Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Our Money?

CliffCliff Registered User regular
edited May 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Cliff wrote: »
How can you respect some one who will accept your money while the only tangible thing she is giving you in return is sex?

Seriously, dude, its your money. I know alot of people, including your fiance, are going to try and dissuade you of this fact because of "love," and other emotional bullshit. But in reality that is all smoke and mirrors. I can't think of anything more disengenious than someone trying to convince you that anything you make is now "ours" just because you've deluded yourself into thinking they are special.

Now, I am not saying your fiance is intentionally doing this. I doubt her literal thought process is disengenious. On the contrary, emotional trickery works both ways, she is probobly just as blind to reality as any number of people.

I will tell you this, you will never be as happy as you can be if you marry this woman. Resentment will always fester in the back of your mind.

Why?

Because it is your logical mind screaming the obvious truth behind the fog of emotion. You are paying someone to spend their time with you.

Nostregar wrote: »
Cliff wrote: »
Druhim wrote: »
Cliff wrote: »
Cliff wrote: »
How can you respect some one who will accept your money while the only tangible thing she is giving you in return is sex?

That's an terribly cynical view of marriage. I take it you've been dumped?

Nope. I'm cynical because I am smart, not because of experience.

Ah, so never been dumped because you can't get a woman. Got it. 8-)

Also untrue. Almost all my relationships with women have been quite enjoyable and free of commitment and co-dependence. Any other questions?

This isn't the place to debate the morality/philosophy/whatever of your position, but if you wanted to start a thread on this topic up in D&D I'm sure there is an interesting discussion to be had.

I'm interested, at least.

This thread is about long term relationships in which there is a disparity in the partners' assets. Its also about marriages that end in divorce and the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support. Sometimes they even get the house or car in the divorce.

Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence. If they really care about someone they would respect them enough not to sponge off them. And if they get divorced, it should be a clean split. I don't understand how divorce entitles one to the other's money.

So, what do you guys think?

Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
Cliff on
«13456713

Posts

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So you're saying, what, that people should only date within their own income bracket?

    japan on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not all marriages work the same. When a couple agrees the one should stay home and raise the children, clean, cook, quite often relieve the other of the bulk of their household responsibilities, it's going to hurt the independence of that person. To make up for that should they divorce that person should be entitled to a degree of support.

    If you don't want that to happen, don't agree for your SO to become a homemaker.

    Quid on
  • firewaterwordfirewaterword Satchitananda Pais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    So you're saying, what, that people should only date within their own income bracket?
    What, you don't run a credit check by the third date?

    firewaterword on
    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    What about people with variable incomes?

    Or people that don't make a lot now, but expect to be able to in the future?

    I don't even know what point the OP is trying to make. How are we defining "sponging" here?

    japan on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support.

    Are you seriously implying that divorce terminates all financial responsibility for one parent? Or are you laboring under the belief that child support is a princely sum of money?

    Thomamelas on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    So you're saying, what, that people should only date within their own income bracket?
    I guess I should be glad that my girlfriend and I are both broke.

    Duffel on
  • YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi A point called Z In the complex planeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man, if only people who were interested in a committed relationship could sit down and talk about their financial situations before hand.

    Nah, that's crazy. People with different incomes can never be happy together.

    YamiNoSenshi on
    Damn it, it's fucking noon. I demand to know if Yami shit on a desk yet.

    Watch me sometimes stream games.
  • firewaterwordfirewaterword Satchitananda Pais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence.
    I really don't understand this bit. Adult relationships are, in big part, about interdependence.

    firewaterword on
    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff, can you define or elaborate on your understanding of the meaning of "family", and where a spousal relationship lies within that understanding?

    Heartlash on
    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Man, that emotional stuff

    so much bullshit

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • CasedOutCasedOut Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Not all marriages work the same. When a couple agrees the one should stay home and raise the children, clean, cook, quite often relieve the other of the bulk of their household responsibilities, it's going to hurt the independence of that person. To make up for that should they divorce that person should be entitled to a degree of support.

    If you don't want that to happen, don't agree for your SO to become a homemaker.

    This right here.

    Seriously though he has an excellent point, if a person has sacrificed career potentials and such to be a homemaker and then later they split with the money maker of the family they should definitely be entitled to support. Otherwise the risk to them is much greater of becoming the homemaker, than the risk to the person who makes the money.

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence.
    I really don't understand this bit. Adult relationships are, in big part, about interdependence.

    Not just adult relationships. Reciprocity in some form is the basis not only of pretty much all human interaction, but also social behavior among any animal with any kind of group organization.

    Declaring yourself an island who doesn't get involved in this kind of exchange is basically opting out of the vast majority of the human experience.

    EDIT: Maybe even the "mammalian/avian/certain kinds of mollusc" experience.

    Duffel on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    Cliff on
    Wasn't that movie about David Bowie seducing a 16 year old girl while surrounding himself with monsters and rubbing his balls?

    I don't think it was even a movie, it was just some footage of what Bowie does in his day to day life.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So OP is basically the guy from a rom-com before he meets the sweet girl-next-door that melts his cynical heart

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    CasedOut wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Not all marriages work the same. When a couple agrees the one should stay home and raise the children, clean, cook, quite often relieve the other of the bulk of their household responsibilities, it's going to hurt the independence of that person. To make up for that should they divorce that person should be entitled to a degree of support.

    If you don't want that to happen, don't agree for your SO to become a homemaker.

    This right here.

    Seriously though he has an excellent point, if a person has sacrificed career potentials and such to be a homemaker and then later they split with the money maker of the family they should definitely be entitled to support. Otherwise the risk to them is much greater of becoming the homemaker, than the risk to the person who makes the money.

    Conversely, if being dependent upon my spouse allowed me to increase my earning potential - for example, if they supported me while I went to grad school, or started a business - then they deserve some recompensation for that investment.

    Edit: this is pretty much a complete answer to the above question:
    Cliff wrote: »
    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    Ahahaha, he put love in quotes.

    Seriously though, what do you mean when you say this? Are you talking about a couple in an existing relationship enjoying the benefits of things they would not be able to afford on their income alone? Are you talking about one party buying stuff for the other? Are you talking about a couple pooling their income in a joint bank account? What?

    japan on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    If you view your relationship in a monetary fashion then you are better off with hookers.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • firewaterwordfirewaterword Satchitananda Pais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Like let's go out to dinner and split the check oh wait I just had salad and you had the lobster so you need to pay more and don't forget the tip and the tax is going to be higher on your end and you had a cocktail whereas I just had water?

    firewaterword on
    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    It doesn't. Some relationships do entitle the partners to each others' money - like, say, paying a mortgage or college fees for your children.

    Some relationships don't. But you seem really wedded to the idea that women are out to steal your money, so good luck with that.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    marriage means becoming the same person financially. If you don't want to do that, well, then no ones forcing you to.

    NotYou on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    Does that entitle them to post liaison benefits from it though?
    I fully agree with Quid - not all marriages work the same. If there is any kind of a compromise(be it spoken or not) that one party would be responsible for house keeping, children or any other activity that is an actual obstacle to a career or the development of an ability to take care of oneself financially, then benefits from the assets of the other party should be expected.
    If however, both are cohabiting individuals in a long term relationship(marriage or no) and there is no compromise with either's ability to pursue the goal of being economically self sufficient, I do not see anything wrong with keeping personal assets separated and not splitting them at separation.

    zeeny on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    marriage means becoming the same person financially. If you don't want to do that, well, then no ones forcing you to.

    No, it doesn't. If you wish to interpret it that way, it's entirely your choice, however, let people who wish to be married while avoiding this do so, mmmmkay?
    Clue: Premarital contract.

    zeeny on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, the OP doesn't seem to really get how this whole "love" thing works.

    Here's a hint: if the only thing you're getting out of your marriage is someone to have sex with, you're doing it wrong.

    How does "love" entitle someone to another's money?

    It... doesn't?

    If I'm making bank and my wife is making comparative peanuts, I'm not sharing the wealth out of some sort of ethical obligation. I am sharing because I love her and not hoarding my money makes me happy. I am sharing because we have decided to become a family unit and I want her to be a part of my life.

    Are you a fucking Vulcan, or something? It's like you just stumbled across the human race and are trying to get one of the natives to describe this weird "emotions" thing to you.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    I'm trying to imagine being some rich dude, marrying a poor girl, and then somehow making sure that I keep her living in squalor so that I don't have to share all of my money. It's rather difficult to even fathom that being a reasonable thing to do.

    Maybe I need to get dumped a few more times to become properly jaded.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    marriage means becoming the same person financially. If you don't want to do that, well, then no ones forcing you to.

    No, it doesn't. If you wish to interpret it that way, it's entirely your choice, however, let people who wish to be married while avoiding this do so, mmmmkay?
    Clue: Premarital contract.

    huh? it totally does. Being married to someone legally entitles you to half of the entire combined estate, only if you sign a premarital contract does that change.

    The basic, unchanged form of marriage absolutely does what NotYou said. You have to change marriage to make it not do that.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Maybe I read my marriage contract wrong, but isn't money accrued while married subject to being split evenly even in the event of having a pre nuptial agreement? I thought pre nups only covered money prior to marriage.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • firewaterwordfirewaterword Satchitananda Pais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm trying to imagine being some rich dude, marrying a poor girl, and then somehow making sure that I keep her living in squalor so that I don't have to share all of my money. It's rather difficult to even fathom that being a reasonable thing to do.

    Maybe I need to get dumped a few more times to become properly jaded.

    Or, I don't know, become a feudal lord from nine-hundred years in the past or something.

    firewaterword on
    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    As mentioned in an H&A thread where money was a big issue...

    Money should not be a litmus test for marriage. If you're worried about it so much, then marry a rich chick and enjoy your shallow loveless "marriage" on your own. Or don't get married.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    marriage means becoming the same person financially. If you don't want to do that, well, then no ones forcing you to.

    No, it doesn't. If you wish to interpret it that way, it's entirely your choice, however, let people who wish to be married while avoiding this do so, mmmmkay?
    Clue: Premarital contract.

    huh? it totally does. Being married to someone legally entitles you to half of the entire combined estate, only if you sign a premarital contract does that change.

    The basic, unchanged form of marriage absolutely does what NotYou said. You have to change marriage to make it not do that.

    Did you notice where he didn't use "legally entitles" but "means"? And the "no one is forcing you to" part?
    Marriage does *not* mean that and there *is* a way around it.

    zeeny on
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Maybe I read my marriage contract wrong, but isn't money accrued while married subject to being split evenly even in the event of having a pre nuptial agreement? I thought pre nups only covered money prior to marriage.

    It varies by state.

    Thomamelas on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Maybe I read my marriage contract wrong, but isn't money accrued while married subject to being split evenly even in the event of having a pre nuptial agreement? I thought pre nups only covered money prior to marriage.

    Yes, in most cases it is. Pre nups usually cover only existing assets.

    zeeny on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Maybe I read my marriage contract wrong, but isn't money accrued while married subject to being split evenly even in the event of having a pre nuptial agreement? I thought pre nups only covered money prior to marriage.

    It's my understanding that a prenuptial agreement can read "in the event of a divorce, the husband/wife will receive a [flat amount of money]"

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Sharing also makes me happy.

    Funnily enough, being nice and having that being nice work out well for them gives me a benefit. Whod have thought it.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    marriage means becoming the same person financially. If you don't want to do that, well, then no ones forcing you to.

    No, it doesn't. If you wish to interpret it that way, it's entirely your choice, however, let people who wish to be married while avoiding this do so, mmmmkay?
    Clue: Premarital contract.

    huh? it totally does. Being married to someone legally entitles you to half of the entire combined estate, only if you sign a premarital contract does that change.

    The basic, unchanged form of marriage absolutely does what NotYou said. You have to change marriage to make it not do that.

    Did you notice where he didn't use "legally entitles" but "means"? And the "no one is forcing you to" part?
    Marriage does *not* mean that and there *is* a way around it.

    what.. what are you saying? marriage does mean that by its very definition. you have to sign a special, optional contract to change that.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I guess if you wanted to you could try to make an argument somewhere along the lines of taking a woman out to dinner that leads to relations later that night is essentially the same thing as hiring a prostitute, only the prostitute is honest about it. The op is taking that to a much larger scale.

    Jars on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Maybe I read my marriage contract wrong, but isn't money accrued while married subject to being split evenly even in the event of having a pre nuptial agreement? I thought pre nups only covered money prior to marriage.

    It's my understanding that a prenuptial agreement can read "in the event of a divorce, the husband/wife will receive a [flat amount of money]"

    Man I guess I'm just not that defeatist. Though my assets were the lesser in my relationship despite being the bigger bread winner. Hell if I get divorced I'll be broke in a month from poor spending habits.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    I guess if you wanted to you could try to make an argument somewhere along the lines of taking a woman out to dinner that leads to relations later that night is essentially the same thing as hiring a prostitute, only the prostitute is honest about it. The op is taking that to a much larger scale.

    And thats a positive attitude for someone to have. "Look I view all realationships as a monetary, so how much for dat ass?"

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • firewaterwordfirewaterword Satchitananda Pais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    I guess if you wanted to you could try to make an argument somewhere along the lines of taking a woman out to dinner that leads to relations later that night is essentially the same thing as hiring a prostitute, only the prostitute is honest about it. The op is taking that to a much larger scale.

    Wow that is all kinds of fucked up. I mean, I'm not naive enough to think those kind of people aren't out there, but I'm damn sure glad I don't know any of them.

    firewaterword on
    Lokah Samastah Sukhino Bhavantu
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    I guess if you wanted to you could try to make an argument somewhere along the lines of taking a woman out to dinner that leads to relations later that night is essentially the same thing as hiring a prostitute, only the prostitute is honest about it. The op is taking that to a much larger scale.

    It's also unbelievably sexist. Mind bogglingly so.

    I'm sure OP will scurry in to say he meant men and women steal money for love all the time but it's fairly doubtful that's what he meant.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

    Casual Eddy: best poster 2014.
    tyrannus wrote: »
    Casual Eddy: best poster of 2015

    gotta update that stuff man
This discussion has been closed.