My boyfriend owns a company that makes iPhone apps. Last year he made more than $650,000, just in salary. This year he’ll probably double that. I, on the other hand, have a struggling business that I am working hard to grow. The problem is, my boyfriend spends tons of money on his projects, his charities, his investments,his socializing—and lots of time talking about the expensive things he wants to buy for himself. Isn’t this a bit insensitive? I’m laboring so hard! I know I’ll be successful, but I’m not able to go out and shop—never mind splurge—at this point in my life.It's bad enough that the legal regime that has enshrined the Female Imperative into law believes that the mere sanction of a state marriage is sufficient to entitle a woman to a significant percentage of a man's wealth, even though it no longer entitles a man to a woman's body. But now that the more astute men are increasingly avoiding the legal risks imposed by marriage, we can see where the Female Imperative will take us next: the mere passage of time in the close proximity of a man is to be deemed sufficient justification for resource transfer.
We’ve been together three years, and he is generous in that he buys me dinners and has paid for one vacation to France. But he doesn’t otherwise offer to share his success. Heaven knows he’s worked hard for it, but am I not entitled to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years?
This is why no successful man should ever permit a woman to move in with him unless he has decided to take the risks inherent in marriage. As the letter writer makes clear, a woman who is involved with a man is going to feel she possesses an intrinsic claim on his wealth, regardless of the exact nature of that involvement.
And notice the advice-giver's response: "I’m all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants."
The interesting thing is: does she believe in equality? What is the difference between her position and the idea that a man should use every weapon at his disposal, including superior strength and size, to get what he wants?
83 comments:
Even the mere potential of wealth reveals this woman's character. I hope he realizes what a selfish shrew she is and chooses to bless her with the precious freedom and unlimited opportunities such a snowflake deserves.
Pity you don't know Russian.99% of all posts on the main Russian women forum www.woman.ru is pretty much similar to the one above,but more blunt.
They also honestly believe over there that it's 100% in a woman hands either to "rear" a high or low earning husband.Like a pet dog.They discuss there how to see "high earner"treats in the early age and how to develop it in him through "training".
I am not kidding,man.The entitlement and "magic pussy syndrome" is prevalent everywhere.
It's because the underlying exchange of resources for sex, from the female point of view, occurs in these relationships, too, even though they are not hard monogamy, but serial monogamy. Women feel "stiffed" when they are not getting resources in exchange for sex, even if they don't articulate it in those terms. Therefore to the extent that men retreat from marriage, other forms of relationships between men and women that involve sex will also begin to involve state mandated resource transfers. We're already seeing statutes/cases like that pop up in some places. Note that these differ from the old "common law marriage" in that common law marriage generally required that the couple hold themselves out as H and W, whereas these new laws are simply aimed at people who shack up for a certain period of time. The state will enforce male resource provision in exchange for extended sexual access, whether it's a marriage (common law or otherwise) or not. This is the FI in action.
Am I not entitled to some of her body, some sex from her, since we've been on three dates?
deti
Absolutely true about Russian woman. One of my parents' acquaintances got involved with one. He was recently found frozen to death in his house after his utility bills had been cut off, since the woman had bled him dry. And he was a relatively successful businessman, by small town standards. But he was a nice guy.
If you are stupid enough to get involved with a Russian woman, don't expect sympathy from me when they find your body.
Good for that guy to keep his property to himself, especially after 3 years! 3 years in a relationship seems like a very long time to me, and him not caving into resource transfer after that amount of time demonstrates his Alpha quite nicely.
I like how she had to mention her failing business.if its truebhe has a business at all. She just wants to be told its her money and.has to come up with some victimizing reason. That mean jerk only paid for.one.vacation.
Let them think you're broke. And if its Christmas there's only one acceptable gift for a woman yet to bear you children: Skittles.
Eee gads typing on a phone is a pain. I'm supposed to be putting up sprinklers
"every weapon at her disposal", except becoming the kind of woman a successful guy would want marry.
"If you are stupid enough to get involved with a Russian woman, don't expect sympathy from me when they find your body."
That might just be the quote of the year right there. Well... after "You ain't got no chili!"
I'm still trying to figure out how a friend of mine thinks his marriage to a Thai ex-prostitute is going to go well. After calling American women "whores" for years...
I figure up front these foreign women all have networks of training on how to hook suckers from abroad. I ain't biting.
Ironically, the only weapon a woman really has in her arsenal is sex and the whiner/advice-seeker had already been giving that away. The advice giver does go on to tell her to focus on her own success and quit dwelling on his. Perhaps she should have told her to shut her legs until a ring was on her finger and focus on her home-making skills.
"I’m all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants."
It's those very weapons that are taking away what she needs.
And it'll only get worse in the future. There will come a time if men don't stand up for who they are...that women will have no men around.
She needs to convince him to marry her and bear him one or two children, keep his home, and take care of his needs.
At that point, after having become a helpmate, she will then be entitled to him sharing the wealth.
I thought this was already settled in the infamous "palimony" (Vic Morrow?) from some decades back.
There are so many crazy things about this letter. Jean's response suggests the woman would just be happier being a supportive wife (SHOCK!) but Jean won't explicitly say that.
Or, has the letter-writer even asked her boyfriend for support, or even advice? Nothing here suggests she has, which is more of the solipsism: he should be worrying about her company, her world, and not his own. Such misplaced priorities!
There's also some more psychology involved.
1) Sunk costs. She also feels as though more of his money = investment in her. This would deter his leaving; people hate walking away from sunk costs.
2) Anchoring. If he spends something on her (as with the gifts and french vacay) then all future contribution is judged relative to that. This is why Roissy's Skittles framing is powerful--there's a ratchet effect. If you set the bar low initially, it's easy to get over it, but very hard to go the other way.
I figure up front these foreign women all have networks of training on how to hook suckers from abroad. I ain't biting.
May 6, 2013 at 6:42 AM
--------------
For russians speaking women (not necessary only russians) there are resources like www.antidate.org where they share their strategies on milking the foreigners.
Once got there as usually travelling through www and found it very disturbing to read,being honest (I am russian myself).Though entertaining.
I wonder how many iPhone app company owners "made more than $650,000, just in salary" last year and how one might manage to send them that elle.com article. If I knew a similar individual I would certainly revel in passing the info for laughs over beers...
The guy owns his own company and makes $650K - he is no dummy. He knows who she is and what she's about and why she is with him and he's not buying it. If she doesn't like the present arrangement, she needs to read her tea leaves and move on.
The woman explicitly defines herself as for-hire, and her real problem is that her ask was/is too low. I'd be curious if she does absolutely anything at all for her boyfriend, other than provide some mediocre sex (followed by passive-aggressive remarks on how he's not 'sharing' properly). This story makes me hyperventilate, but then I am a software entrepreneur who found the train in the Eat Pray Love casual divorce station one day.
When her boyfriend dumps her for a more grown-up, more accomplished, better looking, and better sexing female, which I imagine is already happening because she is trying to figure out how to get her severance, she'll be online saying that she has had many long-term relationships, is trying to make the world a better place, and hates selfish people. Not.
...but am I not entitled to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years?
For what? Services rendered?
I am constantly amazed at how women who would otherwise completely abhor the idea of being a prostitute, unwittingly turn themselves into one with statements like that.
GF Dad: surely there are legion examples of men who make a lot of money and women who take it from them. Didn't Jonh Cleese get divorce raped twice?
DrTorch: Or, has the letter-writer even asked her boyfriend for support, or even advice? Nothing here suggests she has, which is more of the solipsism: he should be worrying about her company, her world, and not his own. Such misplaced priorities!
This can be solipsism, as well as female passivity and wishful thinking, which can metastasize into the false belief (and insistence, i.e., shit test) that if someone really loves us, they'll see our wants and be only to happy to grant them for us, fairy godfather-like.
Oh. Man. I dodged a Russian, in Japan of all places. The above comments are 100% true. Rule #1a. should be "Avoid Russians."
"We’ve been together three years, and he is generous in that he buys me dinners and has paid for one vacation to France. (But)"
These are my favorite lines from women...because you know a guy couldn't get away with this babble.
I make a statement praising someone....say "but"...then I make a statement saying why my first statement is wrong. A guy that does that in an argument loses the debate.
So what is he...generous or stingy?
And this woman is so self-centered she may not even realize she's petitioning for a severance strategy -- her solipsism may be such that she doesn't realize yet that he's drawn a line and she is now a short-timer.
She is certainly sufficiently idiotic and solipsistic to not realize that this little anecdote will make its way from the magazine to her guy. Unless she transformed her labels for his job, his income and the location of their vacation, she just self-announced as a struggling hustler.
Ioweenie, it's the solipsism of a wife who punches out in an EPL divorce, without ever putting the marriage on a workout/recovery plan, then says to her friends "He should have known I was unhappy." It is the laziness of the under-appreciated Cinderella.
I like the part where she assumes that her hard work will result in her business being a success. " I’m laboring so hard! I know I’ll be successful,..."
Twit, hard work does not always equal success. When it comes to business the two things are only tangentially linked.
The dude should ask her if she just wants him to pay for the poonanny and skip the romance nonsense.
"entitled to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years?"-
And she is not even married to him,no kids neither!
This is pretty fucked up.
It's the solipsism of a wife who punches out in an EPL divorce, without ever putting the marriage on a workout/recovery plan, then says to her friends "He should have known I was unhappy." It is the laziness of the under-appreciated Cinderella.
My brother dated only one woman (5 years) before marrying. Within 2 years of marriage, she cheated and they divorced. My brother talked to a friend of the ex who said that throughout the marriage, the ex said often, "We don't have a very good marriage; everyone knows it." Duh. Guess she hadn't bothered to tell my brother, who hadn't detected any change other than they lived under the same roof.
Solipsism, laziness, irresponsibility, selfishness, opportunism . . .
I could have told you how untrustworthy and mercenary Russian women are--and not only in matters of love.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this given the current state of the American woman, but I still can't help but feel disgusted.
Loki of Asgard said...
I could have told you how untrustworthy and mercenary Russian women are--and not only in matters of love.
--------------------
The reason I mentioned Russian women (it was me in the 2nd message) is not random.It really connects well with the topic of this post.
They always strike me as women who are absolutely not in touch with reality-their level of entitlement believes is just ridiculous.Its me-me-me at its most,"a man must..." is the most common sentence you will hear from a russian woman's mouth.
[quote]And notice the advice-giver's response: "I’m all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants."[/quote]
You aren't being honest here. You "edited" out a large part of the sentence.
[quote]I’m all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants, but to paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, the only difference between a girlfriend who sucks money out of a chap and a prostitute is the amount of cash spent and the length of time the payments run.[/quote]
Advice to him -- GET OUT NOW!
From the response:
"What puzzles me is this: Why aren’t you excited about your start-up? Nothing—not sex, food, the entire nation of France—is more stirring than launching your own start-up."
Hamsterlation:
"Your Feminist Elders have slaved for decades, forcing society to give you every opportunity to succeed in what we believe should be your ultimate life goal - to be exactly like men. Why do you still insist on acting like a woman?"
Or:
"I'm not going to come straight out and say it, because the Feminist Elders would have my guts for garters, but maybe you're not psychologically cut out for the business world, babe. Consider staying home and helping the guy who clearly is."
I'm still trying to figure out how a friend of mine thinks his marriage to a Thai ex-prostitute is going to go well. After calling American women "whores" for years...
Fred, while he extols the virtues of foreign women, warns that they aren't all the same and that some, and he specifically warns against prostitutes, are just trouble.
Anyone that needs to be warned about a long term relationship with a hooker strikes me as a white knighting gamma who probably just wouldn't listen.
You aren't being honest here. You "edited" out a large part of the sentence.
I am being honest. You, however, are simply being stupid.. How would including the accusation that the questioner is acting as a prostitute change the fact that the advice giver is still "all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants".
Do you seriously want to try arguing that prostitution is not one of those weapons? It is the primary weapon!
Good Bloody Grief!
If she hasn't married him, she has NO right to one thin dime of his money. Which is, of course, why he has NOT married her.
The more I study Courtship/Marriage Game, the more I realize just how far ahead of her time Dr. Laura really was.
Remember, you really pay a hooker to go away.
The gorgeous young woman in her prime is not saying she is "entitled" to anything. She is asking for an exchange for the use of her assets. And, like a good girl, she is feeling guilty for asking, because love is not transactional. Her use of the word "entitled" -- bait that you jumped on -- is a bimbo's recourse to the patois of the era, not a philosophical statement to be dissected.
Fit, fertile, and beautiful women between the ages 15-25 are the SMP equivalent of Mr. iPhone App Titan, if not greater than him. We can assume she has those assets because a man of high quality selected her and keeps her.
You fellas have to take a vacation from your nutshells from time to time. It's good for the perspective. Not everything can be reduced to MRA whinery.
Matt
"The gorgeous young woman in her prime is not saying she is "entitled" to anything."
"Heaven knows he’s worked hard for it, but am I not entitled to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years?"
I guess I have a problem with taking literal meaning of words.
Entitlement is the mother of ingratitude.
They day the state injected legally enforced entitlement into marriage it did the equivalent to radiation poisoning. The cancer just continues to grown.
Guy was probably wondering why she spends so much time screwing around with her dead end business she is either too incompetent to run or not actually interested in running it.
She should consider herself lucky. I know a guy that is pulling 300-400k a year and he broke up with his girl friend of 7.5 years and is now engage to a woman who is 6 years younger than she. So now she is 32 and desperate.
@Matthew King, you misstate. She *is* receiving an "exchange for the use of her assets." She's just looking for assistance and tactics in getting paid more for those "assets". She believes she's a higher class exchanger than does the guy who's schtupping her.
If someone doesn't meet your ask, you deny the goods. She is too avaricious to do so. She is too entitled to do so. She may be too stupid and un-selfaware to do so. That's what is so creepy about the "using every weapon at her disposal" quote. There's nothing in her plight about improving their relationship, being a better partner, being a more insightful human. No. There's a reason why escorts get paid before they go to work. And that is this woman's problem. She is confusing time in the sack (three years) with software guy as an appreciating asset, and now she's looking for weapons to use to secure that asset. No doubt she is a strong, independent feminist, when she is not acting like a disabused whore.
"GF Dad: surely there are legion examples of men who make a lot of money and women who take it from them. Didn't Jonh Cleese get divorce raped twice?"
These two have been together three years and marriage isn't on the horizon. There are two potential reasons for this: Either she is one of many and she is nothing special to him or he has her gold digging number and is with her until something better comes along.
The guy is successful at running his company - he is not stupid and he's probably alpha. Contrast him with her - she has an overwhelming sense of entitlement AND she is foolish enough to detail the situation to a magazine's advice column. I bet she has telegraphed her true self to him enough for him to know to never allow her to stick it to him.
The gorgeous young woman in her prime is not saying she is "entitled" to anything.
Yes, she most certainly is, when she asks: "am I not entitled to some of his dough, since we’ve been together three years?"
Just another example of how a woman's thinking is alien to a man's.
Women view their relationships as resources.
Earl wrote:
"I guess I have a problem with taking literal meaning of words."
When it comes to women, maybe you do have that problem. Since when do you take what they say at face value?
BuenaVista wrote:
"She's just looking for assistance and tactics in getting paid more for those 'assets.' She believes she's a higher class exchanger than does the guy who's schtupping her."
I tend to believe her and disbelieve her critics, because I know both types well. How are you so sure she is getting paid less than what she is giving? A woman's assets are passive: how good does she look, how loyal is she, how chaste?
The entitlement mentality is real and it is destructive. But you assume she is not engaging in an argument of equal exchange. And this assumption may be the side effect of the quality of woman you are used to bargaining with.
A world class beauty -- which many, many teen-to-early-20 women are -- can demand and receive a lot if only they knew it, and not just from beta suck-ups. Her problem is that she approaches the relationship as a transactional exchange, which is very different from saying her SMP is necessarily lower than his, which is implied throughout the post and the comments.
This explains the hang-up with her use of the word "entitled." You see the word in print and assume it is being used unjustly, just another fat ogre with a princess-complex asking for something unreasonable in exchange for her overestimated femininity. But not all requests are unreasonable by definition -- even if ultimately the transaction mentality must end in tears. Just like an apex male can take his assets elsewhere, so can an apex female.
Matt
"Every weapon at her disposal". Finally a rational (I use the term loosely) for "gun control".
The man should dump the author of the link ASAP in the most permanent way possible and as soon as possible.
And some in the Catholic Church want to end Priestly Celibacy...
There are many threats to culture including immigrants but the half already here who both are empowered and lack a Y chromosome seem to be the greater threat.
Lord, I praise your wisdom and your revealed truth. Celibacy has its difficulties but you daily show me examples of those who follow a different way and are already suffering the fires of hell. I thank you for sparing me from that through your mercy and providence.
(An axillary reason I'm not so worried about "Gay Marriage" is stories like the above, the remake of "The Gay Divorcee" will be a tragedy - Sodom and Gomorrah were quickly wiped out, now the modern followers will find themselves in a living judicial hell, but perhaps some will repent).
Funny... I thought Matt was banned for being continually and willfully obtuse.
This female obviously IS being transactional.
How can it be her man's fault if she's selling her "virtue" on the cheap?
And I certainly WILL take a woman at face value when her words are cutting her position down. Because it's the default female position to put on her best face. The facts are probably much less kind to her than how she's presenting them to this columnist.
@Matthew King:
If she had something to offer, of significance, the quality of her thought (and her professional body of work) would not be so ... embarrassing.
I think it's great that you're defending her virtue, but there's no evidence that she has any.
@Matthew King:
Also, I don't appreciate the ad hominem. Knock it off and fight fair.
BuenaVista said...
"Also, I don't appreciate the ad hominem. Knock it off and fight fair."
Ad hominem is fair, so long as it is not fallacious.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-ad-hominem-fallacy.html
Anyway, where did I step on your toes this time? I can't even tell which statement is causing you to toss and turn like the Princess and the Pea. It is not easy keeping up with all the sensitivity triggers you fellows lay down in lieu of argument.
"There's no evidence that she has any [virtue]," you say. Where is the evidence that she is lacking it? Being the main squeeze of a fellow with a stratospheric SMP is not quite "evidence" of virtue, but it is an indication. And it is at least as much of an indication than the bitter inference that all women are inveterate entitlement princesses until proved innocent.
Matt
I hope to hell the guy carrying this sponge reads that and finds a quick exit. All of women in all of time have known, if this last three or four generations have forgotten, that a man shares his spoils as he wills it. They are always at his mercy. And while the law is on their side and becoming stronger, it is we who uphold the laws.
That support is coming to a quick and harsh end. It is starting privately but will soon hit the big time. Either that or the thieves have enough power, and woefully willful men, to crush the backlash. Either way, it won't end up the way the fairy tale suggests.
Michael Maier said...
"This female obviously IS being transactional."
She has framed her predicament in the transactional terms of our age, yes, but that is a function of the culturally regnant entitlement mentality, which, as I have agreed, is a problem. But her reluctance to demand performance -- she'd rather blow off steam to a magazine columnist -- is something to build on.
"Gynocentrism" isn't just perpetuated by women. It is also encouraged unwittingly by their enemies, as you are doing. You focus on her failure rather than his. Indeed you can't imagine it otherwise. I see the same circumstance and think Mr. iPhone App has to up his game. He has plenty of resources and therefore plenty of SMP leverage; and still he can't manage her expectations enough to keep her out of the advice column of a woman's magazine? It's always the mean female's fault.
When I see a woman leveraging her assets it doesn't make me bitter, it makes me want to get in the pit and play. If she's a toad after all, then that bluff is easily called. I tip my cap to her for having parlayed her meager resources into a three-year hook of an up-and-coming entrepreneur.
But if she's a genuine asset, I have no problem competing for her in the commodities market. Particularly because I have what she wants the most (a way out of the transaction rat race) and no illusions about her exchange value (what the SMP says it is, no more, no less), which I can size up with my own eyes in the space of a few seconds.
Matt
I thought Matt was banned for being continually and willfully obtuse.
No, he was banned because he insisted on always attempting to nibble on my ankles rather than stay on topic. If he has learned his lesson and can manage the latter, I don't have any problem with him commenting here.
Most folks that get banned fall back into their usual pattern soon enough, but there are the occasional exceptions.
She sells herself as a cum dumpster on the cheap and you tip your cap. Funny.
[quote]You aren't being honest here. You "edited" out a large part of the sentence.
I am being honest. You, however, are simply being stupid.. How would including the accusation that the questioner is acting as a prostitute change the fact that the advice giver is still "all for a girl using every weapon at her disposal to get what she wants".
Do you seriously want to try arguing that prostitution is not one of those weapons? It is the primary weapon![/quote]
Dishonest and angry.
The advisor was suggesting that the girl not be a "prostitute".
What you misleadingly "quoted" as a complete sentence was not actually a quote of a complete sentence.
Matt King:
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/452/270/5b1.gif
In New Zealand our previous government did exactly that, ruling that if you live together for three years you are counted as de facto married, and property must be split in such a way in the event of parting.
Helen Clark was a busy body witch.
I'm glad she's dead.
Oh wait, she's not dead, she just joined the UN.
Same thing really.
Men should use every weapon at their disposal to get what they want, because that is what women are going to do, no matter what truce a man may think he was with his woman. And honestly, I've had a man use unwanted physical force to compel me to comply with his wishes. I didn't like it, but really, it wasn't THAT bad. Bruises heal. Women need to get over themselves.
What she really wants is marriage, which would give her access to his productivity in exchange for the sex she's already giving him. Thanks to feminism, she can't even figure out what to call it.
Dishonest and angry. The advisor was suggesting that the girl not be a "prostitute". What you misleadingly "quoted" as a complete sentence was not actually a quote of a complete sentence.
No, neither one. You simply didn't, and don't, understand the advice being given.
realmat reminded me of something w/ this comment:
"And if its Christmas there's only one acceptable gift for a woman yet to bear you children: Skittles. "
----
You want flowers; I understand that flowers are grand.
They tend to pretty up a gentleman caller’s left hand.
They don’t stand in for love but they symbolize aptly.
Grab a handful of blossoms as I pass by the crab tree,
hand these to the recipient of my affections,
urge they float in a crystal bowl (which I don’t provide). The misdirections
of the close magic practitioner
are like Bruce Wayne’s winking subterfuge with the commissioner
as compared to my ability
to convince you that the mints you had, fragility
of wafer thinness established, were gourmet,
palmed though they were from the bulk bin at Safeway.
Hey! You want better? You better want what you need,
not too much in excess of that lest you flaunt with your greed.
“I want to be in love at any price.”
Who would seek a dozen roses when a posy would suffice?
I’ll read you poetry, I’ll tell you what I know to be true,
I’ll make a sentimental observation about the moon,
I’ll kiss you so that you could think that kisses are sublime,
but I won’t spend a penny
‘cause all that you’re worth is my time.
Is there a whore matt king doesn't defend?
Brendan is right. Women are not psychologically equipped to handle free sex. There's no such thing as free sex for that very reason. All men need to keep that in mind.
Women only offer sexual access without regrets in two cases: a) casual sex with an alpha who agrees to contribute sperm b) regular sex with a beta who offers an amount of concrete and sanctioned payment that the woman is content with (this can take the form of marriage or prostitution). Neither applies in this case, which is why this woman is resentful.
Western women in general are becoming frustrated because fewer alphas are willing to contribute sperm and fewer betas are willing to contribute resources.
The gorgeous young woman in her prime is not saying she is "entitled" to anything. She is asking for an exchange for the use of her assets. And, like a good girl, she is feeling guilty for asking, because love is not transactional. Her use of the word "entitled" -- bait that you jumped on -- is a bimbo's recourse to the patois of the era, not a philosophical statement to be dissected.
Bait? So she was actively seeking out Vox's attention when she wrote to E. Jean?
And philosophical statement? Where did that came from?
Did the king a became king autistic?
I have to agree with the advice about Russian women. I'd say all Eastern European women are pretty much the same. They're psychological basket cases because these countries were utterly wrecked by feminism. Western women aren't so stressed because they know they can leech off the enormous amount of wealth created by the betas around them. There's no such wealth in Eastern Europe.
What a waste of money. He should be saving his money and rethinking his expenditures and priorities. However, god bless anyone who can plan a peaceful then enjoy and rest during it.
Anyways, what a brat. No, you are not entitled to jack shit of his blood, sweat and tears. To some degree, neither would the wife be due anything. If he keeps a house, food, money in his house with the GF or wife. She should be grateful and not blow his money like a stupid keynesian.
Furthermore, since she is working, she should be patient in building whatever she is building and stop complaining and start WORKING. Recall, self employment is what she chose.
Edit; peaceful vacay.
This is why some women cannot have access to any checkbooks or wallets.
In New Zealand, if you are in a relationship (aka fucking) for two years, you are de-facto married.
Us NZers are at the forefront of your future. The poison/plague that we are drowning in will soon spread overseas to your lives.
Enjoy the decline of your hopes and dreams.
In New Zealand, if you are in a relationship (aka fucking) for two years, you are de-facto married.
Same law here in Finland already. If you have been living together for two years, either party has the right to demand that a mediator decides how your wealth is to be divided when you break up.
So is it "fucking" or "living together"?
Seems like either would have a 23 month expiration date on the relationship.
"Sorry, babe. I really do like porking you but the law ain't on my side. And I don't trust you to not screw me in court."
VD said...
I thought Matt was banned for being continually and willfully obtuse.
No, he was banned because he insisted on always attempting to nibble on my ankles rather than stay on topic. If he has learned his lesson and can manage the latter, I don't have any problem with him commenting here.
Most folks that get banned fall back into their usual pattern soon enough, but there are the occasional exceptions.
Q.E.D. ....
On the plus side, this woman who demanded alimony from a guy who got rich years after the divorce was DENIED!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10044138/Ex-wife-loses-claim-for-maintenance-from-eco-millionaire-ex-husband.html
Mr Vince and Ms Wyatt, 55, of Monmouthshire met in 1981 when Ms Wyatt had a daughter from a previous relationship. They lived together in North Staffordshire surviving mainly on benefits, and split up in 1984 shortly after the birth of their son Dane. The couple divorced in 1992 and Mr Vince was not ordered to pay any maintenance at the time because he was broke, a previous hearing heard.
Mr Vince, 51, took up a nomadic lifestyle after the split, living in a trailer and it was from here he launched his wind energy business – which developed into the successful company it is today.
And she deserves some of that money because... she just does, so there!
So is it "fucking" or "living together"?
Over here in Finland it's living together. I don't know about New Zealand.
Her lament sounded fair to me until the last sentence. "Entitled"? How about you start by being a good girlfriend to your man instead of going your way on your own business? Seems to me you didn't do much for him.
Great comment underneath the article too (and no surprise it was made by a guy):
'"Nothing—not sex, food, the entire nation of France—is more stirring than launching your own start-up."
I'm sure this will be welcome news to your kids. Or maybe they've already figured out your priorities.'
The Apple TV is much cheaper now, at only $99, a
far cry from what it used to sell for back in 2007 when it was
more than $200. However, we can't choose our favorite program and movie when we watch TV. The phone is allied with the some advanced sensors such as three-axis gyro, accelerometer, proximity sensor and ambient light sensor.
My weblog ... apple tv review
Hi….
Friends I am Vivek Singh from Nepal. I need the Escorts Service . I Am search on Google . I am found the Namratakaur Website. I hope so Namratakaur is the best Escorts Service provider by Internet . yes I am using this . this service is very Good Escorts Services. If you need Escorts service to call the Namratakaur. Independent Escorts in Delhi
Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also humor dewasa, status fb galau, status fb romantis, status fb lucu, kata kata cinta, kata kata cinta, kata kata bijak , Kata Kata Galau, kata kata indah, kata kata bijak, kata kata cinta, kata kata romantis, kata kata motivasi, status fb lucu, status fb romantis and many other interesting articles on my blog that.
In most states, in the USA, it is illegal to offer or accept an agreement in which any part of either party's consideration is one or more sexual acts. In layman's terms this means: neither a man, nor a woman, may sell, barter, or trade sexual access.
The problem with women in general is that they have been programmed by society, [and bad advise columnists], to believe that they should receive "consideration" for access to their female assets. Thus, they fell cheated and used when they freely give a man access to those assets, and fail to receive what they feel is just compensation.
In 20th Centruy real-estate law, many states provided "dower rights" for a female spouse. Such rights usually gave her a 1/3 interest in all the real-estate holdings of her husband. This is why married men, in general, can not get a mortgage or sell a real-estate property held in their own names without their wife's signature. The wife must sign to release her "dower rights", otherwise the property will have a cloud on the title. The cloud means that the wife's interest in the property would superseded the holder of the mortgage, and/or new property owner as the case may be.
As I understand it, the original purpose of "dower rights" was to protect women and children in the event of the death and/or business bankruptcy of their 'provider' husband. These laws were invented during an era where nearly all married women stayed at home and raised children.
Rumors and stories of women who, upon the death of their husband or divorce, struck it rich on dower rights fueled some of the early GREED that sold newspapers and helped kicked of the feminist movement.
Greed and Fear are the two great motivators of human kind.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.