![](http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/6/3/7/115637.jpg?v=1")
Posted on 05/06/2015 8:24:21 PM PDT by fkabuckeyesrule
See my posts 84 and 109. One wonders if they’re reading ‘womens’ magazines’ - if they are, they are doing themselves a grave disservice and perhaps even unintentionally driving off men.
Only if by "this" you mean "assets."
I defy you to find one man here that expects what you claim they want from women.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. When you spend the family money on your collections, and she spends it on decorating the house...it's still the family assets...just like a retirement account. It doesn't make a whit of difference that the fun things that you purchased maintained value, while the things that she bought to enhance your quality of life (and that of the kids) are assets that maintain less value.
I look at gun collections (personally) as a retirement account...just because they also happen to be your "toys" doesn't mean that they aren't also hard assets....sorry. And, if your wife worked and helped to pay bills and for maintenance on the house, etc...why on EARTH would you think that the things that you purchased should be somehow "protected" in the case of a divorce?
Please see my post #173....
Good heavens, you are a cliché incarnate!
Younger people of BOTH genders have been brainwashed to behave in ways contrary to their nature (or God’s will if you prefer). So, for example, young women are overly promiscuous, and young men seem overly domesticated. There is plenty of confusion to go around. This is the product of social engineering.
Because I would never spend family assets on the things she does.
It’s not easy raising sons in that regard...I raised two young men who seemed to do ok when it came to abstaining. I say ok because they aren’t going to broadcast ‘to mom’ what they do or don’t do.... It’s just not what young men “report” on to mothers in most cases.
Teach them how God views marriage, woman and relationships....as well that if they do choose to engage what the consequences and risks are.
My son asked once what if the girl gets pregnant, would they have to marry her. I said no, but they needed to understand that they would have to work to support their child above and beyond their own desire for “things”....then I listed what they would have to go without...in college they would have to work for their share of college expenses as well as for thier child...that time would be required for their relationship with that child. So by the time I went through all which would be required....it left NO life for them.
...Further that the child would be ‘MY’ Grandchild, so that they understood there were people involved in their risk then just them. ..... That if she was considering abortion I would fight in the courts for the life of ‘MY’ Grandchild and all the children that child would one day have and those thereafter.
I think when we share how their choices affect many and all...throughout the generations...it does leave an impression of what they need to prepare could occur...and where YOU stand in it.
Or why buy the pig when all you want is a little sausage?
I’m not as worried about the choices my own sons will make because I have talked openly - especially with the oldest before he left for college - about all of the possible consequences, including possibly being falsely accused of a crime.
I’m more worried about what kind of women are out there for them. Women today seem to expect exactly what the men expect.
That reminds me, I recently learned that one the writer/directors of “The Matrix” (the Wachowski Brothers) is now a pink haired tranny. Like Bruce Jenner, he’s a lesbian.
He must have been taking goofy hormones when they did the horrible sequels. The original film is a classic.
Anyway, 1 word, “feminism”.
Most women by far are not conservative.
My rule: if she didn’t vote for Obama twice, I’ll date her.
These guys who claim that alimony wiped them out must've been divorced a long time ago. I don't know what divorce was like back then, but nowadays here's what happens (at least in my state):
If one spouse is unemployed (either wife or husband), the nonworking spouse is "imputed" income, and whatever the court says he/she could earn is deducted from the working spouse's support payments.
The paying spouse pays roughly one-third (not half) of his/her income in alimony/child support. So, the custodial parent and children must live on one-third of the other's income.
These guys claim the wife gets half. But, if she gets the house, she actually must cough up half the equity in it.
If the guy has driven up debt, behind his wife's back, the court will make her pay half of it.
I know of women paying alimony to ex-husbands, by the way, and a woman who lost half of her inheritance to a husband who cheated on her and left.
Yep, been there and done that. Mine already spoke English before she came to the U.S. She got thoroughly Americanized, even though I told her about that problem, it happened anyway. She was not a gold digger, although some of them are. She just had too many single friends. Several years later, she kind of hinted around that maybe she had acted a little rash, but the damage had been done. I wanted no part of it. I found that living well, was the best revenge. I got a younger woman 🇵🇭😀 (see profile page) The rest is history as they say. 😎
Would anyone really do that? 😂😎
Well, married for 43 years, and never thought a thing of it. Two (grown) kids and three grandchildren are my reality today. Just as a general rule, grandchildren are the ultimate reward. This was something that I didn’t anticipate, but here it is. See you in the next world.
I’m not sure why but my posts take a very long time to show up on the page. Is that normal? Forgive me for being a newb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.