[QUOTE=knight rose;39628][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Whew... I kinda get where you guys are going with this and I agree with the general viewpoint that in todays day and age its best to get a prenup.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But in a forum such as ours I think there is a case to be made for women. We know how malleable women are once they are into you. They will literally slut themselves, cry their hearts out and do things for you that will stagger imagination. (Just like she will slut herself, cry her heart out and do things for another guy that will stagger imagination if she is into that guy even though she is your GF or wife) Women are capable of that. It’s built into their femininity. It’s who they are. The law was made to protect the asshole from taking advantage of a woman once she has given herself to him in a complete and total way. Granted that this seldom happens today…but that’s how laws are written…i.e. to punish the 1% who violate it. The judge does not know all the intimate details of what happened in the marriage and does not have the time or the inclination to know if he is an asshole or a genuine guy. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But I am with you guys. The ring was a bit too much. my .02.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
What about the population of women that cheat on their husband, dump them for another man, have children with other men while married, and then end up getting child support, alimony, and a free divorce.
Where's the law to protect those men?
Our legal system in America was created with the intent that ALL individuals are viewed equally under the law. So why the preferential treatment for the highly emotional, poor women that get duped by a sauve man. That's such bullshit man.
Your 1% argument is way off. Laws are not made to protect the innocent and punish the guilty instead they're made to encourage individuals to comply with whatever demands that society in large deems virtuous and right. Unfortunately, Western society views the independent woman as virtuous and right and, as such, has stacked the courts and law in their favor to make it easier for them to leave a man even if it is at the cost to the man, even if the man has done nothing wrong, even if the man is actually the virtuous and right one in the entire fucked up situation.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the courts are set up like this to destroy the family and the idea of personal responsibility so that the state becomes the source of income and security. The state WANTS women to be divorced with a child because this means that the state gets to get involved in a personal matter, control it, and ultimately be viewed as the savior of the woman's existence thus perpetuating the state's agenda of command and control over it's citizens. They WANT women to rely on them for their livelihood it gives the state power and purpose and allows it to grow.
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
The Law and Divorce
by Guest » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:19 pm
[QUOTE=Bull Run;39629]
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the courts are set up like this to destroy the family and the idea of personal responsibility so that the state becomes the source of income and security. The state WANTS women to be divorced with a child because this means that the state gets to get involved in a personal matter, control it, and ultimately be viewed as the savior of the woman's existence thus perpetuating the state's agenda of command and control over it's citizens. They WANT women to rely on them for their livelihood it gives the state power and purpose and allows it to grow.[/QUOTE]
I believe this absolutely, 100%. There isn't a doubt in my mind. Feminism is a controlled plan to eradicate the family and control the population. It was never, ever a grassroots movement led by "oppressed" women. The CIA has admitted to funding feminist inspired propaganda with the stated intention of taxing those women who were untaxable before. That is only what is admitted. All it takes to see the truth is a pair of eyes and an ability to think for yourself.
Women who rely on the state and emasculated men are easily controllable. What you see in black America right now you will see in white America in 20-40 years. The number of gay men and women will continue to skyrocket. The number if babies born per woman will continue to decline.
Feminism is indeed controlled psychological warfare. Divide and conquer. You alienate the masses in order to control them. And we all fell for it hook line and sinker. I feel terrible for all these young women who were duped so horribly into believing they need to be "independent", that it's soul-fulfilling to be a slut, that to be a feminist means you are equal to men and need to have masculine values and traits, that it's ok to undermine their natural feminine values and be selfish instead of giving, that the way to find happiness is through a career and not through a family. At it's core feminism is thinly veiled lesbianism, and indeed the visible leaders of Women's liberation were lesbians.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the courts are set up like this to destroy the family and the idea of personal responsibility so that the state becomes the source of income and security. The state WANTS women to be divorced with a child because this means that the state gets to get involved in a personal matter, control it, and ultimately be viewed as the savior of the woman's existence thus perpetuating the state's agenda of command and control over it's citizens. They WANT women to rely on them for their livelihood it gives the state power and purpose and allows it to grow.[/QUOTE]
I believe this absolutely, 100%. There isn't a doubt in my mind. Feminism is a controlled plan to eradicate the family and control the population. It was never, ever a grassroots movement led by "oppressed" women. The CIA has admitted to funding feminist inspired propaganda with the stated intention of taxing those women who were untaxable before. That is only what is admitted. All it takes to see the truth is a pair of eyes and an ability to think for yourself.
Women who rely on the state and emasculated men are easily controllable. What you see in black America right now you will see in white America in 20-40 years. The number of gay men and women will continue to skyrocket. The number if babies born per woman will continue to decline.
Feminism is indeed controlled psychological warfare. Divide and conquer. You alienate the masses in order to control them. And we all fell for it hook line and sinker. I feel terrible for all these young women who were duped so horribly into believing they need to be "independent", that it's soul-fulfilling to be a slut, that to be a feminist means you are equal to men and need to have masculine values and traits, that it's ok to undermine their natural feminine values and be selfish instead of giving, that the way to find happiness is through a career and not through a family. At it's core feminism is thinly veiled lesbianism, and indeed the visible leaders of Women's liberation were lesbians.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:11 am
Forgot to add, the most egregious offense: let's say you are married and your wife gets pregnant (by another man in an extramarital affair), and unbeknownst to you, you raise the child for a few years as your own. Then you discover that she cheated and the child is not yours, resulting in divorce, YOU will have to pay the child support for the unbiological step child until he / she is 18.
its a no win situation for the man. if you stay married, you will raise some other man's child. if you get a divorce, YOU STILL have to raise another mans child (financially).
its like the legal system and your ex-wife just put on a massive strap on and fucked you in the ass!
if that does not upset any man, then god help us all...
its a no win situation for the man. if you stay married, you will raise some other man's child. if you get a divorce, YOU STILL have to raise another mans child (financially).
its like the legal system and your ex-wife just put on a massive strap on and fucked you in the ass!
if that does not upset any man, then god help us all...
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:43 am
[QUOTE=Prodigy;39636]Forgot to add, the most egregious offense: let's say you are married and your wife gets pregnant (by another man in an extramarital affair), and unbeknownst to you, you raise the child for a few years as your own. Then you discover that she cheated and the child is not yours, resulting in divorce, YOU will have to pay the child support for the unbiological step child until he / she is 18.
its a no win situation for the man. if you stay married, you will raise some other man's child. if you get a divorce, YOU STILL have to raise another mans child (financially).
its like the legal system and your ex-wife just put on a massive strap on and fucked you in the ass!
if that does not upset any man, then god help us all...[/QUOTE]
I was like "no, he is full of shit...life and the legal system can't be that fucked up." So I did some google searching and holy shit! You are right!
[B]Who is the Legal Father? [/B]
Under the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002, the father can be any of the following:
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3][B]The presumed father, one who was married to the birth mother at conception or lived with the child for the first two years of the child's life and treated the child as his. [/B][/SIZE]
[*]A man who acknowledged paternity
[*]A man who was adjudicated the father in a paternity action
[*]An adoptive father
[*]A man who consents to assisted reproduction
[*]An adjudicated father in a proceeding confirming a gestational agreement.
[/LIST]
I wasn't for marriage before, I was about 90% sure I wouldn't get married...but reading up on that....I think it is 100% impossible for me to ever marry now.
its a no win situation for the man. if you stay married, you will raise some other man's child. if you get a divorce, YOU STILL have to raise another mans child (financially).
its like the legal system and your ex-wife just put on a massive strap on and fucked you in the ass!
if that does not upset any man, then god help us all...[/QUOTE]
I was like "no, he is full of shit...life and the legal system can't be that fucked up." So I did some google searching and holy shit! You are right!
[B]Who is the Legal Father? [/B]
Under the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002, the father can be any of the following:
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3][B]The presumed father, one who was married to the birth mother at conception or lived with the child for the first two years of the child's life and treated the child as his. [/B][/SIZE]
[*]A man who acknowledged paternity
[*]A man who was adjudicated the father in a paternity action
[*]An adoptive father
[*]A man who consents to assisted reproduction
[*]An adjudicated father in a proceeding confirming a gestational agreement.
[/LIST]
I wasn't for marriage before, I was about 90% sure I wouldn't get married...but reading up on that....I think it is 100% impossible for me to ever marry now.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:33 am
My ex-wife would threaten me with divorce and I would cringe at the thought of losing everything I worked so hard for. Thoughts of child support race through your head, dividing all assets 50/50.
Bottom line was, she KNEW she had massive power in the relationship when she'd make this threat. At the time, I knew & understood way too little about female psychology to realize how my reaction to her threats was making things worse.
Of course, when a woman can do that to her man, all sexual attraction is gone.
The real problem with the divorce laws, is, the power women have after they marry. The marriage is pretty much doomed from the start. A woman will never feel sexual attraction for a guy they have power over.
These laws are Fucked up. Serioulsy.
I'd be willing to bet that divorce rates are way lower for marriages that involve a pre-nup. Just a hunch.
Bottom line was, she KNEW she had massive power in the relationship when she'd make this threat. At the time, I knew & understood way too little about female psychology to realize how my reaction to her threats was making things worse.
Of course, when a woman can do that to her man, all sexual attraction is gone.
The real problem with the divorce laws, is, the power women have after they marry. The marriage is pretty much doomed from the start. A woman will never feel sexual attraction for a guy they have power over.
These laws are Fucked up. Serioulsy.
I'd be willing to bet that divorce rates are way lower for marriages that involve a pre-nup. Just a hunch.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:41 am
[QUOTE=Gunslinger;39641]I was like "no, he is full of shit...life and the legal system can't be that fucked up." So I did some google searching and holy shit! You are right!
[B]Who is the Legal Father? [/B]
Under the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002, the father can be any of the following:
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3][B]The presumed father, one who was married to the birth mother at conception or lived with the child for the first two years of the child's life and treated the child as his. [/B][/SIZE]
[*]A man who acknowledged paternity
[*]A man who was adjudicated the father in a paternity action
[*]An adoptive father
[*]A man who consents to assisted reproduction
[*]An adjudicated father in a proceeding confirming a gestational agreement.
[/LIST]
I wasn't for marriage before, I was about 90% sure I wouldn't get married...but reading up on that....I think it is 100% impossible for me to ever marry now.[/QUOTE]
If a woman says she is pregnant and the baby is yours you never, ever consent that the baby is yours. Always do a paternity test to verify, even if it's your wife, even if you believe her.
If you really want to open your eyes head on over to [URL]http://www.the-spearhead.com/[/URL]
Warning: You will never be the same.
Sidenote: That is where Roissy gets much of his news material.
[B]Who is the Legal Father? [/B]
Under the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002, the father can be any of the following:
[LIST]
[*][SIZE=3][B]The presumed father, one who was married to the birth mother at conception or lived with the child for the first two years of the child's life and treated the child as his. [/B][/SIZE]
[*]A man who acknowledged paternity
[*]A man who was adjudicated the father in a paternity action
[*]An adoptive father
[*]A man who consents to assisted reproduction
[*]An adjudicated father in a proceeding confirming a gestational agreement.
[/LIST]
I wasn't for marriage before, I was about 90% sure I wouldn't get married...but reading up on that....I think it is 100% impossible for me to ever marry now.[/QUOTE]
If a woman says she is pregnant and the baby is yours you never, ever consent that the baby is yours. Always do a paternity test to verify, even if it's your wife, even if you believe her.
If you really want to open your eyes head on over to [URL]http://www.the-spearhead.com/[/URL]
Warning: You will never be the same.
Sidenote: That is where Roissy gets much of his news material.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:42 am
[QUOTE=Alphagame;39642]My ex-wife would threaten me with divorce and I would cringe at the thought of losing everything I worked so hard for. Thoughts of child support race through your head, dividing all assets 50/50.
Bottom line was, she KNEW she had massive power in the relationship when she'd make this threat. At the time, I knew & understood way too little about female psychology to realize how my reaction to her threats was making things worse.
Of course, when a woman can do that to her man, all sexual attraction is gone.
The real problem with the divorce laws, is, the power women have after they marry. The marriage is pretty much doomed from the start. A woman will never feel sexual attraction for a guy they have power over.
These laws are Fucked up. Serioulsy.
I'd be willing to bet that divorce rates are way lower for marriages that involve a pre-nup. Just a hunch.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Bottom line was, she KNEW she had massive power in the relationship when she'd make this threat. At the time, I knew & understood way too little about female psychology to realize how my reaction to her threats was making things worse.
Of course, when a woman can do that to her man, all sexual attraction is gone.
The real problem with the divorce laws, is, the power women have after they marry. The marriage is pretty much doomed from the start. A woman will never feel sexual attraction for a guy they have power over.
These laws are Fucked up. Serioulsy.
I'd be willing to bet that divorce rates are way lower for marriages that involve a pre-nup. Just a hunch.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:34 am
[QUOTE=Lion;39643]If a woman says she is pregnant and the baby is yours you never, ever consent that the baby is yours. Always do a paternity test to verify, even if it's your wife, even if you believe her.
If you really want to open your eyes head on over to [URL]http://www.the-spearhead.com/[/URL]
Warning: You will never be the same.
Sidenote: That is where Roissy gets much of his news material.[/QUOTE]
Every single baby that is born in this country should be subject to a paternity test. If they were, then the instances of women cheating would plummet OR all is lost and there would be a boom in the abortion industry.
If you really want to open your eyes head on over to [URL]http://www.the-spearhead.com/[/URL]
Warning: You will never be the same.
Sidenote: That is where Roissy gets much of his news material.[/QUOTE]
Every single baby that is born in this country should be subject to a paternity test. If they were, then the instances of women cheating would plummet OR all is lost and there would be a boom in the abortion industry.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:52 am
Guys, I believe there is a misunderstanding, The actual law states:
[QUOTE=Texas Family Code, Ch. 160.204]Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
(2) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;
(3) he married the mother of the child before the birth of the child in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;
(4) he married the mother of the child after the birth of the child in apparent compliance with law, regardless of whether the marriage is or could be declared invalid, he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:
(A) the assertion is in a record filed with the bureau of vital statistics;
(B) he is voluntarily named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or
(C) he promised in a record to support the child as his own; [SIZE=3][I][U][B]or[/B][/U][/I][/SIZE]
(5) during the first two years of the child's life, he continuously resided in the household in which the child resided and he represented to others that the child was his own.
(b) A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by:
(1) an adjudication under Subchapter G; or
(2) the filing of a valid denial of paternity by a presumed father in conjunction with the filing by another [/QUOTE] *emphasis added*
I believe it can be either/or. It doesn't have to be both in Texas. You can be presumed father if either one of those criteria are met.
[QUOTE=Texas Family Code, Ch. 160.204]Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
(2) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;
(3) he married the mother of the child before the birth of the child in apparent compliance with law, even if the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and the child is born during the invalid marriage or before the 301st day after the date the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce;
(4) he married the mother of the child after the birth of the child in apparent compliance with law, regardless of whether the marriage is or could be declared invalid, he voluntarily asserted his paternity of the child, and:
(A) the assertion is in a record filed with the bureau of vital statistics;
(B) he is voluntarily named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or
(C) he promised in a record to support the child as his own; [SIZE=3][I][U][B]or[/B][/U][/I][/SIZE]
(5) during the first two years of the child's life, he continuously resided in the household in which the child resided and he represented to others that the child was his own.
(b) A presumption of paternity established under this section may be rebutted only by:
(1) an adjudication under Subchapter G; or
(2) the filing of a valid denial of paternity by a presumed father in conjunction with the filing by another [/QUOTE] *emphasis added*
I believe it can be either/or. It doesn't have to be both in Texas. You can be presumed father if either one of those criteria are met.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:40 am
[QUOTE=Finesse;39647]Guys, I believe there is a misunderstanding, The actual law states:
*emphasis added*
I believe it can be either/or. It doesn't have to be both in Texas. You can be presumed father if either one of those criteria are met.[/QUOTE]
You know, when you read that one could argue that if a man marries a woman that already HAS a child from another man that the new hubby is now responsible for the child should divorce occur.
It seems the only way to make sure that this does not happen is if you legally deny paternity to the child and said denial is seconded by another party (presumably the woman).
I know I've heard of instances where a man is forced to pay child support for a child is not his (i.e. she had the kid before the marriage). That just seems all kinds of fucked up...
*emphasis added*
I believe it can be either/or. It doesn't have to be both in Texas. You can be presumed father if either one of those criteria are met.[/QUOTE]
You know, when you read that one could argue that if a man marries a woman that already HAS a child from another man that the new hubby is now responsible for the child should divorce occur.
It seems the only way to make sure that this does not happen is if you legally deny paternity to the child and said denial is seconded by another party (presumably the woman).
I know I've heard of instances where a man is forced to pay child support for a child is not his (i.e. she had the kid before the marriage). That just seems all kinds of fucked up...
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests