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?

2456713

Posts

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    He equates women with a dollar sign, so I guess he also views them as potential victims for rape.

    Keeping with the stereotypes and all.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I did mean men and women. Notice how I used words like partner? This is not about gender. It's also not about me.

    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.
  • NewtronNewtron Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This thread is about long term relationships in which there is a disparity in the partners' assets.

    You seem to be under the impression that this is universally a bad thing. It's not, really.
    It's also about marriages that end in divorce and the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the others assets via alimony and child support.

    It's fair. A parent shouldn't be held financially responsible for its children?
    Sometimes they even get the house or car in the divorce.

    Entirely Situational decisions based upon decisions of judges. These things are usually lampooned on the internet with "evil woman taking all my stuff" horror stories.
    Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence.

    Being responsible and independent is one thing.

    A marriage-type relationship between two people usually means that resources will be shared.

    You don't HAVE to do this of course. It's you and your partner's decision whether or not to get married and share resources; or be two people in love and sexing each other, but being completely separate individuals without sharing resources at all.

    Most boys n girls out there have no problem with the whole money thing. Using one's resources to care for someone else is an act of love. To take a kind of ... "Randian "approach to it ... I guess ... means you will likely only be happy with other Randian-type people, and even then I'd be willing to bet they won't follow that philosophy very well in a committed relationship.

    Newtron on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    He equates women with a dollar sign, so I guess he also views them as potential victims for rape.

    Keeping with the stereotypes and all.

    I don't agree with him any more than anyone else, but this is hardly productive.

    Aroused Bull on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    He equates women with a dollar sign, so I guess he also views them as potential victims for rape.

    Keeping with the stereotypes and all.

    I don't agree with him any more than anyone else, but this is hardly productive.

    I know. I'm sorry. :(

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    He equates women with a dollar sign, so I guess he also views them as potential victims for rape.

    Keeping with the stereotypes and all.

    I don't agree with him any more than anyone else, but this is hardly productive.

    I know. I'm sorry. :(

    Aww. I'm sorry too.

    Aroused Bull on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »

    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?

    I think you're wrong. You have an opinion, and I disagree with it.

    As to the actual debate of it, if this isn't about you, and it's not gender bias (as you say, even though your examples, while cleverly worded to be non gender specific, seem very heavily placed on folklore of "women be stealin' all of my monies in the divorce...") then I don't really see the point of it.

    A marriage that has complete financial separation between the two parties is 1) about as common as a marriage that has an open clause for three ways and anonymous sex and 2) seems like it would be in the same league as a sham marriage for the point of citizenship or some other similar situation.

    I guess two people could technically have a physical attraction akin to love with each other and decide to get married, but not share assets. It seems counterproductive though. Marriage is definitely associated with finance. It's one of the prime reasons that Gay/Lesbian couples want the right to be married (which they deserve): To have the same financial and legal benefits that other married couples have.

    If you are interested in a relationship where you will be promised solely to one person, but not share assets of any kind during or after the marriage, then go for it. Good luck to you in that pursuit.

    But to summarize and repeat my original answer to your question, as a forum poster just giving his opinion, and nothing more; No, it is a bad idea, and it defeats the true purpose of marriage.

    edit: also, if that read sharply, I just want to make it clear that wasn't an attack on you. The question at the end was really the only one posed in the original post, so I was answering that and giving my basis for said answer.

    amateurhour on

    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    I did mean men and women. Notice how I used words like partner? This is not about gender. It's also not about me.

    you're still buying into the narrative of one partner unfairly reaping the benefits of the others' work, which is traditionally a male complaint.

    obviously you haven't been in what i would consider a real relationship or else you would understand that while money is often of great importance, it is not what a marriage is about

    if we look at my own parents' marriage for instance, my dad has consistently outearned my mom, earning as much as 5x her salary a year. So my mom's not entitled to alimoney or child support? Bullshit. You're so narrow minded you're only able to equate value with money - my dad could not have kept his career and raised me and my siblings without the direct support of my mom.

    But this has no dollar amount attached to it so you want to paint the lesser earning partner as a conniving, unworthy money grubber, when in fact the greater earning partner probably contributes less to the marriage overall than the lesser earning partner about half the time. Like I said, money is only one of the things you can contribute to a marriage.

    Hollywood is very much attached to the ex-wife getting everything after the divorce but I don't believe this actually happens as much as terrified, wealthy men would like to imagine.

    What you're descrbing is a business partnership, in which it would be unfair to give the lesser partner an equal share. There was a time when a marriage was considered a largely financial contract, but we both that is no longer the case in the United States.

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

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

    gotta update that stuff man
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think the thing about sharing assets is that, for most people, their biggest financial burden and/or asset is their home.

    Any couple that wants to live together has to have that conversation at some point.

    japan on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    When you get down to the most basic and obvious elements of human behavior, spending money/resources on another individual is a way of communicating to the other party that their own welfare/well-being/happiness is of equal and greater importance to the giver than their own well-being/whatever.

    This is why gift-giving is so ritualized in every human society ever studied. Giving moderately expensive gifts (relative to mutually-understood monetary resources) to a long-term SO is socially expected because it's understood that people who care about each other have some give-and-take. Giving a similar gift to somebody you've been dating for two weeks comes across as bizarre and overhasty because that level of reciprocal attachment does not yet exist. Giving a gift to some girl you just met over coffee three days ago becomes creepy because it's implying a relationship that does not yet exist.

    If you study anthropology you learn that rules concerning giving, transmission and distribution of wealth and companionship (whether it's in the form of yams, gold coins, labor, country club memberships, or emotional support), inheritance and other such behavior is pretty much how people define themselves and their relationships with other people.

    Duffel on
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It is pretty common to cite financial issues as grounds for divorce, but firstly I think that is not caused by a wealth disparity between partners. Secondly people have tried to refute it such as here

    Jars on
  • amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    japan wrote: »
    I think the thing about sharing assets is that, for most people, their biggest financial burden and/or asset is their home.

    Any couple that wants to live together has to have that conversation at some point.

    I couldn't lime this and do it justice, it's just too true. This is the single biggest conversation, aside from kids, that needs to occur for a marriage to work.

    amateurhour on

    Arch wrote: »

    I never expected this burn from captain bushmeat
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    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?

    Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.

    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.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    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?

    Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.

    It goes to whoever gets principal custody of the children, generally.

    japan on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    why would the money go to the children?

    kids aren't very good at buying groceries and paying bills

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

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

    gotta update that stuff man
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    why would the money go to the children?

    kids aren't very good at buying groceries and paying bills
    Ah-ha! So its true! That lyin', cheatin' bitch gets mah money!

    It's my money, I tell you! Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff, should a person agree to cripple their earning power so that the other can become more successful, do you believe that they aren't entitled in any way to that success?

    Quid on
  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Can kids even legally get that much money? I know for most intents and purposes they are considered property of their parents so even if it went to the kids I believe in most states the legal guardian would have full access to it anyways.

    Z0re on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    if we look at my own parents' marriage for instance, my dad has consistently outearned my mom, earning as much as 5x her salary a year. So my mom's not entitled to alimoney or child support? Bullshit. You're so narrow minded you're only able to equate value with money - my dad could not have kept his career and raised me and my siblings without the direct support of my mom.

    I guess in the interest of a more interesting debate I'll say that I don't really agree with alimony laws as they currently exist. I understand that if one person forgoes employment to be a homemaker or mom, it's reasonable for them to get some sort of compensation for the financial- and career-related sacrifices they're making. That's cool. And I have no issues with splitting assets accrued during marriage 50/50.

    But in the instance of a very rich woman who marries a very poor man (look at me, subverting gender stereotypes!), and then divorces, the poor man would presumably receive a huge alimony check until he remarries. Why? The amount will be way too large to credibly be considered compensation for sacrificing his career, because unless he was on track to be a CEO at a large company, his earning potential was going to be a lot more modest. And why should it be until he remarries, if the idea is compensation for lost opportunities? It's not like his career prospects suddenly improve when he ties the knot.

    Alimony payments, as currently awarded, seem to have more to do with the poorer ex "deserving" a certain lifestyle. And that bit, I don't buy into. Certainly not on a semi-permanent basis.

    (Disclaimer: I am not a family law attorney, so if my understanding of this shit works is off, apologies.)

    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.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Cliff, should a person agree to cripple their earning power so that the other can become more successful, do you believe that they aren't entitled in any way to that success?

    I would say someone becoming a home maker is not about helping the other person be more successful but more about giving children a good environment to be raised in. Yes they will be more successful (read: have more money) in that they don't have to pay for child care but I don't think thats what you meant.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not all states have Alimony Jeffe, but I'm with you on the spouse doesn't deserve the same standard of living they became accustomed to while married. I mean thats a sacrifice that happens with divorce? If anything it should last at most a year or remarriage whichever is shorter.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • CliffCliff 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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    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.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed 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.
    The vast majority of human relationships, romantic or otherwise, are about interdependence.

    I really have no idea how to approach this OP that isn't basically "bwaaaaahh?"

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    So you're a robot? I mean its how people work, you give up part of your individuality to become a part of something greater. That's like the basis behind human civilization.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Don't despair. Not even over the fact that you don't despair.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, I told you, he's the male lead in a rom com that thinks he's better off being his own man

    never depending on anyone but yourself

    leading a fun life that he realizes is ultimately unfulfilling when he meets the sweet girl that convinces him to settle down

    Casual Eddy on
    Elki wrote: »

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

    gotta update that stuff man
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    So you're a robot? I mean its how people work, you give up part of your individuality to become a part of something greater. That's like the basis behind human civilization.
    Just the parts that don't involve killing and eating your neighbors.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Cliff, should a person agree to cripple their earning power so that the other can become more successful, do you believe that they aren't entitled in any way to that success?

    I would say someone becoming a home maker is not about helping the other person be more successful but more about giving children a good environment to be raised in. Yes they will be more successful (read: have more money) in that they don't have to pay for child care but I don't think thats what you meant.

    I don't think neglecting the children is a reasonable option. It's a choice between one parent becoming the home maker, or both parents sharing the duties.

    Aroused Bull on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Well, at least the parts that don't involve killing and eating your neighbors.

    Also part of giving of yourself (your brutal killing) to become something greater (in this case a wendigo, one of the most fearsome cannibal predators ever).

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    Yes, it's a good thing. A degree of interdependence means that if one person suffers misfortune - financial, medical, emotional, whatever - he has someone to get his back. Same reason that it's a good idea to have a social safety net, which is basically the same form of interdependence on a large scale.

    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.
  • 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
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    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.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    I would say someone becoming a home maker is not about helping the other person be more successful but more about giving children a good environment to be raised in. Yes they will be more successful (read: have more money) in that they don't have to pay for child care but I don't think thats what you meant.

    Unless you're talking minimum wage jobs or you're a Duggar, you'll generally have more money by having both partners employed.

    Of course, there are a ton of non-financial benefits to having a homemaker, as well. (By which I mean one person who takes on the lion's share of the family-related duties, not does nigh-everything completely. I think Leave-It-To-Beaver-style arrangements where the mom handles 95% of the homemaking is a shitty way to run a family.)

    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.
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    How so? I'm not talking therou style independence. Just paying your own way vs. using someone else's assets.

    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.
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    No, I told you, he's the male lead in a rom com that thinks he's better off being his own man

    never depending on anyone but yourself

    leading a fun life that he realizes is ultimately unfulfilling when he meets the sweet girl that convinces him to settle down

    I am so not this guy. This isn't about me. I have my own shit figured out. I don't want to be in a commited relationship so I'm not. This is about people that are/have been/ whatever. I'm discussing it because I think it is an interesting topic, not because it personally affects me.

    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.
  • 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
    Cliff wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    How so? I'm not talking therou style independence. Just paying your own way vs. using someone else's assets.

    It's pretty much impossible to live with somebody for the long-term and not end up mixing some assets. I'm wondering how you imagine a lifestyle where two people live together intimately and never end up sharing assets.

    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.
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    How so? I'm not talking therou style independence. Just paying your own way vs. using someone else's assets.

    It's pretty much impossible to live with somebody for the long-term and not end up mixing some assets. I'm wondering how you imagine a lifestyle where two people live together intimately and never end up sharing assets.

    How would this be a hard thing to do? Keep seperate accounts or simply keep track of who's assets are who's.

    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.
  • 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
    Cliff wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    How so? I'm not talking therou style independence. Just paying your own way vs. using someone else's assets.

    It's pretty much impossible to live with somebody for the long-term and not end up mixing some assets. I'm wondering how you imagine a lifestyle where two people live together intimately and never end up sharing assets.

    How would this be a hard thing to do? Keep seperate accounts or simply keep track of who's assets are who's.

    Honest question: have you ever cohabitated with a partner?

    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.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Cliff wrote: »
    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.

    I'm questioning if this is a good thing.

    It's a necessary thing. Humans have to be interdependent to maintain a modern lifestyle.

    How so? I'm not talking therou style independence. Just paying your own way vs. using someone else's assets.

    It's pretty much impossible to live with somebody for the long-term and not end up mixing some assets. I'm wondering how you imagine a lifestyle where two people live together intimately and never end up sharing assets.

    My mom tried with her third husband. They fought about it all the time because it was a huge clusterfuck.

    If you want some financial independence, get a separate bank account. Keep a joint one for shared expenses, and whatever money goes into your own account, you can spend however you want. It works well for the people I know who do it. (My wife and I don't bother, since we're pretty good at not spending non-trivial sums of money without running it past the other person, and we can handle it pretty fairly.)

    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.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I just imagine this guys apartment filled with tags of shit of what belongs to each person. Animals and all.

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

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • 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
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My mom tried with her third husband. They fought about it all the time because it was a huge clusterfuck.

    Yeah. It is not worth the headache. It's better to have a messy divorce than a marriage spent quibbling over financial minutiae.

    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.
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    Even if we put it in strictly logical terms it makes perfect sense that if one person is working and making money and another is taking care of the household that there is a balance of work there and the person staying home deserves equal compensation.

    To be honest if I'm working and my SO is taking care of the house and kids I feel like I'm getting off easy.

    KevinNash on
This discussion has been closed.