@DG: I'll have to look into that. Here in Oregon, the law is toxic. Journalists say the easiest way to determine the net worth of someone who wants to keep that private is to request their most recent divorce file from the courts.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard*Actually never stopped reading topic but planned not to post*
I was actually making a brilliant satire you just can't comprehend. Or it was the second post in a topic that was awkwardly created only to stop it coming up once again in another topic, so I thought I'd, you know, break the ice. Or I'm a very condescending troll.
Divorce was legalized pretty late here, but there's no push from anywhere to repeal it. And abuse is terrible. I believe there are probably interesting studies on the effects on kids, anyone want to post them?
edited 24th Jan '11 4:39:52 PM by occono
Dumbo@Rott: Granted, there were no kids involved with it, and they were separated for a couple years first, but it went a LOT smoother than everyone expected. Here's a summary of the laws
out here.
Pretty much the same here except reverse the roles. My mom's an emotionally abusive, manipulative, sociopath who throws childish temper tantrums. My dad, against his better judgment, gave in to her temper tantrums and lies because she threatened to kidnap me and my brother in the middle of the night and take us to god knows where if he didn't (sure, that's VERY illegal and she'd be in deep shit if she did it, but he didn't want to risk her doing something that could get us killed. And, considering how she'd already convinced me and my brother that our aunt wanted us dead, he knew it wouldn't be hard for her to convince us that our lives would be in danger if we didn't go with her) *. He also didn't want to get us caught up in what would almost certainly be VERY bad divorce.
Now that I'm almost 20 and my brother's 16, he figured neither issue matters anymore and filed for divorce. The day the divorce was officially finalized we all were really happy. There's more to the story beyond that, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic.
Edit: Actually, the happiest day of my life will be whenever the hell the woman who used to be my mother (I got sick of her shit and cut all ties to her) gets the hell out of my life (she said she's leaving tomorrow, but I doubt she'll be gone long. Every other time she left she ended up coming back.)
edited 28th Jan '11 7:54:57 PM by Malph
Divorce is troublesome. But not as troublesome as a society where people are trapped in bad or loveless marriages. Maybe the problem isn't so much that divorce is too easy to obtain, but that marriage is. I think a lot of stupidity could be avoided if marriage licenses had a mandatory waiting period of six months to a year.
Oh, and that thing about people turning a profit by divorcing their higher-earning spouses? It's a myth. The rule is that after a divorce, the standard of living enjoyed by the lower-earning spouse drops pretty sharply, while that of the higher earner rises. So let's put that particular accusation to bed, shall we?
edited 24th Jan '11 6:26:01 PM by Karalora
Karalora: I actually kinda like that idea. If you're marrying for love, six months shouldn't be a deal breaker. If you're marrying for money, you can survive for six months. I mean, heck, I already think it's a good idea for couples to live together for a while before thinking about marriage. That way you know the person you're with is actually compatible with the daily stuff, and possibly in bed.
edited 24th Jan '11 6:27:55 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianDon't know, why should marriage be about love? Love-based marriages, if the high divorce rate are anything to go by, damaging to the creation of a family since it seems that a fair amount of people can't or don't spend the time to really think it out. Its a commitment and certainly not a right to be married, so I think it should be done in almost pragmatic way.
devils advocate because I will be ripped to shreds without this disclaimer
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.No, The Odyssey is a myth. The claim you want to make is "falsehood."
I notice you don't link to any sources claiming that the spouse who brings more wealth to the union isn't forced by the law to pay alimony. You merely claim (without sources) "the standard of living enjoyed by the lower-earning spouse drops pretty sharply", which if true could be explained by poor money management skills.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard@Rott: It depends entirely on what state you're in, if the marriage produced any children, and a variety of other things. Generally speaking though, even with alimony, a low-income, childless woman does not get the same amount of support from an ex-husband as she did when they were married. If children are involved however, child support payments can be figured into it, but they're not a part of the actual divorce proceedings, and therefore don't factor into it.
However, in some states, it is possible for a woman to claim abuse and gouge her ex-husband via alimony and restitution. But that's fairly rare, and even then, alimony isn't enough to live off of.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian@DG: "A low-income woman" isn't even necessary for the asymmetrical Prisoner's Dilemma. Imagine if a man and woman each earning $40,000 a year get married, but the man brings a net worth of $300,000 and the woman brings -$10,000 from student loan debt.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardTell you what, puppy. When you start providing citations and empirical evidence to go with your claims, I'll return the favor. And no, quotations from centuries-dead philosophers or "The Song of Roland" don't count.
Since you're not willing to do that, will you please address the important aspects of my post, or else leave me alone?
Rott: Okay? You also realize that it takes two people to complete a divorce, right? The woman in your situation could file for divorce, but the man can refuse to sign it until suitable arrangements have been made. There's also nothing keeping her from going off and finding someone else to support her while staying married, which probably happens a lot more than you'd think.
Divorce is difficult, and negotiations can sometimes take years. It's not as easy as "woman goes before a judge and gets a divorce, then gets half her husband's crap". At least, not up here.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

I'm pretty sure the egyptians used animal fat/skins, and the Greeks just used the anuses of little boys.
edited 24th Jan '11 4:38:29 PM by MrAHR
Read my stories!