Financial Support to OW

[White Flower]

Had you posted this, AND BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD, I would have stood up for you as well. Please remember that.

Coudn't edit because NID hit send a second after I did!

[lolapalooza]

You can read into this what you want to; you're already seeing what you want to see. You assume that OW sleeps with any and every MM and by doing so you don't seem to think that she is capable of having any friends without wanting to attack them sexually, or being capable of having single friends or even purple friends. You have chosen to see her the way you want to see her. I was commenting on your attack on any OW, not just OWoman. But you decide for yourself as it appears your mind is already made up. It doesn't really matter to me.

You're awfully oversensitive here, and I have to wonder why.

She was equating taking assets from a friend to taking assets from a MM. They are not equal in my view. A gift from a friend is not the same as a gift from a MM, since half of that gift legally (in my country) belongs to the BS.

You've chosen to read all that other "OW sleeps with any MM", and that's on you, not me.

[White Flower]

You're awfully oversensitive here, and I have to wonder why.

She was equating taking assets from a friend to taking assets from a MM. They are not equal in my view. A gift from a friend is not the same as a gift from a MM, since half of that gift legally (in my country) belongs to the BS.

You've chosen to read all that other "OW sleeps with any MM", and that's on you, not me.

Not oversensitive at all, just responding to this:

Were you sleeping with your friend behind their spouse's back?

Again, I think you missed the point. She basically said that if it's ok to take money or a loan of a car from a friend then the same should be acceptable from a MM if indeed he sees you as a friend first. I suppose not all people consider a husband or lover to be a friend as well?

[NoIDidn't]

You're awfully oversensitive here, and I have to wonder why.

She was equating taking assets from a friend to taking assets from a MM. They are not equal in my view. A gift from a friend is not the same as a gift from a MM, since half of that gift legally (in my country) belongs to the BS.

You've chosen to read all that other "OW sleeps with any MM", and that's on you, not me.

 

I agree. I had to SMH when I read that "friend" comment. An affair is NOT a friend relationship or the W would have been in on the "LOAN" or "GIFT" to the mutual friend or at least openly known friend of their spouse.

 

Talk about semantics.

[anne1707]

I disagree with this. If the spouse was a SAHP for the duration of the marriage and the leaving spouse leaves the minute the last child is 18, then it is entirely appropriate to give that spouse financial support in a divorce.

 

I think the spouse with the lower (or no) income should be compensated for giving up that capability in the M.

 

NID

 

I over-summarised the position as it is in the UK - sorry

 

Support does also depend on whether a career was abandoned to raise a family and the level of skills of that particular parent. If highly skilled then they are less likely to get support when the children are older.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it is not 100% guaranteed that support will be paid contrary to how some poster may think/believe

[jennie-jennie]

APs deserve no financial support is my opinion. An an MP that chooses an unemployed OP better consider the social laws in the country they are from. If in Australia, they could end up on the hook to continue that support per a new domestic law for non-married couples. OWs there have been looking for ways to use this law to their benefit since it came about.

 

And this is not to or even about Jennie-Jennie, just the concept of an OP being unemployed for the whole time of the A. Of course, different gender rules for me, but I couldn't fathom an OP that was in no position to take care of me should I need them to. An OP that can barely take care of themselves is not a "step up" IMPO.

 

I just imagine a MM being able to get and take full control of an unemployed OW. Same with a MW. But an unemployed man just does not arouse my interest to begin with. He would have to be some kind of fine to look at for sure.

 

Since you mention my name, I just want to make clear that I am not unemployed in the sense of not being able to find or wanting to get a job. I have a disability pension, obviously because I have a disability. Since the laws for health care are so generous in my country, I am well cared for and thus financially independent until the day I die.

[NoIDidn't]

NID

 

I over-summarised the position as it is in the UK - sorry

 

Support does also depend on whether a career was abandoned to raise a family and the level of skills of that particular parent. If highly skilled then they are less likely to get support when the children are older.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it is not 100% guaranteed that support will be paid contrary to how some poster may think/believe

 

Understood. This is something that my H and I have spoken about. We made a mutual decision before marriage that I would take care of our children when they came. We have it in writing what would happen should we divorce. And we have it going both ways because I still have the capability to make more than him (as I did before) when I return to work.

 

I know that I am less likely to get support ordered for longer than a year or so following a separation or divorce, so I know that the support is not guaranteed or to even be expected in all cases.

 

Its really common here in the States to wait until the youngest child is 18 for a parent to leave. And it usually does devastate the party that made less.

[NoIDidn't]

Since you mention my name, I just want to make clear that I am not unemployed in the sense of not being able to find or wanting to get a job. I have a disability pension, obviously because I have a disability. Since the laws for health care are so generous in my country, I am well cared for and thus financially independent until the day I die.

 

I mentioned your name only in saying that my comment was NOT about you.

 

I don't think it helps you to keep defending yourself by putting more and more personal info out there.

 

I'd like to not see this thread get closed because of information you volunteered and then didn't want discussed.

[jthorne]

I mentioned your name only in saying that my comment was NOT about you.

 

I don't think it helps you to keep defending yourself by putting more and more personal info out there.

 

I'd like to not see this thread get closed because of information you volunteered and then didn't want discussed.

I heart you, NID.

[SidLyon]

Even when in a R in the dim and distant past before I was married, I cannot remember taking money from my boyfriend(S) as I earned my own money and being a product of the feminist era, thought it not so much as wrong, but just not sitting right with me. I accepted and bought gifts, paid for, shared payment and accepted meals out. I have also helped friends out with cash when they needed it.

 

That was fine then as it was my money, however, and speaking purely for myself, I earned considerably more than H and even if I didn't, the money brought into our marriage was ours, the bills ours, kids ours and any surplus was ours. We have never had yours and mine money, it has always been one giant pot (well modest pot). Any spare cash is for our future and for our kids.

 

The problem with WS spending the marital dosh on OM/OW is that if you have a situation like mine and there is the understanding that mine is his and vice versa it creates an uneven playing field and takes from me and mine. I suppose it all depends on what WS and BS have decided is the state of play regarding finances. The WS taking from that to spend on an unknown other is not only disrespectful to the BS and family, but also reneges on their decision.

 

If H or I wanted to help out another we would discuss it first. obviously this isn't going to happen in most affairs and so it is unlikely that BS or OW/OM will see things from the same viewpoint. Would any OM/OW be happy finding out that they had given money to WS for something for him, only to find out he had used it to pay for BS to have something nice, a romantic dinner or whatever?

 

I agree Seren.

 

I am one of the people engaged in a so far successful marital reconciliation (we are 20 months post d-day). My fWH is doing his best to be honest. One thing he did was to hand me all the gifts/cards that the OW had given to him over the years. He could have easily kept their existence a secret from me as some were at work.

 

I returned them all to her as a sort of symbolic purging of her from our life and marriage. I could tell that she was upset at what she felt was a betrayal of her, in him passing the things on to me. I imagine she and any OW would feel equally awful to learn that monetary gifts had been spent on the BW.

 

There are a few BW who post here and on Infidelity who are/have reclaimed their marriages. I notice that most of us have user names starting with S. Probably just a coincidence.

[vanilla chai]

No, but I am his primary love relationship right now, not only after a divorce, and as such he should care for me.

 

Really now tell me why hasn't he divorced to be with you his soul mate? Im thinking he loves you so much whats the hold up.

[SidLyon]

...

 

I don't know much about the blog or who wrote it for sure...

 

Not that OWoman is lacking in any communication skills. I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ. ...

 

.

 

Yet another thread that talks about OWoman's blog. Surely it's worthy of its own thread as we are all so interested... [Otherwise it may remain the elephant in the room for longer than even OWoman is comfortable with]

 

Lolapoloza you say the deleted thread (about the blog) is reproduced on another forum, are you willing to provide a link please; or use PM if you don't want to put it on this forum.

 

White Flower you appear to be trying to sow doubt in people's minds that the blog is/was actually OWoman's. If you know for sure that it wasn't hers then why not say so? She herself hasn't denied it was hers so why the attempt to muddy the waters on your part?

 

I'm unclear why you think posters should show a particular respect for OWoman's high intelligence. This is not much different to saying we should show respect for FA's beauty or Crayon's artwork. It is of course your prerogative to be in awe of her IQ.

 

I happen to know there is more than one member of a High IQ society on this forum but I don't see why any of us deserve extra respect for it.

[jennie-jennie]

I mentioned your name only in saying that my comment was NOT about you.

 

I don't think it helps you to keep defending yourself by putting more and more personal info out there.

 

I'd like to not see this thread get closed because of information you volunteered and then didn't want discussed.

 

Oh, I am not defending myself. I am just clarifying myself. This was information I volunteered, not information I was pressured over a long time to provide. So no need for you to worry about it.

[jennie-jennie]

Really now tell me why hasn't he divorced to be with you his soul mate? Im thinking he loves you so much whats the hold up.

 

6 kids and a wife. Is that enough of a hold up for you?

[vanilla chai]

6 kids and a wife. Is that enough of a hold up for you?

 

Actually no, I think it's his excuse

[seren]

Oh no! not another thread that gets all personal, name calling, you said, I said, he said, she said the dammed cat said. This is a forum for gods sake, we will disagree, by the very nature of our R's we will disagree, about some things, but not everything has to be about particular individuals. It seems to me, that there are one or three posters that have only to touch their keyboards and straight away threads turn into someone having to defend themselves and the thread goes to rat sh** while the person is fielding attacks.

 

We (collective we) will never change another's opinion of how they live their life, it is after all their reality. We can agree to disagree, sure use examples to highlight an argument or debate point, but the back and fro ing is becoming predictable. I think that one or two posters in particular, who I don't always, almost never, agree with, but feel add to the mix and their comments are interesting from a perspective POV are constantly harangued the moment they open their laptops. As for the blog, there were comments made about the blog, people made assumptions, personally, I don't give a monkey's who wrote what, yes commented on it, but moved along. I vote for keeping the blog stuff where it belongs .. not on here!! Now, sorry for the vent and T/J. Any OW/OM want to lend an XBS a fiver?

 

Disclaimer (one of many) this is not intended for any one person, in response to any one post, but a general all encompassing moan. if you want to discuss the content with me, please PM me as I have no intention of further T/J an interesting thread.

[jennie-jennie]

Actually no, I think it's his excuse

 

We just discussed that in another thread. What one person sees as an excuse is another person's morals.

[nadiaj2727]

I've only read about 4 pages in, so perhaps we are long past this, but I just wanted to comment on the legal issues being thrown around. A *minority* of states are community property states... not all or even most of them. I'm a lawyer in a community property state, and, even in community property states, "community property" doesn't mean that one spouse has to *approve* of everything the other spouse spends... it just means they are responsible for it. For instance, if I was married, and I went on a spending spree and racked up $2,000 in shoes, in a community property state my husband would be jointly responsible for the bill. It doesn't mean he could *sue* me to get his $1,000 back.

 

I'm not sure what cases people are talking about... sure, if we were in the middle of a divorce and I took money out of a joint account to buy shoes or pay for my lover's rent or dinner, etc., he could sue me because there is a freeze on assets after one person files for divorce and the court or the couple figures out what to do with what money. But in a regular old marriage my husband could legally spend money on a mistress just like I could legally spend money on a ton of unnecessary shoes, and I couldn't do a thing about it, except divorce him, and vice versa. Community property means that whatever the person had in her own name before she went into the marriage (assets and debts) stays in her name - her husband takes no responsibility for that debt and gets no right to the assets (and vice versa). But whatever she has after they get married (debts and assets) is legally looked at as belonging to both of them -- so that he can take half of her assets and he is responsible for half of her debts, and vice versa. That's all it means. It doesn't mean that she has to check with her husband before she spends money on her lover or her shoes etc.

 

Now that's the legal position. My own opinion is that a woman should take care of herself financially and never rely on a man to do that-- whether it be her boyfriend, lover, husband, whatever. And vice versa. But there is no law that says one can't.

[seren]

A BS's worst nightmare

I will take your man and your money

Re your sig line JJ

 

An OW/OM worse nightmare.

You can have the man and what's left after he has to pay off the debts we have, child support and buys me out of the mortgage, the bank loan, car loan and all the other debts we have - but only after I have kicked him out on D Day. Even with a ribbon tied around it if you like!!

 

General you, not personal attack ...

[TinaniT]

I've only read about 4 pages in, so perhaps we are long past this, but I just wanted to comment on the legal issues being thrown around. A *minority* of states are community property states... not all or even most of them. I'm a lawyer in a community property state, and, even in community property states, "community property" doesn't mean that one spouse has to *approve* of everything the other spouse spends... it just means they are responsible for it. For instance, if I was married, and I went on a spending spree and racked up $2,000 in shoes, in a community property state my husband would be jointly responsible for the bill. It doesn't mean he could *sue* me to get his $1,000 back.

 

That matches what I heard from my lawyer.

[Fallen Angel]

A BS's worst nightmare

I will take your man and your money

Re your sig line JJ

 

An OW/OM worse nightmare.

You can have the man and what's left after he has to pay off the debts we have, child support and buys me out of the mortgage, the bank loan, car loan and all the other debts we have - but only after I have kicked him out on D Day. Even with a ribbon tied around it if you like!!

 

General you, not personal attack ...

 

LMAOOOOOOOOOO.. you have to admit that tag line is funny as heck considering this thread... sorry, now I will check back out of this thread...

 

Except to say a heartfelt "AWWWWWW thanks", to SydLyon for kinda calling me beautiful, I think.

[NoIDidn't]

A BS's worst nightmare

I will take your man and your money

Re your sig line JJ

 

An OW/OM worse nightmare.

You can have the man and what's left after he has to pay off the debts we have, child support and buys me out of the mortgage, the bank loan, car loan and all the other debts we have - but only after I have kicked him out on D Day. Even with a ribbon tied around it if you like!!

 

General you, not personal attack ...

 

Proof that some will do just about anything to get a rise out of people. LOL.

 

I have to say, my situation would be much more like the OW/OM worst nightmare. After four kids! But hey, some have even more than four kids. Some have six. Imagine the college education bill on that?!

 

Money is a touchy subject. I get it. But the threat "take your man, and his money"? Too funny. Too, too funny.

[NoIDidn't]

I think what is lacking is a respect for her intelligence. Further, I think people who attack her, or anyone as smart as her, are merely jealous or intimidated by her obviously high IQ.

 

A total aside. Please forgive me this threadjack, OP.

 

WF, I have only ever seen you post about OWoman's intelligence and IQ. Each time it comes off in an underhanded way. And, yes, you did do this to me about which we have already posted.

 

But I'm curious as to why you do this? I don't want to attribute to you feelings that you may not have, yet it seems you are the one that's intimidated by her and feel that others should be as well.

 

She has a way with words. True. She does indeed come across as highly intelligent (quite a few other posters do as well, but they don't get this "you ought to respect their intelligence" blip from you), but that's no reason anyone should let what she says that they disagree with go unchallenged. This is a forum, not a classroom. Maybe in a classroom one can demand to not be challenged, but not in an open forum.

 

Just curious.

 

Seems "sockpuppet"-like.

 

ETA - I have no issues with and can't really control what another does, I'm really just curious and too lazy to clear my Inbox to have space to PM this.

Edited June 20, 2010 by NoIDidn't
Ignore the "qwq". LOL

[Fallen Angel]

Proof that some will do just about anything to get a rise out of people. LOL.

 

I have to say, my situation would be much more like the OW/OM worst nightmare. After four kids! But hey, some have even more than four kids. Some have six. Imagine the college education bill on that?!

 

Money is a touchy subject. I get it. But the threat "take your man, and his money"? Too funny. Too, too funny.

 

It was intended simply as a joke.. i know, i was there at it's conception.. lmaooooooo.

 

Money is a very touchy subject, more so than I realized prior to this thread. It somewhat bothers me that many seem more upset that an OW would accept small monetary gifts, than that she is having sexual and emotional relations with the man. Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage.

[NoIDidn't]

It was intended simply as a joke.. i know, i was there at it's conception.. lmaooooooo.

 

Money is a very touchy subject, more so than I realized prior to this thread. It somewhat bothers me that many seem more upset that an OW would accept small monetary gifts, than that she is having sexual and emotional relations with the man. Makes me wonder about peoples priorities in a marriage.

 

That's why I was "LOL"ing. It was funny.

 

Money is a huge reason behind many a divorce. It doesn't mean that people have their priorities wrong, it means that they recognize the power that it has in a R. Its not wise to ignore that.

 

A man that will waste his family's precious financial resources selfishly, in any endeavor, will find that he has the money struggle in his marriage. I'm sure many a MM complain to the OW that the W just wants "more' money all the time. Truth, as I see it, if he wasn't wasting it behind her back, they might already have more.