Not getting married and not having children is no longer enough to avoid getting ass-raped by divorce lawyers -- today you must end your relationship before a certain time limit (say, six months). And who is to say what a "relationship" is?

It's all part of a long-term strategy to destroy marriage and the family. Divorce laws should be balanced and fair, and they are not, so people avoid marriage and having kids.

link

[–] • 8 pts

Soon you won't even have to meet the woman for her to take everything from you, she'll just be able to say she felt an emotional attachment from looking at your property and the courts will give it to her.

parent
link

[–] • 4 pts

"he swiped right your honor"

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

He ocularly raped me judge rothenstienhatesgoyimwitz!!

parent
link

[–] • 4 pts

It's all part of a long-term strategy to destroy marriage and the family. Divorce laws should be balanced and fair.

This is what most people don't realize. By making every relationship a financial ass raping no one gets married and fewer have kids.

Its part of the jewish plan.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

Except they weren't even married, or even live together. This is beyond even clown world absurdity.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

Yeah this is Brave New World level destruction of long term relationships

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Thank Ford!

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

In Russia you get two chances. Fuck that up and the government won't legitimize a third marriage, or so I am told.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Truthy truthiness

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

One year in Commiefornia. I beat the deadline by one month.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

TFW you have to have a notary around and a bunch of witnesses when you end the "relationship" so it maybe holds up in court.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I had mounds of evidence. I won.

parent
link

[–] • 8 pts

Canada just reached a new low *FOR NOW

Liberals are set to lose but the mail in votes will allow them to steal the election, then this shit is going to look quaint.

link

[–] • 3 pts

Slavery in the modern age

parent
link

[–] • 6 pts

play stupid games win stupid prizes.

dont point your dick at anything you arent prepared to spend the rest of your life with.

that being said, marriage is just betting someone all of your stuff they will love you forever.

link

[–] • 7 pts

There comes a point where prison is more appealing than supporting some cunt who robbed you.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Because in the end prison will take about as much money and mental strain from your life as a divorce, but in a Canadian prison if you get out they try the rehabilitation approach and actually help you to find a job and a place to stay.

Only one more thing to make prison the "duh" choice, segregation of muds and whites.

If in all their fart sniffing smuggness they dare to do that the unintended consequences will blow their simple minds.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

marriage is just betting someone all of your stuff they will love you forever.

If you trust someone enough to make this rather unreasonable bet, you can also trust them enough to leave them alone with your children.

If you succumb to illness, have an accident or similar, your children may be entirely at the mercy of your wife. It doesn't seem fair to put a burden on your child you won't take yourself.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

MMMmmm, provisionally. You can leave the children with your wife so long as you are there to supervise occasionally. Just to, you know, check up to ensure she isn't turning them into trannies and the like. After a certain point, it's the man's job to start training the children, otherwise they turn into useless shitheads as teens.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

I don't know if you read the part where it said they never married, never had kids, and never shared property.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

(edited )

A rube on voat was bragging how much money he saved changing the oil on his girlfriend's car himself.

I said, "Imagine how much you'd save whacking your own ding dong." lol

link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Why didn't he just supervise the bitch while she changed it?

And say when I dump you next week you'll know how to get your next boyfriend.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

gotta love the no comment section, they cant let truth come to the forefront.

link

[–] • 2 pts

Well...isn't that special.

In order for the judge to arrive at this conclusion, there has to be objective data that he was buying her a shitload of things, consistently, for years. Meaning, she was a gold digger. When he wizened up, he didn't use a cooling off period where he stopped buying her things. He probably tried to break it off abruptly and didn't consider "spousal support" (it feels dirty even typing that) being a problem because they weren't married or living together.

This situation doesn't even fit the definition of common law marriage. Still feels rather contrived to make him pay "alimony."

link

[–] • 2 pts

A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together

This is beyond absurd. They basically dated for a long time and he owes her more than I make in a year, every month, for doing nothing, for 10 years, because pussy?