quite a bit of his debt, took care of a past eviction, among other things). My BFF going through a divorce that she initiated is coming out severely poorer and with virtually nothing, despite being TOLD to stay home and raise children while he went out and made money. She has nothing, had to move in with her parents at 47 and shares a room with one of her kids. Hardly an incentive to have left him. 

You've posted this a few times in these discussions and I just want to say that this sucks.  She deserves a lot more.  Does she have a divorce attorney?  I'd think she'd be legally entitled to a lot more especially in a place like CA.

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

You've posted this a few times in these discussions and I just want to say that this sucks.  She deserves a lot more.  Does she have a divorce attorney?  I'd think she'd be legally entitled to a lot more especially in a place like CA.

She doesn't but he does, so she's kind of using that to her advantage and reaching out to his attorney for everything, knowing that he has to pay every time he tries to fock her over with something. She's not reaching out just randomly, it's usually when he does something stupid that's against the agreement that HE put together. 

Long story short,  but she's FINALLY getting spousal support and some child support. But other than that, he's still trying to control everything that happens. He's focking it all up, too at every turn, then blaming it on her. And they aren't even together. He made the courts add some really specific stuff into their agreement thinking that it would fock her, but it's actually focking himself, and he keeps breaking things in the agreement. Every time he does this, she emails the lawyer with the specific sections of the agreement and his text messages that he sends her. 

He wasn't paying her at all for over a year, until the court basically told him, "You can't do that..." there's clear proof that he makes much more than she does. He was able to find a new place to rent and already has a GF. She's still living with her dad and all of that, even despite getting support. He changed the locks on their rental when she was on the lease (which is illegal) and basically went through all of their stuff, TELLING her what was hers and then put it in storage. Gave her the key and said, "OH, this is how much it costs every month." More or less made her homeless for a short time. 

It's awful. BUT...after 20 years, she just couldn't do it anymore. I really feel that he would have drained her spirit so much that there would be nothing left. She had to leave him to save herself. 

She's going back to school now, too...something he promised she could do 20 years ago. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,662]

8 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

She doesn't but he does, so she's kind of using that to her advantage and reaching out to his attorney for everything, knowing that he has to pay every time he tries to fock her over with something. She's not reaching out just randomly, it's usually when he does something stupid that's against the agreement that HE put together. 

Long story short,  but she's FINALLY getting spousal support and some child support. But other than that, he's still trying to control everything that happens. He's focking it all up, too at every turn, then blaming it on her. And they aren't even together. He made the courts add some really specific stuff into their agreement thinking that it would fock her, but it's actually focking himself, and he keeps breaking things in the agreement. Every time he does this, she emails the lawyer with the specific sections of the agreement and his text messages that he sends her. 

He wasn't paying her at all for over a year, until the court basically told him, "You can't do that..." there's clear proof that he makes much more than she does. He was able to find a new place to rent and already has a GF. She's still living with her dad and all of that, even despite getting support. He changed the locks on their rental when she was on the lease (which is illegal) and basically went through all of their stuff, TELLING her what was hers and then put it in storage. Gave her the key and said, "OH, this is how much it costs every month." More or less made her homeless for a short time. 

It's awful. BUT...after 20 years, she just couldn't do it anymore. I really feel that he would have drained her spirit so much that there would be nothing left. She had to leave him to save herself. 

She's going back to school now, too...something he promised she could do 20 years ago. 

That’s terrible. That guy isn’t a real man. Also, can size on the divorcee? 

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s terrible. That guy isn’t a real man. Also, can size on the divorcee? 

LOL, I have no idea. Probably average, 34C. 

I wonder, if her leaving would be considered "no fault" under this new law? Because he never cheated on her, or hit her. But the emotional and mental abuse, controlling behavior was HUGE. She never cheated, either. 

He was just classic textbook narcissist (I hate that so many people use that word now, so flippantly, but he really was). 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

Because I don't sign unconscionable contracts? Marriage being between you and the church makes sense, now it's just a document that allows women to financially screw over men.

 

Two things I'll never do in a life

1. Bet against myself 

2. Take care of someone else's kids 

Incel

[jerryskids 5,211]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Also, can size on the divorcee? 

Thanks for steering us back to important things.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,662]

12 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

LOL, I have no idea. Probably average, 34C. 

I wonder, if her leaving would be considered "no fault" under this new law? Because he never cheated on her, or hit her. But the emotional and mental abuse, controlling behavior was HUGE. She never cheated, either. 

He was just classic textbook narcissist (I hate that so many people use that word now, so flippantly, but he really was). 

He never got caught cheating.  Bet he did 

[jerryskids 5,211]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He never got caught cheating.  Bet he did 

If he truly is a narcissist, you are probably right

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He never got caught cheating.  Bet he did 

It's possible. 

He would often accuse her of cheating, so makes sense that he'd try to deflect that onto her. 

Who knows. I am glad she's rid of him, for the most part. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,662]

I don’t know. I could never imagine a scenario where I would have my kids living with her parents and sharing a room. He’s the one that should be living with his parents.  You can hate each other all you want.  But kids should come first. And they aren’t going to forget it either. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,527]

44 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

LOL, I have no idea. Probably average, 34C. 

I wonder, if her leaving would be considered "no fault" under this new law? Because he never cheated on her, or hit her. But the emotional and mental abuse, controlling behavior was HUGE. She never cheated, either. 

He was just classic textbook narcissist (I hate that so many people use that word now, so flippantly, but he really was). 

i appreciate your thoughtful posts, TNG.  It certainly brings a different perspective.

In regards to the bolded above, this is what I have a problem with.  Every time something doesn't go a woman's way (regarding marriage), all they have to scream is, "Emotional Abuse! Controlling!" and the courts believe them no questions asked.  This is the part where women know how to manipulate the divorce justice system in States across the US.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't ever a case where stuff like this happens, but courts don't even consider if the woman maybe is lying or manipulating them to get what SHE wants.  I just think the pendulum has swung massively too far in the other direction in favor of women and women know this and use it to get an unfair advantage.

Like you, I have a person I know that is going thru this exact thing you describe but the roles are reversed and the courts continually side with her.  It's in Canada, though.  It would make your blood boil if I told you the details on how unfair the courts are treating him.  Canada sucks.

[Nomad99 411]

On 11/28/2023 at 10:32 AM, RLLD said:

Sound really nice. I surmise there are those who arrive at such an outcome.  Of course we know that statistically women seek divorce more often than men do....and why not? I mean, the courts are tilted in their fabor, they can extract extravagant outcomes so sure.....

I wonder....would they be so eager if they only left with what they brought or earned....and could never leverage the children to their advantage? 

Agreed.  Women initiate 70% of divorces. That number jumps to 90% if you only consider college educated Women. The deck is stacked in their favor.....they can cash in & go play another table. You shouldn't be able to break a contract & get paid. 

[RLLD 3,455]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:27 PM, RLLD said:

Put simply, the consequences of leaving the marriage are too high. This is by design.  The goal was to help women, who for hundreds of year were treated like property. I think the goal to end the mistreatment was a resounding success.  But as with anything pushed on people, there are unintended consequences.

Women were fine to end marriages.  They could extract much from their spouse......men were less inclined, and would stick it out....rather than allow the courts to fock them over.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/difficult-housing-market-forces-divorced-couples-live-together-feels-impossible
 

I wanted to follow up on my assertion 

As it turns out there is topical information at hand that supports what I am trying to say

[t.j. booker 206]

If they repeal it in Idaho will Gloria come home?  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,527]

1 hour ago, t.j. booker said:

If they repeal it in Idaho will Gloria come home?  

Gloria?  Gloria?  I think I might have her number.

[TBayXXXVII 2,119]

On 11/28/2023 at 3:15 PM, Engorgeous George said:

My needs are now few and my time horizon is limited.  In the end I would more or less honor the promise of my vows even should she not, as part of the promise I undertook was to honor my vows regardless of any circumstances or actions by others.  At the moment of my passing, as i watch each breath and think "away", the only thing I would hold of any worth is my memories and my word.  I hope I have some of the first and all of the latter.

Oh, I get that.  My only point was that it's easy to be reasonable when things are going well, but generally when someone wants a divorce, there's a reason and thar reason is generally never as easy as "we just grew apart".

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

18 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

i appreciate your thoughtful posts, TNG.  It certainly brings a different perspective.

In regards to the bolded above, this is what I have a problem with.  Every time something doesn't go a woman's way (regarding marriage), all they have to scream is, "Emotional Abuse! Controlling!" and the courts believe them no questions asked.  This is the part where women know how to manipulate the divorce justice system in States across the US.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't ever a case where stuff like this happens, but courts don't even consider if the woman maybe is lying or manipulating them to get what SHE wants.  I just think the pendulum has swung massively too far in the other direction in favor of women and women know this and use it to get an unfair advantage.

Like you, I have a person I know that is going thru this exact thing you describe but the roles are reversed and the courts continually side with her.  It's in Canada, though.  It would make your blood boil if I told you the details on how unfair the courts are treating him.  Canada sucks.

I think anyone will take advantage, given the opportunity. It's possible that women take more advantage because we DO earn less, we often do more of the day to day child/household stuff and I suppose some women feel "owed" for that, so they use the courts to their advantage. 

Does it side more towards women? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't with men. Plenty of men also lie about their "crazy ex wife" and all of that. 

The thing with my friend is that with the financials, it's near impossible to lie because you HAVE TO provide proof of income, receipts, etc. Now, her ex has a band he does gigs and gets side jobs. He tried to lie about that and how much he brings in; she's been with him for 20 years. She KNEW he was lying and eventually it came out in court that he was lying. 

It's all just really painful and terrible to see your friends go through it, female or male. It's something I also hope that I NEVER go through myself. 

[RLLD 3,455]

11 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I think anyone will take advantage, given the opportunity. It's possible that women take more advantage because we DO earn less, we often do more of the day to day child/household stuff and I suppose some women feel "owed" for that, so they use the courts to their advantage. 

Does it side more towards women? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't with men. Plenty of men also lie about their "crazy ex wife" and all of that. 

The thing with my friend is that with the financials, it's near impossible to lie because you HAVE TO provide proof of income, receipts, etc. Now, her ex has a band he does gigs and gets side jobs. He tried to lie about that and how much he brings in; she's been with him for 20 years. She KNEW he was lying and eventually it came out in court that he was lying. 

It's all just really painful and terrible to see your friends go through it, female or male. It's something I also hope that I NEVER go through myself. 

Did you happen to see my post above where estranged couples heading for divorce are now considering living together again, because of financials?

Now, lets agree that the rate of women seeking divorce is still greater than that of men, what does it say to you that now we see this trend?  Could it be that they never went down this road if the economics were this bad when that process started?

Can you see what I am seeing?

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

15 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Gloria?  Gloria?  I think I might have her number.

That's just the alias that she's been living under. 

[TheNewGirl 1,031]

30 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Did you happen to see my post above where estranged couples heading for divorce are now considering living together again, because of financials?

Now, lets agree that the rate of women seeking divorce is still greater than that of men, what does it say to you that now we see this trend?  Could it be that they never went down this road if the economics were this bad when that process started?

Can you see what I am seeing?

Yes, and I know of two couples personally that have to do this; live together because they can't afford to live apart. They are divorced and live under the same roof. I'd say that it takes a certain kind of couple to be able to actually do this - how do you date and move on? You'd need complete and total emotionally detachment.  

The article that you posted really does sound like it's not really on the women though, because it notes that the men cannot afford to purchase the homes either and neither want to go bankrupt or fock up their credit for the next 10 years. That and the housing market is garbage. Again, it would take a very special kind of couple that has their emotions I check if they are going to continue to stay together but apart and not destroy their children or themselves in the process. If a couple makes this work without fighting or anger, then that's great. 

I am not sure what "road" you're referring to when what process started? The process of getting married?  Maybe I am missing something here. 

 

I don't know what you're seeing. That if they wanted to, women would tough it out? Or women really ARE just in it for the financial stuff? What am I missing? 

 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

20 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s terrible. That guy isn’t a real man. Also, can size on the divorcee? 

I wonder what his side of the story is