Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...

[izzzzythedog]

tragedy for common sense

[turbobloke]

izzzzythedog said:

tragedy for common sense

A view held by women in the most-agreed-with comments against the article.

Samples:

I'm a woman and I think this is wrong. She is an independent woman with a good salary. He put a roof over yours and your daughters heads and supported you. Walk away. He seems like a decent bloke helping you start again. You invested in a relationship not a man's property.

Broken Britain - it's no wonder there are a record number of unmarried men in the UK, if I was a single guy in the UK I would either stay that way, or I would move to another country - pretty soon UK women will be entitled to half of a man's assets for accidentally making eye contact.

HANG ON A MINUTE! I was married for 12 years, had a child, gave up my career then went back to work afterwards to help pay the bills and then restarted a new career when my daughter got older and I'm completely self reliant. My divorce settlement was 50/50. How in hell did this woman get this pay out when she wasn't even on the deeds to the house let alone married to him? I bet she got legal aid too. These women who just leech off one man to the next. Aaaaargh - they disgust me!

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

izzzzythedog said:

tragedy for common sense

A view held by women in the most-agreed-with comments against the article.

Samples:

Broken Britain - it's no wonder there are a record number of unmarried men in the UK,

I think that has more to do with the fact that there aren't enough young single women of the right type to make decent marriage material.In this case it seems obvious that it was a case of taking on one of the worst possible options of someone else's old dumped wife on the basis of offering her the financial security that her ex husband obviously didn't provide her with.

Ironically it is more likely that the ex husband found the right type.While leaving the single mug to take on the wreckage of his marriage who then inevitably got bitten.

As I've said the best way for anyone to protect themselves from that situation is to find a young single woman without a track record of a failed marriage behind her and who isn't in it for the money.Anyone telling someone's old dumped wife,or any woman for that matter, that they own a house and that they are willing and able to support her financially is just asking for trouble in that regard.

The fact that the numbers situation means that there is a good chance that a single man will die without finding the 'right one' is obviously something that some single men just get used to on the basis that taking on the wrong one is worse than having no one.

[Impasse]

A virginal unicorn?

[anonymous-user]

It isn't compulsory to regard relationships as transactions, or to put people in boxes marked "dumped wife" or whatever.

[grumbledoak]

Breadvan72 said:

It isn't compulsory to regard relationships as transactions, ...

Hah! It is the lawyers ensuring that they get treated as such by the courts and men would be wise to consider them as such in advance!

This case moves the goalposts a little. Men must now consider a potential claim on their property even without getting them pregnant / marrying them as was previously the expectation.

[Mobile Chicane]

The obvious answer of course to all of this is to ensure that if you decide to shack up with / marry anyone, it's someone of equal or similar financial standing to yourself.

[PurpleMoonlight]

According to The Sun report, albeit a brief one, he has to pay her legal costs too which amount to £50,000 odd.

So really, if you want to make lots of money from a relationship, become a lawyer ....

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

It isn't compulsory to regard relationships as transactions, ...

Hah! It is the lawyers ensuring that they get treated as such by the courts and men would be wise to consider them as such in advance!

This case moves the goalposts a little. Men must now consider a potential claim on their property even without getting them pregnant / marrying them as was previously the expectation.

This dispute was made by its parties. The decision doesn't establish any novel principle. It simply applies long established legal concepts which apply regardless of gender.

[XJ Flyer]

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

It isn't compulsory to regard relationships as transactions, ...

Hah! It is the lawyers ensuring that they get treated as such by the courts and men would be wise to consider them as such in advance!

This case moves the goalposts a little. Men must now consider a potential claim on their property even without getting them pregnant / marrying them as was previously the expectation.

The law should say that only the assets held by the husband after the marriage/relationship started,assuming a mortgage made and paid for jointly,can be taken into consideration which seems to be at least how the law saw the house in this case.In which case how did a dodgy unjustified claim for half the value of his house get turned into a £100,000 headache for the poor mug in this case.When it is obvious that the legal fees incurred were all about defending that dodgy claim.The way I see it she owes him around £100,000 minus the £28,000.

As for a potential claim on such owned property the best protection against that is to tell any prospective partner that all that is on offer is a rented house and low wage employment/pension from day 1.In which case the average gold digger will run a mile long before they get a chance to rip off their intended victim.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 18th October 17:19

[XJ Flyer]

Breadvan72 said:

grumbledoak said:

Breadvan72 said:

It isn't compulsory to regard relationships as transactions, ...

Hah! It is the lawyers ensuring that they get treated as such by the courts and men would be wise to consider them as such in advance!

This case moves the goalposts a little. Men must now consider a potential claim on their property even without getting them pregnant / marrying them as was previously the expectation.

This dispute was made by its parties. The decision doesn't establish any novel principle. It simply applies long established legal concepts which apply regardless of gender.

What it actually establishes is that the mug in this case offered someone too much from day 1 who then decided to take advantage of that by going for half the value of his house.Having lost that claim against him somehow he's the one who's been left with a financial headache in the form of massive legal fees to defend that dodgy claim which she made against him.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 18th October 17:10

[grumbledoak]

Mobile Chicane said:

The obvious answer of course to all of this is to ensure that if you decide to shack up with / marry anyone, it's someone of equal or similar financial standing to yourself.

Alternately, marry and have kids when you are young and have little to lose but your optimism, or bag up and kick them out before breakfast!

[gvij]

A good reason not to buy a family home? Ie buy investment properties which yield higher rents than family homes and just rent it. Keep them on their toes. Then don't get married but be generous and kind? Look after your fitness and health and don't get fat even though they over feed you and praise you occasionally even though you look like £hit(genetics at play). Women only really respect good looks and courage in men be it spending large sums of money or doing something dangerous. Again genes ensure that the best sperm comes from the most courageous men even if they die in the process. It takes a clever man to negotiate the path successfully these days. Sad really...

[Impasse]

grumbledoak said:

//or bag up and kick them out before breakfast!

It may be cheaper to pay per transaction and interaction - I believe there are agencies which can help with this. But make sure you get written consent or you open yourself up to facing other, more serious, accusations.
Love eh? Seems 100% worthwhile to me.

[grumbledoak]

Impasse said:

Love eh? Seems 100% worthwhile to me.

It's looking pretty expensive to me at present.

[XJ Flyer]

gvij said:

A good reason not to buy a family home? Ie buy investment properties which yield higher rents than family homes and just rent it. Keep them on their toes. Then don't get married but be generous and kind? Look after your fitness and health and don't get fat even though they over feed you and praise you occasionally even though you look like £hit(genetics at play). Women only really respect good looks and courage in men be it spending large sums of money or doing something dangerous. Again genes ensure that the best sperm comes from the most courageous men even if they die in the process. It takes a clever man to negotiate the path successfully these days. Sad really...

Believe it or not the old fashioned working class girl who marries for love not money and looks is probably still out there.But they are all usually spoken for by the time they are 20 probably sooner and a man finding that from the age of 35 on is like winning the lottery and ironically she'll be the type who will take,telling her that financial security is guaranteed as part of the deal,as an insult to her motives not a compliment.

[HenryJM]

Actually the ones most available seem to be the intelligent with high income jobs. The problem is that many men only go for the ones they can dominate - stupider, poorer and shorter. Few seem able to cope with women who may be brighter, richer and almost never if she's taller.

[wolves_wanderer]

The bitter, it burns

[XJ Flyer]

HenryJM said:

Actually the ones most available seem to be the intelligent with high income jobs. The problem is that many men only go for the ones they can dominate - stupider, poorer and shorter. Few seem able to cope with women who may be brighter, richer and almost never if she's taller.

Or to put it another way the type most in demand being those who are not interested in money which is just a bonus to them so can handle the bad times with the good and more interested in raising a family while she's young than chasing her career.

Which then leaves the other type who isn't either of those and who is just interested in money which she can get out of the relationship in the form of a man who has it and who is willing to spend it on her.At least until he realises his mistake in choosing the wrong type.

[HenryJM]

XJ Flyer said:

Or to put it another way the type most in demand being those who are not interested in money which is just a bonus to them so can handle the bad times with the good and more interested in raising a family while she's young than chasing her career.

Which then leaves the other type who isn't either of those and who is just interested in money which she can get out of the relationship in the form of a man who has it and who is willing to spend it on her.At least until he realises his mistake in choosing the wrong type.

I'm talking about another type, those that are intelligent and successful, who are happy to be in a relationship with an equal party. Not after their money not least because they earn their own, often more than the male partner. The two of them make equal decisions in the relationship although neither one rules the other.

It is a weird scenario for some men, men who seem to live in the 1950s where they are completely different to their wife with him working and her doing the cooking and cleaning, its not like that for a lot of people these days.