If you want to divorce your wife but dont want to loose half your shit.. couldnt you just sell everything you have to a trusted friend, get a divorce then get it back?
Also gift them gradually over time
Tell your lawyers the broken marriage made you feel jaded about life and that you want to let go of material belongings to overcome your crippling clinical depression
have fun being court-ordered to give 1/2 of each paycheck to her. oh, you lost/quit your job? hope you like jail
t. son of dad who had vindictive bitch-ass ex wife
>getting married without signing a prenup.
You can only blame yourselves.
This question is always asked in a dishonest manner. Nobody cares about losing half of the assets in a relationship where both parties share equal income. The idea is that men are angry about the idea of women having power to leave them.
Men who complain about losing half their shit do so because they seek women with little to no income. they do so specifically because they want to be the ones in power of the relationship. The idea of selling off assets does nothing for a man at all. he knows he can make that shit back, he knows that it's just money to him, what he wants to do is tell her that she can't live without him. he wants to hurt her because he doesn't want her to live outside of his control. It's why men are overwhelmingly more likely to kill women, children, and themselves after divorce.
So see, this is the honest truth about your question, it should be asked "How can I most effectively hurt a woman if she dares waste my investment into her as my property to control, and continue my lineage"
My farther got a legit inheritence after he and my mother divorced. She still got a cut. Actually he suspects she gets a cut of his super when he retires, so hasn't put anything into it.
you can alimony her shit up if you have a good lawyer who can spin some bullshit about how you became accustomed to the level of comfort she gave you and can't bring it to yourself now
Haven't you seen the stories on leddit about guys who hire PI's for weeks at a time just to follow their wife and get a mountain of proof of their adultery just so they don't have the prenup thrown out?
>they do so specifically because they want to be the ones in power of the relationship
You're a dumb nigger if you don't believe that a women can be completely devoted to you, only for her feelings to evaporate over night because she met someone 'new and exciting'.
>The man still gets fuck all even if he then wins custody
Even then, the amount of hoops the father will have to jump through to get custody is insane, even if the reason the divorce happened is because the mother's a crack addicted fiend who blew all their money every week on drugs.
oh he lost the case even though she had an assault charge and a rastraining order against her (by me). But child services got involved because one of my teachers (of 6) asked about the bruises, which led to us seeing a court psychologist who then over ruled the case.
>because the mother's a crack addicted fiend who blew all their money every week on drugs.
Not reality, friend. plenty of women have to fight for custody. tell me, why is it that all stories like yours are "She was a crack addict" why did you get with a crack addict?
See, every time I bring this up, I see men talk about how their ex was a homeless drug addict and that they are well off middle income men with a clean record.
It makes my previous point very clear. You chose a woman who had significantly less than you, an addict, a homeless woman, etc. and expected her life to depend on you. You then hoped that such low status would carry into divorce proceedings. You hoped that anything she had would be gone without you, including a child. The fact that spending time with a child is leverage in a divorce angers rich white men who expect housewives to be considered nothing without them as it used to be before the tender years doctrine.
Chances are we aren't getting the full story anyhow, these women aren't online talking with us, you are.
70% of men who fight for custody get it. If men are fighting for custody, it means the women are too (Else custody would be given.)
That don't prove shit, it's an unlikely scenario and those women could easily be shitty enough to lose that the fathers know they have a good case and go for it. Why would you otherwise sink money on a lost cause?
More and more robots are converting to radical feminism. it's too late, my influence is spreading :3
have fun with your conjecture. I only have opinions that can be backed up.
The problem isn't men losing custody battles, they're winning! the problem is that men don't fight them because they either don't want the child or don't think they'll win due to false information. Judges are overcompensating for men who don't even fight.
just pump and dump em. they wanted sexual liberation they get it.
Too bad you can't formulate an argument to back up the assertion that it's so ridiculous as to be a troll post.
I guess if you are an abuser and women who have their own income source or foundation aren't appealing to you.
Yeah, marrying someone who is wholly dependent on you like a trapped rat is a bad idea if you risk the chance she escapes your manipulative relationship.
If you want to keep your stuff, don't get a girlfriend and definitely don't marry the bitch. The moment you crossed that line into a relationship she's entitled to your shit, no matter how good your lawyer is.
Am I really the only person in the world who's gotten a divorce that ended well for both parties?
>date guy all through high school
>think he's the one for me
>get married when we're both 18 2 months after graduating
>over the course of the next 3 years we both realize what we had was puppy dog love and lust and we don't actually get along that well
>mutually agree on divcorce as forcing ourselves to stay together will just turn us both bitter and have it eventually end badly
>both lawyer up and explain to the judge that we just want to be divorced.
>lawyer are both pissed because we're not trying to rob one another of their entire salary
>judge is amazed we're not trying to steal every dollar form one another and says we restored some faith he had in humanity.
>I said I didn't want it but he's ordered to pay out $200 a month in alimony because its the law.
>judge says right afterward that after I get the money I can do whatever I want with it, even gift it to someone. *wink wink nudge nudge.
that was 3 years ago. and once a month I meet up with my ex talk a little and give him his money back.
That only happens if you deliberately pursue women who have no source of income and own nothing themselves. You are then seeking an abusive relationship where everything belongs to you and alimony is the only reason you can't legally leave her in the streets.
Again, your complaint is that taking full financial control over a woman's life isn't supported by law.
Wow look at all those sources in that article!
A cherry picked study from 1990, a college thesis and a government Census report that doesn't support anything except that men willing to spend thousands of dollars in court could potentially get joint custody 70% of the time. How reliable.
>That only happens if you deliberately pursue women who have no source of income and own nothing themselves.
Bullshit. Plenty women have/had jobs with decent income and still get half.
>because they seek women with little to no income
Generally it's the opposite you retard. Women with now income seeking men with jobs.
Your general argument could be handled easily by just giving some fixed upper amount, say 50% of higher income person's savings with a hard cap of say $20K, enough for the lower income person to live a year and to get back on their feet/get a job.
So the lower income person still has a viable escape strategy. I would understand and accept and marry with that kind of understanding.
In a truly free equal world, both parties would raise that amount of money before even getting married, and it would be kept by the government and divided out after separation. Perhaps the higher earner will be required to contribute more at that point, as the "cost" of marrying a lower earner. No unpleasant surprises necessary.
But this won't happen, because of some weird sense of entitlement. (Hint: People are rarely equal when it comes to earning abilities.)
Or, if you date a woman who decides she wants to take a break from working to go back to school or whatever, the break turns into staying at home and watching netflix all day while not looking for a job, and by the time you catch on and file for divorce you've now established her right to live off your money for the rest of her life.
If she has already amassed that amount of money, she is less likely to lose the will to have her own income. Also, you can confront her easily. "You need to be making your own money" and if she refuses, you divorce.
>not just shooting or stabbing or poisoning her instead
Wow, its like you still have something to live for.
No counterargument provided. Please explai why you think the first is cherry picked, and that men spend so much more than women. Not to mention that men are often more wealthy after a divorce due to having a higher income.
Half, having put in around half, is fair.
It's not a perfect system, I give you credit for at least trying to come up with a viable strategy.
>In a truly free equal world, both parties would raise that amount of money before even getting married,
Exactly, but see, we are not in a perfect equal world. and we understand that. in the past, women stopped existing after divorce. The Tender Years Doctrine wasn't perfect but because of it, women are not in such a terrible situation. There could be a better way. but it doesn't need to focus on ways men can abuse women. Half ensures that a housewife who has had no prior education, no work skills, nor training, are capable of leaving a relationship or being left in a relationship without being completely ruined.