Bride-to-be swallows engagement ring in her sleep during an 'action-packed' dream

[laylalex 7,284]

8 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Interesting. Do you feel you would have earned as much money had your career not been impacted, as you have in the settlement against your ex? I get the feeling that "earned" might be an overstatement.

No, of course not. But it's not just the amount of money I might have earned had he not demanded I stop working and run his home and focus on getting ready to have a child. It's the mental strain of having to live with someone who gaslighted me for years, made me feel less than again and again and again. I earned it. Every day. Just because I would have earned far less working doesn't mean he shouldn't pay in line with what we agreed. 

14 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, you did not EARN it.  You were awarded it.  Some day, you may understand the difference.  But for now, enjoy the boon life has thrown your way.  I reckon it DOES pay to marry into money. 

 

I may have been "awarded" it, but he agreed to it. And if you knew what I went through, you might see things differently. I am LUCKY in terms of money. That's it. I would pay it all back if I could undo the bad decision I made to take him back and forgive him for his own bad behavior. He's not a good man. 

 

Sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. 

[Boris Farage 353]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

No, of course not. But it's not just the amount of money I might have earned had he not demanded I stop working and run his home and focus on getting ready to have a child. It's the mental strain of having to live with someone who gaslighted me for years, made me feel less than again and again and again. I earned it. Every day. Just because I would have earned far less working doesn't mean he shouldn't pay in line with what we agreed. 

I may have been "awarded" it, but he agreed to it. And if you knew what I went through, you might see things differently. I am LUCKY in terms of money. That's it. I would pay it all back if I could undo the bad decision I made to take him back and forgive him for his own bad behavior. He's not a good man. 

 

Sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. 

 

If your ex is like most men exposed to the US divorce courts, he agreed to what he had to agree to in order to satisfy a judge. And usually a divorce takes two. I don't imagine it was any picnic for him either, but he gets no compensation for that now, does he.

 

I should know. I agreed to what I had to. I was bent over a barrel, but I certainly got no compensation from the woman who made my life a living hell.

[laylalex 7,284]

6 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

 

If your ex is like most men exposed to the US divorce courts, he agreed to what he had to agree to in order to satisfy a judge. And usually a divorce takes two. I don't imagine it was any picnic for him either, but he gets no compensation for that now, does he.

 

I should know. I agreed to what I had to. I was bent over a barrel, but I certainly got no compensation from the woman who made my life a living hell.

Well, you knew what you had agreed to. Why do you say you "had to"? Was she holding a gun to your head? You could have always walked away before marrying her.  Surely there must have been some of those red flags you post at me that were flying over her.

 

Jules will say whatever he wants about our divorce, and he frequently does, but his compensation is according to him being able to live his life on his own terms now.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

21 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

I may have been "awarded" it, but he agreed to it. And if you knew what I went through, you might see things differently. I am LUCKY in terms of money. That's it. I would pay it all back if I could undo the bad decision I made to take him back and forgive him for his own bad behavior. He's not a good man. 

 

Sorry, I'm getting a little emotional here. 

Fair enough.  I don't know what you went thru.  But I know what my ex tried to take from me that I worked for for over 21 years, and I think people need to simply split with either what they came into the marriage with, or half of what was achieved during the union.  The woman typically makes out better than the man when the split happens,  and I think it's unfair in a LOT of cases (friends I have seen get divorced).

 

I'm trying not to put you in the leech category, I truly am, cuz I like a lot of what you say outside the prenup deal.  And granted, "he agreed to it, so screw him" is one take on the matter.  But I have seen lives ruined or set back decades when the courts favor the cheating woman.

 

 

[Boris Farage 353]

7 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

But I have seen lives ruined or set back decades when the courts favor the cheating woman.

Which is always. I am sure there are some niche exceptions, but any man going through a divorce can count on losing.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Boris Farage said:

Which is always. I am sure there are some niche exceptions, but any man going through a divorce can count on losing.

I agree.  And women who complain about pay disparity while enjoying the benefits of a court's decision can kiss my derriere. 

[Boris Farage 353]

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Well, you knew what you had agreed to. Why do you say you "had to"? Was she holding a gun to your head? You could have always walked away before marrying her.  Surely there must have been some of those red flags you post at me that were flying over her.

I "had to" because as I have said, the courts are biased against men. She came into the marriage with nothing, and left with more than she could have ever managed on her own. Much like your situation. How is that even remotely fair?

[laylalex 7,284]

17 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Fair enough.  I don't know what you went thru.  But I know what my ex tried to take from me that I worked for for over 21 years, and I think people need to simply split with either what they came into the marriage with, or half of what was achieved during the union.  The woman typically makes out better than the man when the split happens,  and I think it's unfair in a LOT of cases (friends I have seen get divorced).

 

I'm trying not to put you in the leech category, I truly am, cuz I like a lot of what you say outside the prenup deal.  And granted, "he agreed to it, so screw him" is one take on the matter.  But I have seen lives ruined or set back decades when the courts favor the cheating woman.

 

 

I won't get into specifics but it wasn't pleasant. And while he did have to pay quite a large sum to me, he did agree to it, and it was a drop in the bucket in terms of family money. You don't need to weep for him. I've warned him that if he remarries, he needs to be less blinded by love and more practical in his next prenup. 

6 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

I "had to" because as I have said, the courts are biased against men. She came into the marriage with nothing, and left with more than she could have ever managed on her own. Much like your situation. How is that even remotely fair?

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. What I meant is why did you "have to" agree to any of the terms when you were drafting that prenup? What did she have, some magical spell over you where you had to agree? 

[yuna628 9,676]

14 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

That has gone the way of the dodo bird, for the most part.  But a stable relationship really doesn't  need the government to step in and ruin someone's life.

Well, in order to be with our s/o's the government demands we marry and if a couple enters into a prenup of their own free will, then they likely have nothing to whine about at a later date. There's no other way to get around that. I tend to think there's still plenty of old fashioned couples out there that believe in the vows they take. We just only tend to hear about the train-wrecks.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Which is always. I am sure there are some niche exceptions, but any man going through a divorce can count on losing.

 

     Laws vary by state, but generally the law equates everything that happens during the marriage and splits that up. So if I become a successful lawyer while my wife stays at home and raises the kids, that is split equally after divorce. In that situation, it worked out better for my wife to give up a career so that I could have one, and the law recognizes that going forward. 

 

   It works the other way too. I posted the example of my wife's friend who is a pharmacist and her husband who stayed home with the child. He ended up getting alimony and child support.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree.  And women who complain about pay disparity while enjoying the benefits of a court's decision can kiss my derriere. 

 

  Pay disparity works both ways when it comes to spousal support. If we are going to say support mostly works out in favor of the woman, then we are tacitly acknowledging that disparity in pay must generally tend to favor the man. 

   

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

30 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Pay disparity works both ways when it comes to spousal support. If we are going to say support mostly works out in favor of the woman, then we are tacitly acknowledging that disparity in pay must generally tend to favor the man. 

   

No, wo don't acknowledge that; perhaps YOU do.

 

Let's say a woman chooses to stay at home.  Her hubby earns enough to support them both.  So 10 years go by, she does nothing more than clean house and cook (honorable tasks, but hardly worthy of a $100k salary).  Then they split.  Suddenly, she deserves a lot of money from her ex because she chose to sit at home and watch TV for years?  I'm not buying it.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

No, wo don't acknowledge that; perhaps YOU do.

 

Let's say a woman chooses to stay at home.  Her hubby earns enough to support them both.  So 10 years go by, she does nothing more than clean house and cook (honorable tasks, but hardly worthy of a $100k salary).  Then they split.  Suddenly, she deserves a lot of money from her ex because she chose to sit at home and watch TV for years?  I'm not buying it.  

 

  Then don't get married! That's the law in community property states. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Then don't get married! That's the law in community property states. 

I wouldn't be married today, were it not for immigration laws.  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Then don't get married! That's the law in community property states. 

Yup my ex and I both made about the same. were married 5 years. No accumulated assets during marriage. No kids. She wanted 1700 buck a month. The judge laughed her out of the courtroom and admonished the lawyer for being stupid (paraphrase)