Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down

[squirrels]

Why marry at all in today's legal environment? It's the best known enabler of one way transfer of wealth. Have you ever googled "no-fault alimony"? That's the alimony you pay to your wife and her lover after you catch them cheating on your livingroom floor. It starts after you get kicked out with a divorce petition by wifey, a restraining order filing that now comes standard with every woman's "divorce packet" from her lawfirm, and wifey and loverboy start living there in the very house YOU built. Meanwhile you live under a bridge and send them monthly checks to maintain their lifestyle. If you stop complying with this arrangement, a contempt-order against you is issued, you get picked up by the cops via a bench warrant, and you get put in prison. There is not a thing you can do about it. It's no one's fault you see ... the law is the law. These laws got legislated in place by feminist activists in the 1970s and 80s while we were all sleeping. It takes away your human rights ... but only if you are male and married.

You think I am kidding? Here is what happened to one guy recently; from the pages of the American Bar Association Journal no less:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/former_big_firm_lawyer_now_unemployed_still_on_the_hook_for_alimony/

So tell me, why marry at all?

You're missing the point.

If you don't want to marry, that's great. Don't marry. But don't shack up with a woman.

If you DON'T want to get married, for whatever reason, whetehr you think it's a bad deal or a setup for legal action or whatever...then my question is, "Why LIVE with a woman at all??"

Why the hell does an alpha male who isn't married and doesn't have kids with a woman want a woman in the same house as him, breathing down his neck at every turn?

 

[STR8UP]

That IS some bullsh!t...living with a woman you're not married to for that amount of time. I don't care how you stack it.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

What you are saying is that if you CHOOSE to live with a woman, you should marry her?

No, wait, you are saying that the only time you should live with a woman is if you at least plan to marry her?

Either way doesn't make any sense to me. If I choose to "settle down" with one woman marriage is STILL a bad option.

What is it about having to get married? What benefit is there to a man?

"Non-committal" behavior is not "alpha". It indicates failure to make a decision, instead letting the government or life in general make the decision for you. An alpha controls his OWN destiny.

Is there a more feminine phrase than "non-committal"? If there is i can't think of it.

If your point was that a man shouldn't be shacking up with a chick that he doesn't intend to commit to, then I would agree with you. But you are basically saying that if a man makes a choice to live with someone (which to me is in and of itself commitment) that he should be married to her or at least headed in that direction?

I have lived with three different women. Why? Because I was a chump and I didn't know any better. I was in my 20's and I was doing my thing.

The fact that I was living with women I shouldn't have been living with made it an AFC thing to do, but if it were with a woman who I had chosen to be exclusive with and pursue a long term future with, there is absolutely nothing about avoiding marriage that is "bad" or "wrong" or "AFC" in any way.

 

[puma183]

By what right do the citizens of any nation hold that an individual must pay tribute to a former cohabitant?

Bingo! You hit the nail on the had here Danger. Also note that cohabitant-A is obliged to keep giving what cohabitant-B got used to (money) after the relationship is long over. However B has no similar obligations to A to keep giving him what he got used to (affection, companionship, laundry, etc) during the course of the defacto relationship.

How come A's obligation survives the death of the relationship, but B's obligation vanishes into thin air. B got used to stuff, fine. But how about what A got used to?

Who decided on this one-way-obligation rule?

 

[squirrels]

Hi Squirrels,

While I understand what you are saying, and I even agree with it to a certain degree......I still must ask the question....

Should someone not have the right to live with their significant other without being held in servitude in perpetuity via the garnishing of income?

By what right do the citizens of any nation hold that an individual must pay tribute to a former cohabitant?

I agree with you. Read my original post(s). I'm not in favor of socialist government intervention or wealth redistribution for ANY reason.

However, this shouldn't be a problem for anyone here because they shouldn't be engaging in this chumpish behavior.

While I am outspokenly against such a law, if it WERE to get implemented, I would have little sympathy for anyone who put himself in a situation to get busted by it in the first place.

 

[puma183]

Squirrels I think we are making the same main points. I think the beef was only with your side comment of "cohabitation without marriage is useless/bad, etc".

This law in AUS just got passed and will only go into effect early next year. I guess our Ozzie cousins will keep us informed on how it gets implemented in practice.

I am looking forward to their field reports. If ex-girlfriends start walking away with guy's houses, cars, and bank accounts; or if you start seeing guys paying alimony to their old FB's then we really have to go into Orange Alert here in the US. If it turns out to be a potent law, I guarantee you that our legal/feminist lobbyists will start making plans to bring it to our State legislatures here.

Either way, there are some dark clouds on the horizon.

 

[MrLuvr]

Yeah it works for now until the liberals brainwash and facilitate women to shake down men they cohabitate with.

Ironic statement coming from the side that is championing a 44 year old woman and mother of five children as the saviour and future of their party. The funniest part of is that these people are too stupid to see the irony. While they point fingers at liberal feminists they are holding on to a woman's skirt in an attempt to realign themselves with the mainstream.

 

[MrLuvr]

Wait didn't this just get voted-in in Australia only a week ago? I mean we even have a thread for it on this very MM board. So it spread from AUS to UK in one week. How long before it hits the US and Canada?

Men dump your LTR's now, at least the ones past the 2 year mark!!! Otherwise don't blame us after you get summoned to appear in family court and have your bank accounts frozen by your LTR's lawyer.

This is already on the books in Canada. It is not just related to if the relationship breaks down, but in all aspects. A couple living together for 3 years has all the same rights as married partners. i.e.. access to employer healthcare and other marriage benefits. So, if the relationship does happen to break down, it is treated the same way as a marriage.

 

[puma183]

This explains wallet1, a Canadian guy I met on another board that I frequent. He was telling me that he now pays child-support for 2 kids that are not even his. They were the kids of some single-mom gal he shacked-up with a couple of years ago. The relationship didn't work out, he moved out, and Presto! now he needs to pay for them until they turn 18. I mean they are not even his kids, and he never married her to begin with.

 

[MrLuvr]

This explains wallet1, a Canadian guy I met on another board that I frequent. He was telling me that he now pays child-support for 2 kids that are not even his. They were the kids of some single-mom gal he shacked-up with a couple of years ago. The relationship didn't work out, he moved out, and Presto! now he needs to pay for them until they turn 18. I mean they are not even his kids, and he never married her to begin with.

No, that is rubbish. He is not telling you the whole story. I have never heard of such a situation. He might be paying her spousal support and in turn she might be using some of that money for the two kids. But, he is NOT directly responsible for supporting those two kids. Those kids are the responsibility of their biological father. Maybe the biological father is not paying enough or is a deadbeat dad. But, in no way is this guy you met responsible .

 

[DarkShade]

I love the politically correct word replacement of socialism. "Wealth distribution". Sounds a lot nicer doesn't it.

 

[MrLuvr]

I love the politically correct word replacement of socialism. "Wealth distribution". Sounds a lot nicer doesn't it.

Joe the unlicensed plumber and tax cheat from Ohio, is that you? How was life growing up on welfare?

 

[DarkShade]

No, actually I'm a full time student with a part time job paying my taxes and moving up in the world. The closest I've gotten to welfare is swiping a food stamp card through a scanner at my old job from a woman with four hundred kids.

 

[ketostix]

Ironic statement coming from the side that is championing a 44 year old woman and mother of five children as the saviour and future of their party.

I'm on that side? Besides WTF does it matter if a person is a woman and has children if she's anti-feminist? You make no sense. Palin married and stayed with her guy even though he isn't wealthy and she stays with him despite her being more successful. I guess if the other "side" puts up a man who his pro-feminist that's better ? That's how we got into this mess. Again you make no sense.

The funniest part of is that these people are too stupid to see the irony. While they point fingers at liberal feminists they are holding on to a woman's skirt in an attempt to realign themselves with the mainstream.

Again what irony? It's not like she was canidate for Pres. And besides it wasn't that those people wanted a woman or liked her because she was a token woman candidate they liked her politics. You want to know what the real irony is? The other side who puts up a white male like a Biden and Clinton before that who is pro-feminism and is ready and willing to sail white males down the river. Stop trying to project white male liberals irony and stupidity on to everyone else.

 

[ketostix]

Anyway, first the liberal/socialists shake down men in marriage, then for child support even if the child is not biologically his, now they shake men down for cohabitating, next it won't require cohabitation, oh wait they all ready started on that with having to pay your mistress damages.

What's next..I'm guessing they will just take your money directly and give it to women you haven't even met but they are sort of doing that all ready. The bottom line is they will continue to emasculate and take everything from men and give it to women without stopping. This is why you may one day need your guns for an insurgency to exercise your constitutional right to disband the government when it becomes too abusive and corrupt. Oh yeah they're taking your guns now so you can't ever resist totalitarism.

 

[puma183]

I think we should at least do a little awareness-event thingy, so that people KNOW what's coming for them. At least a hint.

The 3 most active PR-juggernauts of the Mens Rights / Mens Awareness Movement are currently:

1. Tom Leykis : You all know him.
http://www.971freefm.com/pages/4096.php

2. Marc Rudov: Appears as guest speaker on Radio Stations and Fox News.
http://thenononsenseman.com/

3. Glenn Sacks: More focused on Father's Rights, and is also in close alliance with the UK based F4J movement (the guys who wear superhero costumes and climb to the rooftops of government buildings to protest). Glenn recently organized the campaign against DART in Dallas which was putting up DV ads portraying all men/boys as potential abusers. He exposed that the DV-Shelter/Feminist organization putting up the ads was government subsidized. I.e. they were taking our tax money, to chip away at our rights.
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/

 

[thedeparted]

This is the kind of shlt that makes me sick. I lived with a woman for one year. She cooked all our meals. She gave me regular BJ. She was a babe. It was nice. But I also took care of her issues, helped her with school, and paid the bills. It was 50-50. It was fine.

I did not MARRY her b/c then I'd be giving her a huge incentive to leave: 50% of my assets is far more than she's gonna earn in the next ten years. I was clear from the start marriage wasn't on my mind and eventually she left for better prospects. But the sad thing is that if not for the BS divorce laws, I could have married her and we might have lived happily ever after.

Now with this cohabitation law men simply won't live with their girls. That means two people who could have shared one place and one life must share two. More driving between places. More relationship insecurity. And it means bigger incentives for women to dump guys after two years. It all contributes to the degredation of social order, more unstable relationships, more unrest, more pollution. All exactly what we DO NOT NEED.

* * * * *

Why is this happening?

I believe that this is a great example of judge made law, where fictional rights are granted to allegedly oppressed minorities. We've already got the right of the poor to welfare, the right of the blacks, native americans and hispanics to affirmative-action jobs, the right of the wife to your house and your kids, the right of the illegal immigrant to stay here at our cost, and the right of gays to marry. Nowhere are such rights written in the constitution. Nowhere are they voted on by the people democratically (and when they are, they are usually rejected). They are simply granted by an elite that believes in robbing Peter (you) to pay Paul (them). Or Mary (her), as the case may be. Since when do two wrongs make a right?

* * * * *

Although I am a white male, and thus considered to be THE MAN, the oppressor, the reality is that in most cases I am the oppressed. I lose jobs to minorities. I lose money to welfare taxes. I lose property to ex-wives. And if these liberal elites have their way, I'll lose even more to every woman that takes a fancy to me. Personally, I am sick of this BS, and I would like to find an organization that intends to do something about it, yet that is not some kind of KKK program. Any suggestions?

UPDATE: Thanks to Puma for answering my question even as I posted it!

 

[jophil28]

Now with this cohabitation law men simply won't live with their girls. That means two people who could have shared one place and one life must share two. More driving between places. More relationship insecurity. And it means bigger incentives for women to dump guys after two years. It all contributes to the degredation of social order, more unstable relationships, more unrest, more pollution. All exactly what we DO NOT NEED.

* * * * *

Whoa !
'Cohabitation' is not one of the criteria required for a "defacto" woman to make a claim against you. The proposed law change "down under" will give some "mistresses" THE LEGAL right to a property claim against a man who remained married and living with his legal wife but comtinued in a clandestine relationship with the OW for a period of two years or more.

Get ready cousins- this shyte is headed your way. Canada will mimic us first and then the USA next. I can hear Oprah grinding her molars..

 

[thedeparted]

How are they gonna prove that relationship? I mean, how many times does the guy have to see the mistress in two years to qualify? Once, one hundred?

What a nightmare. Next, maybe we can pass legislation against wives getting fat? Or guys getting dumped? Maybe a law that a man must call within three days of getting her number?

 

[puma183]

I can see the future news article:

The US Supreme Court published their decision today that the 2 year period must be measured starting from the day of the first BJ. Justice Scalia was the sole dissenter in the vote and it was noted that he instead favored the clock starting with the first breast-fondle.

Jeez! I agree that this is a total nightmare. There is intrusive government, and then there is intrusive government. This is like the government's foot stuck so deep up our rear ends that it is practically sticking out of our mouths.

 

[ketostix]

I can see the future news article:

The US Supreme Court published their decision today that the 2 year period must be measured starting from the day of the first BJ. Justice Scalia was the sole dissenter in the vote and it was noted that he instead favored the clock starting with the first breast-fondle.

Jeez! I agree that this is a total nightmare. There is intrusive government, and then there is intrusive government. This is like the government's foot stuck so deep up our rear ends that it is practically sticking out of our mouths.

Well since BJ's and breast fondles are usually done in private it might come down to his word against hers along with hearsay evidence. Of course the woman's word will be taken over a man's like always lol.