Oaktree, even though you are an interesting character to me now you're missing something. The OP was on a multiple year dryspell (self induced) and we should try not to spook him.
Even I Couldn't Fail In The Philippines
Oaktree story is legit.
I know an elderly man who is paying his ex wife (60 ish) $15k per month in alimony.
He offered me a large sum to marry her, no thanks.
I know an elderly man who is paying his ex wife (60 ish) $15k per month in alimony.
He offered me a large sum to marry her, no thanks.
haha, that's why I want to have kids IN the Philippines...THEN I can decide if I want to be stupid and move to the USA... I don't think alimony is commonly granted in California, that is a new level of nightmare.
As I said, if I get stuck with 10 years of child support that's a lot more tolerable that 17.
As I said, if I get stuck with 10 years of child support that's a lot more tolerable that 17.
Quote: (04-16-2014 05:20 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:
Oaktree story is legit.
I know an elderly man who is paying his ex wife (60 ish) $15k per month in alimony.
He offered me a large sum to marry her, no thanks.
I'm sure she needs 180k per year to live...
![[Image: dodgy.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
In fairness in some cases it does make sense. If they were married 30+ years and the husband makes 7 figures a year, I can understand that. But unfortunately most of the time it seems pretty one sided.The best advice my dad has ever given me is "never get married."
Quote: (04-16-2014 05:30 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:
The best advice my dad has ever given me is "never get married."
If alimony is a possibility, that makes sense.. in the USA with kids, married/not married isn't the surefire killer, having kids is.
The child support mechanism is fully in place and ruthless.
Alimony can last forever...(In Canada) to my understanding child support payments aren't forever and even then I'd want to provide for my child anyways. (Barring certain circumstances like a child born disabled where I believe child support can be indefinite)
Is there a decent country where one can have a child completely outside the powers of government?
As in, meet a woman you like, put a baby in her, down the road things don't work out, you go your separate ways, and that's it?
As in, meet a woman you like, put a baby in her, down the road things don't work out, you go your separate ways, and that's it?
Quote: (04-16-2014 09:05 PM)Courage Reborn Wrote:
Is there a decent country where one can have a child completely outside the powers of government?
As in, meet a woman you like, put a baby in her, down the road things don't work out, you go your separate ways, and that's it?
I know for a fact that Russia is not one of these countries, neither are other former USSR or Eastern European countries.
I have heard that the law in Thailand is more in favor of men when it comes to divorce.
If you move to a county like Thailand or the Philippines but keep your money offshore (just in a different country, not necessarily the Cayman Islands or what have you), then it should be very difficult or impossible for somebody in a third world country to get to that money regardless of their local laws.
Quote: (04-16-2014 05:30 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:
I'm sure she needs 180k per year to live...
The idea that someone "got accustomed" to a lifestyle and therefore needs that kind of money for the rest of her life is horseshit. If she is not a quad, she can work and make her own money.
The only timeI think alimony makes any sense at all is if a woman quit her job to become a housewife because her husband asked her to. Key point is that her husband asked her to. If she wants to be a housewife and she chooses that herself, that's her problem when she gets divorced and can't get a decent job because she has no experience.
This is the entire basis of alimony. 70 years ago, women were expected to quit their jobs after marrying so she would be left with very crappy opportunities after a divorce. It makes sense that the man who took her off the market would take some responsibility for that.
But today, alimony is a perverted way for women to make a living by being parasites. Society looks down on people who game the system for workman's comp or stay unemployed for extended periods of time and make no effort to get off the dole but somehow, a woman is celebrated when she takes a guy to the cleaners.
It is sooooooooooooooo fucked up that this kind of thing is tolerated by the masses.
Bix those were the type of situations I was getting at. When you have a woman who leaves the workforce for 30 years at her husbands urging and then they divorce and shes 55 and hes 60 or whatever...it does make some sense for him to pay a large alimony amount. But I agree that it's a rare scenario. Either way the easiest way to avoid it is just not get married!
Well I guess if she has never worked before and use to a certain lifestyle, not much a guy can do.
The guy in my story makes crazy money, so the 15k is a drop in the bucket but the principle bothers him.
The guy in my story makes crazy money, so the 15k is a drop in the bucket but the principle bothers him.
OK, but why should we consider "being used to a lifestyle"? I'll never understand this.
Say a couple gets married and she quits her job at his urging. They divorce 40 years later when they're 65 and she's too old to get a job of any sort. I agree that he should support her.
What I don't agree with is that her entitled income depends on his beyond a reasonable standard. If he's making 100k and he gives her 50k, she's living a pretty standard average lifestyle. She is not suffering in any way. She can eat, pay rent, buy clothes like millions of others do every day. And if he makes 5m a year, I don't see how that should make any difference. 50k is still going to give her all the financial security she needs as a human being. The only exception here is how much of a role she played in his accumulation of wealth. Did she work on the business with him? Did she provide him with life changing ideas? If not, then the only argument you can make is something along the lines of "behind every great man is a great woman".
If she was nothing more than a loving housewife that washed his skivvies and cooked him meals, I don't see how that helped make him what he is in business and she doesn't deserve more than an average lifestyle, IMO. She STILL had the privilege of living in the lap of luxury for 40 years!
Say a couple gets married and she quits her job at his urging. They divorce 40 years later when they're 65 and she's too old to get a job of any sort. I agree that he should support her.
What I don't agree with is that her entitled income depends on his beyond a reasonable standard. If he's making 100k and he gives her 50k, she's living a pretty standard average lifestyle. She is not suffering in any way. She can eat, pay rent, buy clothes like millions of others do every day. And if he makes 5m a year, I don't see how that should make any difference. 50k is still going to give her all the financial security she needs as a human being. The only exception here is how much of a role she played in his accumulation of wealth. Did she work on the business with him? Did she provide him with life changing ideas? If not, then the only argument you can make is something along the lines of "behind every great man is a great woman".
If she was nothing more than a loving housewife that washed his skivvies and cooked him meals, I don't see how that helped make him what he is in business and she doesn't deserve more than an average lifestyle, IMO. She STILL had the privilege of living in the lap of luxury for 40 years!
I think if you want to hook up for an LTR with a Filipina, your best bet would be to just live with her there. If you don't have enough passive income to live there full time, you can go back to the states on your own to work for however long and then go back to PI to spend some time there. A lot of people there are OFWs and spend months at a time separated from each other. Why complicate it with marriage if you don't need to? And this way you can be sure you're not being scammed by a bad apple, and in the case that you are, you are free to move on.
That said, if a girl is willing to settle down with you there, she's probably not after your green card. Once she's proven this by not asking for more for a while, I'd bet you're probably safe to bring her back anyway. This of course doesn't mean that other Americans and the culture won't corrupt her thinking and get her to see you as a free ride.
That said, if a girl is willing to settle down with you there, she's probably not after your green card. Once she's proven this by not asking for more for a while, I'd bet you're probably safe to bring her back anyway. This of course doesn't mean that other Americans and the culture won't corrupt her thinking and get her to see you as a free ride.
The reason these stories bother us is the one sided nature of the marriage contract.
I don't see that the woman has any legal obligation toward the man except in rare situations.
For example, I've seen situations where the woman has generated 80% of the assets in the marriage and keeps 80% paying no alimony because she earned it. In a similar situation, the man generated 80% of the assets and keeps 30% plus paying alimony to keep her in the style she is accustomed to.
It is a given that the woman should be maintained in the style she is accustomed to. Why should that only be true for the woman? If the man is used to sex every day, home cooked meals, housekeeping and companionship, why shouldn't he be kept in the style he is accustomed to? To our ears, it sounds absurd because there is nothing reciprocal in marriage.
I have yet to find any legal obligation the average wife has toward the average husband.
Why is marriage even called a contract? Maybe it should be labeled as an obligation, debt, or liability from a legal point of view.
I don't see that the woman has any legal obligation toward the man except in rare situations.
For example, I've seen situations where the woman has generated 80% of the assets in the marriage and keeps 80% paying no alimony because she earned it. In a similar situation, the man generated 80% of the assets and keeps 30% plus paying alimony to keep her in the style she is accustomed to.
It is a given that the woman should be maintained in the style she is accustomed to. Why should that only be true for the woman? If the man is used to sex every day, home cooked meals, housekeeping and companionship, why shouldn't he be kept in the style he is accustomed to? To our ears, it sounds absurd because there is nothing reciprocal in marriage.
I have yet to find any legal obligation the average wife has toward the average husband.
Why is marriage even called a contract? Maybe it should be labeled as an obligation, debt, or liability from a legal point of view.
Oh it's a contract alright, one that ain't easy to break without difficulty.
Quote: (04-16-2014 10:10 PM)Bix Wrote:
Quote: (04-16-2014 05:30 PM)lavidaloca Wrote:
I'm sure she needs 180k per year to live...
The idea that someone "got accustomed" to a lifestyle and therefore needs that kind of money for the rest of her life is horseshit. If she is not a quad, she can work and make her own money.
The only timeI think alimony makes any sense at all is if a woman quit her job to become a housewife because her husband asked her to. Key point is that her husband asked her to. If she wants to be a housewife and she chooses that herself, that's her problem when she gets divorced and can't get a decent job because she has no experience.
This is the entire basis of alimony. 70 years ago, women were expected to quit their jobs after marrying so she would be left with very crappy opportunities after a divorce. It makes sense that the man who took her off the market would take some responsibility for that.
But today, alimony is a perverted way for women to make a living by being parasites. Society looks down on people who game the system for workman's comp or stay unemployed for extended periods of time and make no effort to get off the dole but somehow, a woman is celebrated when she takes a guy to the cleaners.
It is sooooooooooooooo fucked up that this kind of thing is tolerated by the masses.
I bet she doesn't shed a tear for that guy who has to keep paying even if he is unemployed. I bet she is chatty as fuck with her girlfriends talking about how she is fucking him over.
Fate whispers to the warrior, "You cannot withstand the storm." And the warrior whispers back, "I am the storm."
Women and children can be careless, but not men - Don Corleone
Great RVF Comments | Where Evil Resides | How to upload, etc. | New Members Read This 1 | New Members Read This 2
The response to all of this is quite simple. Don't get married. My one gf and I have been together for nearly 3 years. Even if we were together 10, I wouldn't get married (with papers). Not worth the pain in the ass unless you are hoping to obtain citizenship in another country I see no point.
Marriage = The best day of a woman's life = The worst day of a man's life.
Marriage = The best day of a woman's life = The worst day of a man's life.
If you live in Canada or most western countries, living with her for 6 months (1 year?) makes you common law. Same thing as if you had the ceremony, legally, isn't it?
I'm not sure of the time frame in terms of common law relationships. It doesn't apply to my circumstances but yes it is possible that you can be required to pay support that I do know. You can contract out of that requirement but I'm unsure as to how well those contracts related to common law relationships hold up in court.
Accustomed to a certain standard of living is a crock of shit.
Guys work hard to get to this level and it is a feature of their attractiveness and what they have to offer.
OF course he shares that with a spouse, but if she is no longer his spouse, she deserves no part of it. Once she leaves the picture, he uses it to attract other partners. By giving it away, he earns less and a potential new spouse doesn't see the fruit of his efforts.
The inverse would be "accustomed to a certain level of sex", and divorced women should be forced to put up conjugal visits from their ex husbands?
Now, "men don't deserve sex" just as much as women don't deserve rampant consumption.
You're on the wrong site if you can see how this is a 'fair state of affairs"
Guys work hard to get to this level and it is a feature of their attractiveness and what they have to offer.
OF course he shares that with a spouse, but if she is no longer his spouse, she deserves no part of it. Once she leaves the picture, he uses it to attract other partners. By giving it away, he earns less and a potential new spouse doesn't see the fruit of his efforts.
The inverse would be "accustomed to a certain level of sex", and divorced women should be forced to put up conjugal visits from their ex husbands?
Now, "men don't deserve sex" just as much as women don't deserve rampant consumption.
You're on the wrong site if you can see how this is a 'fair state of affairs"
^ common law is a provincial thing in Canada. At the federal level it is only matters for income tax filing. Rights upon separation are set by the province. In mine it is 3 years cohabitation before it kicks in
Quote: (04-21-2014 06:00 PM)christpuncher Wrote:
^ common law is a provincial thing in Canada. At the federal level it is only matters for income tax filing. Rights upon separation are set by the province. In mine it is 3 years cohabitation before it kicks in
In Ontario I think it's 3 years, but can't it be less in other provinces?
I ask this bc my buddy got completely raped in divorce in Ontario and pays upwards of $17,500 per MONTH there now in his divorce settlement. He seems to think that there will be some sort of 're-set' after 2-3 years where they go back to court or whatever an recalibrate....but I'm skeptical.
The War on Men continues.....'common law' marriage is just another trap for men in Anglosphere countries to avoid IMO...
2015 RVF fantasy football champion
Quote: (04-16-2014 04:21 PM)Oaktree Wrote:
Husband and wife have no children. Married 30+ years. Graduated from a top tier university with exactly the same MBA. Same age. Wife doesn't like to work and has a shopping compulsion. Husband worked. All this was presented to the court.
Wife grew bored and filed for divorce. Husband was still working and around age 60 at the time. He was ordered to pay lifetime alimony AFTER dividing their assets. As I recall, he got less than 50% since he worked and she did not. Also the court accepted testimony that she had a shopping compulsion and adjusted the award to a greater amount because of that.
Two years after the divorce he lost his job. This is at around age 62. He requested a reduction in the alimony. Request denied.
He was forced to pay the same amount while he sought other work. He didn't have much in savings and the court ruled there would be no reduction ever made in the amount of alimony to be paid even if he was in his 80s. In fact, it's possible that the amount may be increased.
Beyond All Seas
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)