As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Our Money?
Cliff
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
CelestialBadger wrote: »
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?
Cliff on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
If you don't want that to happen, don't agree for your SO to become a homemaker.
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?
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?
Nah, that's crazy. People with different incomes can never be happy together.
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.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
so much bullshit
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.
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.
How does "love" entitle someone to another's 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:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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?
If you view your relationship in a monetary fashion then you are better off with hookers.
pleasepaypreacher.net
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I need to get dumped a few more times to become properly jaded.
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Or, I don't know, become a feudal lord from nine-hundred years in the past or something.
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.
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.
It varies by state.
Yes, in most cases it is. Pre nups usually cover only existing assets.
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]"
Funnily enough, being nice and having that being nice work out well for them gives me a benefit. Whod have thought 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.
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.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And thats a positive attitude for someone to have. "Look I view all realationships as a monetary, so how much for dat ass?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
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.
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.