Time article on marriage

[Warrior74]

There are cohabitation agreements and as far as I can tell do cover assets;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_agreement

If you are going to do one get a lawyers advice for your state. I wouldn't do one of those generic ones you can purchase off the internet.

LOL good luck with that. Its like trying to get a chic to sign a prenup. Oh she might sign it, but I think you're gonna take a hit for it.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Well yes, having your lady sign papers saying, "I won't fvck you over when I decide to leave you or you leave me" is not going to add to a nice warm cozy cuddle session by the fire.

It is going to lace a seed of distrust into your relationship.

"Why would he have me sign this?"

It's like meeting a friend and saying, "well, gee, before we get too involved, sign this paper saying you won't backstab me".

Seems to suck the soul out of anything genuine doesn't it?

The thing is that part of letting someone into your life is not keep them exactly at arms length at all times. Now there is definitely something to be said for self-preservation. Tomassi, whom I respect a lot of your ideas, is saying look, if you invite her into your life deeply and give her legal assets, she can fvck you over in the end, turn your life upside down, and as he denoted, can make her feel some sort of ownership over your manhood.

Now this being said, a vindictive cvnt would behave in such a way. The goal I believe of this forum is to ensure you have a woman who is not a vindictive cvnt.

If you really love a woman and want to marry her, than at a certain point it is inevitable to invite her more deeply into your life. In some ways anyone who you care about, and invite in, can hurt you more than those you keep on your psychological periphery.

That is part of the sacrifice of love, so to speak in a spiritual way of thinking, that you take a risk, knowing you could be hurt or could fail. In some ways this isn't so different than other aspects of life: career success, bold moves to take our lives forwards. Any time you take a risk for something it could blow up.

Yes, I totally agree that the fact that divorce entitles women to so much is entirely unfair. And for some men this risk is reasonable. She has little to lose, as the courts are weighted in her favor. A man, especially if he has few assets as well, is taking a bigger risk financially/economically.

Perhaps a real bond is impartial of titles. If she is a respectable woman, she will not be formulating strategies to dominate your financial assets.

 

[wait_out]

Well yes, having your lady sign papers saying, "I won't fvck you over when I decide to leave you or you leave me" is not going to add to a nice warm cozy cuddle session by the fire.

It is going to lace a seed of distrust into your relationship.

That's one point of view. I'd sign a prenup with a girl who made more money than me, because I'd never have the intention of screwing her over. If you send the message you're just afraid of getting burned -- I think, honestly, it would be hard for her to criticize you. You can never know another person 100%.

i wanted to post this:

I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Practically, there is 0% agreement here that a girl will behave herself in accord with these vows. Which I think means that marriage, by the traditional definition, is dead. Ok, i can accept that. Next question: what now?

 

[romangod]

i wanted to post this:

I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

Practically, there is 0% agreement here that a girl will behave herself in accord with these vows. Which I think means that marriage, by the traditional definition, is dead. Ok, i can accept that. Next question: what now?

I think you are correct. Marriage by the traditional definition is dead. Yet society still persists in the folly of thinking it isn't. They still do the "church" thing and recite the vows and pretend it is some spiritual union that is sanctioned by God.

That delusion is valid until you sign the marriage license that puts the law ahead of your vows at the altar.

Unfortunately, the laws have been rewritten and manipulated to totally castrate the man at the whim of his wife. There is no justice or fairness anymore. Your wife could be banging the Hell's Angels but the law now considers it "no fault".

In most cases, the husband gets crucified financially and emotionally. The courts claim to be fair yet they rarely dispense justice equally. Men were caught napping as women and girly-men allowed the system to be weighted in a woman's favor.

Marriage for life is now as disposable as a baby's diaper has become disposable.

Personally, I think it is now one of the worst decisions a man can make. It is a form of male slavery where in many cases the slave owner is nothing more than a slvt pretending for a while that she isn't.

What now?

That's up to the individual. Any man that is considering marriage should do his legal homework and prepare himself for the worst while hoping for the best. If and when the sh!t hits the fan, he'll at least have an "out" that he can survive.

Naively going into marriage on faith and good intentions is really surrendering your future to the whims of your wife. Choose wisely with your eyes open. If not, prepare to suffer unlike you've ever suffered in your life.


Cheers!

 

[Zarky]

Many states already do have a clause for that. Basically you have to present yourself as a couple and others have to assume, for all intents and purposes, you're a committed relationship similar to that to being married. So if you have a roommate then you're fine, but if you're in a romantic relationship and you live with the gf then you could in fact end up married even if you didn't want to be.

This is entirely incorrect. Nowhere in the Western World can people "end up married even if they didn't want to be." Common law marriage or the equivalent means that a man and wife have acted married, have used the same last name, have told people they're married, etc. for X many years. Basically they did everything except actually go down to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate. There is no "accidental" marriage.

And common law marriage is not even available in most states.

This is the reason that ALL advice given on these forums, and the internet itself, should be called into question. Much of it is simply wrong.

 

[jophil28]

This is entirely incorrect. Nowhere in the Western World can people "end up married even if they didn't want to be." Common law marriage or the equivalent means that a man and wife have acted married, have used the same last name, have told people they're married, etc. for X many years. Basically they did everything except actually go down to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate. There is no "accidental" marriage.

And common law marriage is not even available in most states.

This is the reason that ALL advice given on these forums, and the internet itself, should be called into question. Much of it is simply wrong.

Eeerr, consider this -
In the early half of this year (In Australia) certain amendments were passed into law in respect of The Family Law Act regarding the rights of separating "de factos" couples when dividing property.

In a nutshell, the definition of "de facto" no longer includes the requirement for cohabitation. As long as the court is satisfied that a "relationship" has been in place for a minimum of two years, all the entitlments of a married partner are now offered to an applicant make a property claim on the assets of the other. This privelege also extends to and includes "mistresses" of married men who are now treated as if they were regular married women.

This amendment was introduced by our Leftist, pro-feminist Federal Govt .

Vote wisely in 2012, cousins.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Sqirrels,
"And if you're a guy with a guy roommate in a state that allows gay marriage?" You are right aren't you?You have an uncanny ability to think outside the square....."
In a nutshell, the definition of "de facto" no longer includes the requirement for cohabitation. As long as the court is satisfied that a "relationship" has been in place for a minimum of two years, all the entitelments of a married partner are now offered to an applicant make a property claim on the assets of the other. This privilege also extends to and includes "mistresses" of married men who are now treated as if they were regular married women."
Thanks Jophil....So I wonder if this means multiple persons can have their claws into your assets?begs a question as to pre relationship agreements...Why dogs leave home

 

[jophil28]

Thanks Jophil....So I wonder if this means multiple persons can have their claws into your assets?

Indeed they can.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Hey Australians, though the phrase would seem to be a paradox, you guys just need to get your own "conservative revolution" going.


We just took the US Congress back, our Senate is nearly a dead heat, and 2012 will be another referendum against girly-men.

 

[jophil28]

Hey Australians, though the phrase would seem to be a paradox, you guys just need to get your own "conservative revolution" going.

Oh, I am certain that even an apathetic electorate like ours will eventually arise and boot out the liars, scam artists and parasites from the elite left.

 

[Warrior74]

Eeerr, consider this -
In the early half of this year (In Australia) certain amendments were passed into law in respect of The Family Law Act regarding the rights of separating "de factos" couples when dividing property.

In a nutshell, the definition of "de facto" no longer includes the requirement for cohabitation. As long as the court is satisfied that a "relationship" has been in place for a minimum of two years, all the entitlments of a married partner are now offered to an applicant make a property claim on the assets of the other. This privelege also extends to and includes "mistresses" of married men who are now treated as if they were regular married women.

This amendment was introduced by our Leftist, pro-feminist Federal Govt .

Vote wisely in 2012, cousins.

Has prostitution increased there? I would imagine it would. Just pay up front than pay later with your assets.

 

[Zarky]

All right well Australia is it's own little world then. For all I know a court could declare you married to some chick you've never even met. In the US, however, this cannot take place.

 

[jophil28]

Has prostitution increased there? I would imagine it would. Just pay up front than pay later with your assets.

We have a locker room saying down here," Don't get married, save yourself 20 years of misery. Just go out, find yourself a woman you can't stand and buy her a house."

On a more serious note, the recent changes to property settlement law has largely gone unnoticed and were certainly underreported.
There were a few predicable squeals of delight from the feminist nut gallery, but most men here would still be totally blind to the changes.

However there is a bright side for men.

The changes which confer property claim rights on G/fs , mistresses and "de factos" are tightly tied to their level of financial dependency on him, or the benefits that she received from him during the relationship.
IN other words, the more generous he was during the relationship the stronger her case becomes later when she is claiming .
So those 'nice guy' generous betas who paid her bills, offered gifts, took care of her financial living expenses are toast.
Paradoxically, the alpha types who locked their wallets, and treated their girls 'selfishly' will fare well because any claim that a woman makes on such a man will fail to show financial dependency.

The law is not always an ass, but the left in goverment will always act in predictable ways.
Their adolescent delight in foisting their 'social visions' on a population which just wants job stability is well observed.
Social engineering is always more sexy than reducing public debt, or building pipelines to remote communities, or ensuring that small business is free to make profits.

 

[Jitterbug]

I was talking to this chick on the weekend who's broken up with her 4.5 years BF for 18 months, but still receiving money into her account for various expenses, because he still apparently cares so much about her. She's struggling to get a job atm. I hope for his sake, she doesn't know about that new law.

Victorian election is this Saturday, but the Libs are preferencing Labor so it's not like we have a choice other than the lunatic left again.

 

[Nutz]

This is entirely incorrect. Nowhere in the Western World can people "end up married even if they didn't want to be." Common law marriage or the equivalent means that a man and wife have acted married, have used the same last name, have told people they're married, etc. for X many years. Basically they did everything except actually go down to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate. There is no "accidental" marriage.

And common law marriage is not even available in most states.

This is the reason that ALL advice given on these forums, and the internet itself, should be called into question. Much of it is simply wrong.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but you may want to actually look at the states' statues before you go criticizing people. It does vary from state to state, but many do in fact have a line or two in them about portraying yourselves as married. The one I read specifically stated if you meet the cohabitation duration requirements all you have to do is introduce your live-in gf as your wife and BAM! you're married as far as the state is concerned.

Granted not all states have common-law marriage, and some that don't are trying to bring it back.

 

[countermart]

Of course the way the left argue, it works both ways. You just have to find a rich girl...good luck with that lol.

Basically it works this way:

If you are married under the law you are married whether you are sleeping with her or not. Most ex-married guys will understand this comment. She can make a claim on your assets and you can on hers. Modern marriage is not about love, under the law it is about money. It is nothing more than a business contract. For most guys it’s a stupid business contract to enter into.

If you live with her in the same house but have never slept with her then she is just a mate like a guy might be (assuming expenses etc are shared).

If you sleep with her and live in the same house you have a relationship and she can have a go at claiming your assets married or not and you can have a go at claiming hers. Again living with a girl in the same house and sleeping with her under the law has nothing to do with love it is a business contract.

If you sleep with her and don’t live in the same house and even if you are married to someone else after a period of time she can claim some of your assets and you can have a go at claiming some of hers, presumably.

In effect primarily ex-the marriage situation comes down to whether you are sleeping with her or not, and if you are providing any support.

But basically, most importantly if you are sleeping with her. Because you can still give money and gifts to friends and they cannot claim your assets. Sleeping with her is then the key to the liability.

So basically, sleep with her and after a period of time she can claim some of your assets. In effect this makes many woman (assuming most of the cases will be women against men given the difference in incomes) nothing but w*ores. Some make money immediately on sleeping with you, and some do it over a long period, but essentially the end result is exactly the same, although the direct offering is probably the cheaper in the long run and at least you get to pay upfront.

Of course she may not necessarily claim financial compensation for sleeping with you, but under the law after a period of time she can make a claim.

So where does this leave the average sweet girl? Well, dare I say it further down the road of women’s lib. A world where guys don’t commit and turn girls over like futures contracts...you see SS is not just a web site it is part of the evolution of man and ultimately, while women’s lib has brought many good things for women it has also cost them greatly. They have in effect gained financial security but lost relationship security (something that is a big price for a woman to pay). Talk to many thinking girls, as I have done, and they will agree with this view of women’s lib...It was ultimately hijacked by the lesbo left.

There is no end to attractive professional successful, educated girls 30 - 40 left on the shelf. Welcome to the downside of “equality”, and I may add the upside for some SS followers.

To the posters that say men should be trying to change these laws, well yes that is true, but so should women. Some women will benefit financially, but for most it is just another reason for guys not to commit to them and to play the field, with an expiry date of two years in Australia.

Countermart

 

[zekko]

The one I read specifically stated if you meet the cohabitation duration requirements all you have to do is introduce your live-in gf as your wife and BAM! you're married as far as the state is concerned.

See? Who needs a piece of paper?