So much triggering

WOW MONEY MAKES EVERYBODY BETTER LOOKING

No, I view it more as an attempt for her to not be punished for trusting this man straight out of high school, and giving up the more "normal" 18-year-old's life plan of going to college (often while still living at home with mom and dad, etc).

She's left, career-wise, educationally-wise, in a similar place as her former 18-year-old self is. She gave up the chance to go to school then, study, find out what she wanted for a career, and so forth. Remember, she was 18 years old and straight out of high school in my scenario.

The way you paint it, she gets some funding for college or a trade school and what else? Where is she living? Does she still have young kids to take care of? Who is paying for her groceries, gas, car insurance, other expenses, as she studies? She may be getting child support, but isn't that supposed to go for helping the children only?

Admittedly, I don't know how the nuances would work out, but let's say she's given career counseling and told she has X many years to show X amount of progress, and is made to understand that if she sits on her ass and doesn't study or try to find a career, at a certain point the alimony is cut off (regardless).

She can do what everyone else in life does.... get a job? Maybe attend school over time, rather than try to cram it in in 4 years?  You keep saying she wants to get an education, what happens if she does not? Lets throw out the education factor in this, because maybe that isn't what she wants to do? Maybe she just wants to spending X amount of years on the alimony and worry about a career later?  My point is there are no restrictions on what she is doing, so stop bringing up the "Well, she needs to go do THIS to become indepdent". There is 0 requirement for her to do that, the only requirement is for him to PAY.

The court won't get involved with the latter... because as of now, they don't care how alimony is spent. You have 0 problem with that, so the argument should just be;

"He cheated, and she should have rights to alimony."

Harold Hamm divorce cost over a $ Billion. Costliest in U.S. history. This will dwarf that one.

So the crux of this thread is guys are tired of getting screwed in divorces,and women dont want anything to change in case they find themselves in court.

And at age 38, what kind of job would she be likely to get, with no college education, no past employment history? McDonald's? I've got no quarrel with McDonald's, it's honest work, but it may not pay for an apartment, car insurance, clothing, etc. Furthermore, does she have children she's taking care of? How old are they? Is it important for her to stay at home taking care of them if they're still small? If all of a sudden now it's okay for her to put small children in daycare so she can work, how come her husband wasn't urging that before? (Remember, he wanted her to stay at home all this time and by all accounts, he thought she did a good job at home.)

Tell you what. No spouse should EVER stay at home or make any concessions, career-wise, for the kids or keeping the home. It should be strictly split 50/50 so nobody is at a career or financial disadvantage.

Obviously her staying at home all those years was of no value, and she shouldn't do it. Her husband should have never allowed her to.

"He plucked a girl straight out of high school, allowed her to not pursue an education, watched as she never had a job of built an employment history, allowed her to think that they were a "team" and she contributed something of great value to him and to the family, but now that he's found a sexier model, all that she did is actually worthless and it's only HER fault for not preparing for her future single life better, so off to McDonald's for her, he'll throw her a few bucks to go to Greendale Community College."

I'm going to remember this thread the next time we have guys complaining because not many women want to be stay-at-home or rather, are "too focused" on their career. Clearly, staying at home has zero value and is just her being a leech. Nobody should do it.

Savage

Lauren Sanchez, it seems.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577797/Jeff-Bezos-gushing-text-messages-TV-anchor-having-affair-with.html

Just find another billionaire to date, duh.

We're not talking about Bezos and his wife here, but another outlier example "what if." Try to keep up.

That text message reads like lyrics to an Exile song.

Lol,right great catch

At first, I was like, "Pfffft. That's a fair amount of land, but it's not that much. Family farms have that much and more."

Then I saw the "k."

It was all explained on the news, there was rumors of him with another woman, he finally came out and said he was having an affair, divorce was announced and because of where they claim residence everything will be split 50/50.

That will drop him down to the 4th or 5th richest man and will make her THE richest woman in the world.

Holy shit you're pushing the go to school HARD you sound like you work for a University itching to get some of that money.

She is going to end up with 70 billion dollars, she can do what ever she wants for the rest of her life and not have a care in the world.

Go to school to hear leftist propaganda LMAO

LOL poor people get divorced too dude.

She'll get preggers and cash out.

Yup, ask me how I know .

Money has nothing to do with happiness.  It's the contentment of your whole life's situation that brings happiness, or lack thereof.

There's happy tibetan monks without a single thing to call their own, there's happy 7 figure hedge fund managers.  There's suicidal penniless panhandlers, there's suicidal big tech tycoons.

How much money that is in someones account has no corralation to their happiness.  It's irrelevant. It's all a matter of personal perspective of their present situation.

Edit to add: tldr, financial status is a very poor metric to asses happiness.  Dennis Prager talks about this frequently

I was talking about a hypothetical different woman... Damn reading is for faggots around here.

Like I said earlier... you are using alimony as a form of punishment, not a form of getting her upon her feet.

If you were truly concerned about her well being, you wouldn't have a problem with putting limitations / restrictions on alimony and would possibly willing to reduce or remove it once she has brought her level of income from a job to a livable level.

But as you stated "screw him".

Lots of guys who couldn't score better are members here

Where do you get this idea that I'm not putting limitations on her alimony? I said in an earlier post that after so many years it would be cut off. It would be up to her to decide if she wanted to study for a new career or not. But she'd be given the opportunity to do so, and not while scrambling to make ends meet and working at McDonald's.

Screw him? Sure. Same as screw her if she was banging the pool boy and being a shitty mom and housewife but wanted alimony.

If she were cheating, she get support anyway? What if she has no training or education, and she cheats on her husband and is a shitty wife and mother? Should he pay for her education anyway? If he shouldn't, that's punishing her. But I can guarantee you, a lot of guys here would be very angry if her husband had to pay one damn red cent to the lying, lazy, cheating whore. Are you saying they're wrong?

Because its not about getting her back on her feet if there is no restrictions on how it is used, you wish for her not to use it for luxury, but have no method of enforcing not being used for it.  Instead, you make the argument that it is provided for the purpose of allowing her to regain independence, but it isn't.. it is merely a penalty tax (if you will) against the EX husband as a form of revenge.  You're blinded by emotions on this one. I'd respect the argument more if you were making it as a form of punishment than sugar coating it as a means to independence.

A lot of guys are saying there should be NO form of support given outside of child support.

Explain to me why 70% plus of women initiate divorces? Especially when the cheating rate for both genders are roughly equal.

Did you read the part I wrote below that? The part where I say 'Screw him? Sure. Same as screw her if she was banging the pool boy and being a shitty mom and housewife but wanted alimony."? What else would I mean that as, but as a punishment?

He has done her wrong. She was trusting, put herself in a vulnerable position (not getting a career/education) and he betrayed her. In that respect, him paying is a "punishment." If he cheated on her but she made more money than him, or she had wealthy parents who would take her in and give her a trust fund, she'd be in a much better position, financially. Maybe he wouldn't need to pay because she's already "whole" (financially at least, thanks to her existing income). But if that's not the case, then something should be done to make her "whole," (meaning, not working at McDonald's and worrying where her next paycheck is coming from while studying—or not studying). And who should help make her "whole," but the person who betrayed her?

Same thing would work if the genders were reversed. A guy abandons his career, let's say, to be a "stage husband" to a famous woman, he provides value in taking care of the kids, being supportive, maybe helping to manage her career, but at the expense of his own unique skills and ambitions? Then she leaves him for someone else? She should be helping him financially to be made "whole" again. As a form of "punishment," sort of, but also because he is left at a financial disadvantage and he trusted her and upheld his part of their marriage contract and she didn't.

There are a few who see the reasoning behind giving support to a dependent, trusting, stay at home parent who missed career opportunities and not to blame for the marriage breakup.

The court system sucks and some of these women use it to their advantage. But that is not what we (or at least I) are talking about. We're talking about WHAT IF guys here got what they wanted—what they thought was "fair." Apparently, no compensation to a dependent, trusting, innocent (as in they didn't do anything "wrong") stay at home spouse. Since that is the case, nobody should become a stay at home spouse. It's too perilous and definitely not viewed as having any value.

Than that is all that is needed to be said, stop trying to justify the alimony past that because it comes across as a foolish argument about 'gaining independence' when there are 0 restrictions on how the money is being spent.  That is ALL  it is, is revenge money.  Period, full stop.

I have more respect for guys who say "I am not happy, I want out" knowing they are going to get the short end of the stick in family court, in comparison to the women who say the same thing knowing they won't get any shaft in court.  The latter are just dopamine chasing leaches.

If I could have the power to stipulate that while she is being supported, she needs to get an education and pursue a career, I would. I think it's that important.

You're the one who was saying, oh nooooo, we can't do that. You're the one who said that was a no-go. As far as I'm concerned, it should be on the table. I'm not sure if it's legal to stipulate that, though.

It isn't legal however as of this time, I am speaking of the here and now.

But I am not sugar coating "Well, she needs the money because of education, a way to get gainful employment in her late 30s.."

No, its X amount over Y time frame as a form of "You fucked up, now you will pay" money.  You are the one making an argument she needs it for all the above, not me.

Actually, she OR he (see my scenario with the "stage husband"). I think we're talking about what if, what would be fair, not what is now.

What would be fair is that a betrayed spouse (husband or wife) who missed career/educational opportunities SHOULD have some support while they try to regain their career footing, get an education, what have you. "Punishment" to the cheating spouse is I suppose part of the equation (since they did betray their spouse who did nothing "wrong") but it's a combo of the stay at home spouse being wronged and also being financially at a disadvantage due to being wronged.

I think either husband or wife in that position should get help while regaining their footing. The prevailing opinion by many here is that nope, sucks to be them for making the "choice" to stay at home. In which case, nobody should stay at home.

And if the husband is the bread winner, and she (the homemaker) cheats, should he be able to garnish a portion of her wages for the next X amount of years?

Something everyone seems to be overlooking is the choice to be a stay at home parent should be a temporary situation. As the children grow and require less care, it presents increased opportunity for the stay at home parent to work or continue education. With kids in grade school, the stay at home parent can work part time. By the time they are in college, there is no reason not to re-enter the work force full time.

Also, not every stay at home spouse is a parent. Lots of women without children are stay at home wives. No reason a woman in such a situation cannot continue her education and network via volunteer work and charity in order to maintain professional contacts. You can only spend so many hours a week at yoga, the spa, shopping and caring for fur babies.  Yet some here seem to believe such women are incapable of working, and can only survive, because a man gives her money by court order.

Did he lose some educational or career opportunities when she cheated? My whole premise is that the support is to help a spouse who lost out on education or career advancement because they stayed home.

No, your whole premise is using alimony as a form of punishment under the guise of needing to get the homemaker party back on her feet.

It sounds like your answer to my question is no.

Which I don't find surprising.

No, he just lost out of the significant financial investment he made in her lifestyle, food, clothing, housing, transportation, insurance premiums and is now getting zero return on that investment.

No, that's your spin on my premise. You think that putting words in my mouth means that your claim is accurate. It's not.

My primary goal is for a stay at home spouse get "back on their feet." As I already explained. This could be the high-school grad stay at home mom or the stage husband. The marriage is broken through a deliberate betrayal of the spouse. In such a situation, the wronged spouse should be made "whole." I've already explained it, but you still want to spin it your own way and tell me what I really mean.

Tell you what. The stage husband cheats on his famous, rich wife and then he pays her a portion of his earnings after the divorce to her rich ass. Except I don't want that either, because she didn't sacrifice career opportunities nor is she financially at a disadvantage due to his cheating and breaking up the marriage.

But wait—I should want that because he's a man and I think all men always should be "punished"! According to you, anyway.

What "investment" was that? What she does at home is a vacation and easy. What she was supposed to contribute was nothing, and would have been nothing even if she'd been good at it. He didn't expect anything back from that "investment," did he, since it was worthless from the get-go!

To be honest she has huge fucking lips.

No, that is a byproduct of the cheating husband to pay punishment money (alimony).

You may not see it that way, but it comes across exactly like that.

$$$$$ obviously. All the things I listed cost money.

He should expect lifelong sex and companionship from his investment. Do you think getting married and supporting a woman doesn’t cost money?

Let's take cheating off the table. Let's say he wants to divorce just because he doesn't want to be married anymore. No reason given but he concedes that it's not her fault.

She's still at a financial disadvantage and it was agreed when they got married that he'd provide and she'd be at home. But if they're no longer married, he won't be doing that. She should be allowed to get the education/training that she missed.

What I'm getting out of all of this is that nobody—NOBODY—should ever be a stay at home parent.

You keep avoiding my question if the homemaker cheated, how come there is no punishment against that person in favor of the breadwinner?

But to your more recent post;

And if she got the education (as most women do these days...), but doesn't have the work experience, how does one pay for 20 years of lost work experience?

20 years of alimony while she climbs the corporate ladder?

I saw a thing on the news this morning that he has been seen out on the town with his new girlfriend. I would expect that will be good for a couple billion more in the settlement

If she's not a stay at home mom, she would be making her own way and he would have no "investment" in her at all and she would owe him nothing. Which is how it should be ALL the time, sounds like. Otherwise, she's been bought and paid for and owes him sex and companionship, not because it's a mutual thing that married couples do but only because he foots the bills. Granted, this hypothetical wife was cheating, but the way you phrase it, every stay at home spouse owes everything to the breadwinner because of the $$$ spent.

Wow, even more compelling reasons to never, ever want anyone to be a stay at home spouse.

I was responding to the scenario of the stay at home spouse being the cheater.

Only strong, driven people should be stay at home spouses and do so knowing that relationships don’t always work out. Not leeches who insist a man takes care of them no matter what.

What does he need to be made "whole"? Is his career damaged? Or, do you think (as StevenH does) that she owes him money because he paid for her food and clothing all those years? If she contributed NOTHING to the home for all those years then he should have divorced her long before she started cheating.

Did the stage husband disgrace the famous woman with his cheating? Did he gossip about her or damage her career and reputation in some way? Then yes, she could probably sue him and should win. If they discreetly divorce and her career is not damaged in any way, what money does she need from him in order to be made whole?

I wasn't thinking 20 years even if she was a high school grad with no college and no work experience. Ten years seems excessive, but it would probably be something discussed with a career counselor of some sort.

I get that you don't want any money to go to the stay at home spouse, which is fine with me—as long as nobody is ever, ever encouraged to be a stay at home spouse ever again.

He has a 30k acre ranch in Texas.  So 270k acres of land plus a 30k acre ranch.  You could build a serious gun range on that kind of land.

If alimony is to be used against the homewrecked (and in this case, a cheating spouse), why can't a form of punishment be leveled against him or her? You are pushing a double standard.

"If she contributed NOTHING to the home for all those years then he should have divorced her long before she started cheating."

 Yeah.. ok.

You keep dancing around the question with mental gymnastics.

Stay at home spouses are having a vacation and their duties are super easy. (As you've said.) If they don't tangibly provide money in the marriage then anything that is spent on them (their food, clothing, housing) should be returned if they fail to do their "job" of being a good spouse. Why only limit their failures to cheating? They gain some weight, they owe money because they weighed less and looked better when they first got married. If they don't clean up the house to the satisfaction of the breadwinning spouse, that's a demerit. And so forth and so on.

Knowing that the breadwinner spouse feels this way about the marriage should be ample reason to not ever stay at home. And also, to keep very good books on what was spent on what and who bought it. They don't want to "owe" anything if the marriage goes south!

No—nobody should be a stay at home spouse, especially when their contribution is considered a "vacation" and if they'll end up owing the breadwinner spouse money if they don't do the stay at home thing good enough.