Emotional Affair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Because we are only fertile for so long. Men are fertile for much longer. Plus therebis a lot of science to back up the fact that younger women have more job opportunities.

---

I'm not sure where fertility comes into play, or why you should be compensated for that(again, personal responsibility), but I'll just leave it alone. The second part doesn't hold water in court because age discrimination is illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

I do agree that alimony is kind of outdated though. I think so is marriage as well. But if youre willing to let the government into your relationship you should be willing to let them impose their stupid, outdated mandates along with them.

---

You've got a point. Actually a couple points. But what about the law in Canada where living together for 3 years means you're married anyway?

Vashti keeps asking if we'd rather see people on welfare; I'd rather see them get unemployment, which is what the rest of us have to do if we lose our job and can't get another. I actually wouldn't mind my tax dollars going to that. It's already going to a bunch of crackheads and ****ups anyway.

This article just came out today about mexico developing temporary marriage licenses.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html]'Til 2013 do us part? Mexico mulls 2-year marriage - Yahoo! News[/url]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

I do agree that alimony is kind of outdated though. I think so is marriage as well. But if youre willing to let the government into your relationship you should be willing to let them impose their stupid, outdated mandates along with them.

---

Well, here in Canada if you live with someone for more than 3 years the same Family Law rules apply. They are protecting women from poverty and men running away with the joint assets saved and purchased during the co-habitation period just as much as they are the legally marred couple. No more kicking her ass out onto the street with nothing (like was happening in the old days)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

I was responding directly to your post about me not finding a woman to stay at home with the kids.

---

You asked for a single post in the thread. I posted one.

Anyway, FWIW, I think this OP doesn't have kids in which case I agree with you. Alimony is unfair considering the wonderful opportunity for self-development on someone else's meal ticket. In fact, my husband was the main breadwinner while our son was young, but no way in hell I could sit around and watch soaps all day. I consulted parttime so I could go back to work FT once our son was in school. Pretty sure I wouldn't be eligible for alimony if we ever split. But I would expect 1/2 our investments, absolutely. I did just as much work, managed our finances, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elny1 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

This article just came out today about mexico developing temporary marriage licenses.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html]'Til 2013 do us part? Mexico mulls 2-year marriage - Yahoo! News[/url]

---

Actually this idea isn't new. Look up contract marriage and sunset prenupts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Vashti keeps asking if we'd rather see people on welfare; I'd rather see them get unemployment, which is what the rest of us have to do if we lose our job and can't get another. I actually wouldn't mind my tax dollars going to that. It's already going to a bunch of crackheads and ****ups anyway.

---

I may be wrong about this, having never personally accepted unemployment, but I believe in order to collect, you must have contributed to that system, and in any case, the benefits are only temporary, and really, it's just another sort of welfare system, albeit one in which recipients have actually contributed towards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

You've got a point. Actually a couple points. But what about the law in Canada where living together for 3 years means you're married anyway?

---

i do not have to worry about that. common law is not honored where i live. i personally would not trust the government to keep me out of poverty. ours is really good at making people poor and keeping them there.

but if i was married and a man was cheating on me and left me for her i would take all his money if i could just on principle. i would want that mother ****er to suffer as much as possible. you have to watch who you're messing with.

Here's an update.

First off, we do have a child, he's 20.

I retired from the work force 8 years ago, I now have a home business that brings in a living wage. Not lavish, but I'm very happy with it. Not enough for the upkeep of a big house, but certainly an apartment.

========================

After I ranted and raved for half a night, he finally had an epiphany. He apologized, and we ended up going on the pre-planned romantic weekend.

He still wouldn't tell me the circumstances surrounding his offering to E-Affair-Woman to take my place on that weekend, and her accepting. Or what she was telling him when he was planning to see lawyers. Or how he told her the weekend with her was canceled, and back with me.

He wanted me to forget all the villainous complaints he made about our 26 year marriage. At first I told him that he's the problem with E-Affair-Woman, his actions with her make me feel like a second fiddle. And I agreed to let her see her again.

After a few days, I reconsidered. I don't think I'll ever be OK with it. Fark. She was willing to spend a weekend with him at a B&B within 15 minutes of him deciding he was dumping me. No amount of ointment can heal this gash. I'm still pretty sure she doesn't want him for a mate, but his devotion feeds her narcissist's ego.

The inappropriateness of playing with a man the way she does, without actually wanting him, is the size of an elephant, but he doesn't seem to see it. But then again, he views her rudeness to him as an endearing quality.

He therefore agreed to stop seeing her. With the caveat that he'd like to "check up on what she's doing" when they'll be in their 70's.

Some time has passed since then. He has been careful to not mention her, and I think he's actually making an effort to build on what we've got.

I may be delusional, but I think, and hope, that part of him actually realizes that his "friendship" was more than a friendship, after all. It's not all about where he puts, or doesn't put, his wiener.

It's about my need to feel his heart is mine, and not another woman's.