jimgoose wrote: » That still wouldn't preclude revisiting the arrangements made at the time of the divorce - property, lump-sum payments, etc. - where financial circumstances change significantly.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Any woman over 30 that's single with no children is absolutely miserable. I know a few they become very angry and bitter
Anteayer wrote: » So let's say a couple marry in their 20s. They break up and have no significant assets, debts or kids and they agree not to use pension provisions etc and go their separate ways without any fuss. A completely uncomplicated divorce by consent. How would it be reasonable if say the ex wife 10 years later had built up say an IT company and then sold it, that her ex partner who had absolutely no involvement could then demand a share? That makes no sense. It doesn't seem fair or reasonable at all. If the ex partner subsequently remarried do those rights even extinguish?! Or can they just legally have a sort of almost bigamous claim to two or more people's assets for the rest of their lives?
JohnnyFlash wrote: » I’d say a lot of single lads have the mickey nearly pulled off themselves with all the **** they are doing.
jimgoose wrote: » What I'm saying is, a scenario such as you describe probably wouldn't happen - there would be no sense, meaning or equity in reopening such a divorce.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Can you confirm one line of your post Are you saying that " the state doesn't side with women" in the event of marriage break-up?
Anteayer wrote: » ...I assume you would have to convince a family law judge that the reason for reopening it was reasonable and equitable and it's not just an automatic right to do so without any need to make a case?
Tell me how wrote: » Single in this context implies not in a long term relationship, not that someone doesn't casually date. Also, you really believe those that are married never treat themselves? Male or female?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » So you know a few women and have made a mass generalization of billions of women based on that.
Charles Ingles wrote: » No just the women I know through work. Career women only interested in themselves until they hit 30 realise they have been wasting their life and are going to left on the shelf. Panic sets in drop their standards in the hope of getting a man. We are here to reproduce
Charles Ingles wrote: » We are here to reproduce
pumpkin4life wrote: » ......... I've seen a lot of people do this in an effort to rationalize away the fact that they're unattractive...............
ancapailldorcha wrote: » That's a pile of nonsense to be honest. There are plenty of women who are more than happy to remain childless.
Charles Ingles wrote: » No I don't agree. They end up getting a cat or dog calling themselves the pet's mommy. Married women with children in general are much happier
sbsquarepants wrote: » You aren't one of these red pill / blue pill gobshítes are you? I think there is too much bolloxology about "power" in relationships - if your goal in a relationship is to attain power to use over the other person, it's a dysfunctional relationship and you'd be much better off out of it - whether you are the one with the power or not. Thinking like that is the sign of an unhealthy mind in my opinion. I have no desire to control my missus, I'm sure as fúck not going to let her control me. That doesn't mean you just go do whatever the hell you want, same as you just don't go take whatever you want in a shop - there are consequences to actions, the price of the action is the payment of the consequence. I would very much like to bang the one across the road with the porn star body - but not at the expense of hurting my missus, or possibly upending my kids lives. It's a price I wouldn't be willing to pay - that's just reality, not control. I choose to not do it, my hand is not forced!
SusieBlue wrote: » Not remotely true. Most people find themselves single in their 30's because they spent most of their 20's in a relationship with the wrong person, which subsequently ended. I can't think of one person I know, male or female, over the age of 30, who spent their whole 20's (a decade) purposely avoiding any and all kinds of relationships in order to focus on their career. Plenty of people decide not to have children and lead happy, content lives. Your post is full of wildly inaccurate baseless claims.
Tucker Hot Bell wrote: » You should clarify that. Saying men are better off single and women have all the power in relationships (depends, but you specifically mean legally) is a bit woman hatey. Also, you're married/in a relationship aren't you?
grahambo wrote: » What he means is, if the relationship goes south and there are kids involved the Man is generally screwed if he is someone that's put a lot of time and effort into his career. He's stuck paying maintenance for each kid until the youngest kid is 18 (21 if they go to college) Ultimately the combined wealth of the relationship is split, with the Lions share going to whoever has the kids. If there is a mortgage etc involved then getting that sorted is difficult too. Men tend to go for Jobs that pay more where as women tend to go for job that they like more which is a big factor in pay disparity. I'm going through this right now (wasn't married), but bought a house and had a kid with a woman, she ended up being with someone else and now I'm stuck with less than 36 hours a week with my kid and I'm handing over €600 a month, plus it's costing me €150 a month in logistics just to see him. I don't hate women, but I defo won't ever get into a serious relationship with one ever again. Given what can go wrong, there is to much risk involved and I don't see the point.
Stacksofwacks wrote: » I have to agree with you. My mother's aunt was a spinster and let me tell you she was the most spiteful person Ive ever come across. She resented my mother for having kids and made her life a misery.
Charles Ingles wrote: » Just what I've experienced in my life, sorry if my opinion is different to yours
