Anonymous wrote:Dr. 23:27:

Being ignorant of the impact of the legal, economic and sexual market place dynamics does not make one make better decisions - it makes one make ignorant decisions.

And in these instances, that ignorance benefits women over men. So, naturally, you are an advocate of that ignorance.

It is down right negligent for fathers/men to allow future men to make decisions in these spheres without understanding the laws and powers that undergird and guide them.

Surely you don't believe a man should get married without fully understanding the potential consequences?

If you think that a man should in fact sign that "contract" when she can walk away for literally no reason and take his money and children - then you are advocating for men to make suboptimal decisions based on misinformation. Why? Because it benefits women.

Nobody can fully understand consequences of marriage and overly focusing on legal consequences is a terrible start for a marriage. It defeats the whole purpose of it, which is not contractual but psychological. You are optimizing your decision based on the one factor that is easy to quantify but by doing so you are letting that factor play an outside role on the scheme of things.

And it's funny how you perceive men and women within a relationship as individuals with conflicting interests, but then "women" as some kind of homogenous group working tightly together. There are very few women who care about the good of women anywhere close to how much they care about the good of their husbands, sons, brothers, fathers... We are not out there to get you, seriously - at least not any more than you fellow men.

Dr. 23:27:

Being ignorant of the impact of the legal, economic and sexual market place dynamics does not make one make better decisions - it makes one make ignorant decisions.

And in these instances, that ignorance benefits women over men. So, naturally, you are an advocate of that ignorance.

It is down right negligent for fathers/men to allow future men to make decisions in these spheres without understanding the laws and powers that undergird and guide them.

Surely you don't believe a man should get married without fully understanding the potential consequences?

If you think that a man should in fact sign that "contract" when she can walk away for literally no reason and take his money and children - then you are advocating for men to make suboptimal decisions based on misinformation. Why? Because it benefits women.

Anonymous wrote:
--cook. Never heard of a nanny cooking for the family as part of nanny duties. Private chef with credit card budget: say, $2,500 a month salary. This is the bottom of barrel low-end, I am sure she is worth more than that, with her carefully thought out healthy menu

No comment on wacky PP and his weird relationship, but this as an FYI isn't uncommon for families with nannies of grade school kids. Often healthy menu and meal planning is part of the job description. It is not as common with nannies of infants and toddlers.

Anonymous wrote:*I want to add that this does not relate to child support which actually is independent of marital status. I am speaking solely of alimony/palimony.

okay. i am not a lawyer (i am a psychologist), and i can see that the law, as you present it, might be unjust (i often thought that it was kind of unfair to men that women could choose to abort or not abort but men must support children they didn't want/have to assent to abortions they don't agree to).

however: for most people, in most marriages, law is irrelevant. when i got married, i had not clue of the legal implications of marriage. to be honest, i still have only a vague idea - despite having a phd and a father who was an attorney. i understand that there exists a legal reality (laws on the books) that can be very important, but most people, most of the time - and especially in relationships - operate in a psychological reality that is only loosely related to laws. it is the prominent role that finances and, now, law, play in your decision-making re: your relationship that is very off-putting.

this is how i knew you were the "open relationship" guy. here again, in a different sphere, you are trying to optimize relationship dynamics within some kind of a formal framework (economics, law). but that is not only not possible, it is positively harmful. those decisions are not meant to be made that way. i don't have time to explain exactly why, but it boils down to the fact that you are being overly precise at the expense of utilizing more information.

*I want to add that this does not relate to child support which actually is independent of marital status. I am speaking solely of alimony/palimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their issue is that it's a blended family (wanna guess why his first marriage fell apart?). He feels overburdened by all the kiddos, and possibly some spousal support, and married her only under the condition she wouldn't cost him more money. That's my guess, anyway.

My second guess is that once her children are old enough, she'll be out of there.

I earn $250k+. The burden is no issue. There is no spousal support. And there were no conditions about extra costs.

She and I are very happy, have a warm and honest relationship with lots of hot sex.



I dont know why I expected anything else from this discussion though, ad hominem is the only route people take here rather than actually considering the question. I know the question hits home, obviously. Not a single person has put forth a rational argument as to why a wife shouldn't contribute 50/50 or why she would literally be entitled to a subsidy. Name calling emotional responses, mentions of the 'way it should be' etc - but no real argument.

The only one that actually made any sense had to do with child bearing but I hardly doubt that most woman want to reduce their relationships with their husbands to an exchange like that - i.e. wife gets additional income in exchange for child rearing.

because your "question" is beside the point. normal people do not pose or think about such questions. it never occured to me (or my husband) to demand any kind of split - we simply married because we liked spending time together. the rest of the things (money, childcare, house chores etc) have just worked themselves out (for almost 20 years).

on the other hand, you are obviously very invested into it, both in the real life and here, and one has to wonder why.

no you never considered it, likely because you just assumed that you were entitled to all his earnings without any question, right?

This is where you keep losing people PP. No one is posting about feeling "entitled." These are massive assumptions you're making about people who don't follow the same game plan you and your wife are following. This is why you are turning people off. People are more than capable of having rational discussions with their spouses - their family - and come to different conclusions about what works best for their families without it being a sense of entitlement by one spouse or someone being subsidized by another.

I really wonder what your sense of family is. Because for you, it's a zero sum game, all based on money.

no one said specifically that they were entitled, but when people just start out with ad hominem with no discussion it creates that. the system for how many years has been men provide. its the status quo, or was. the entitlement comes based in the presumptions that are created over time and history in our culture.

i am happy to hear honest discussions and thought processes.

it just seems all to likely that the woman just 'kinda assumed' that husband's higher salary would accrue in portion or in total to her benefit.

and frankly, you have no idea about family life, certainly not enough to say it is "all based on money"

this is a thread about husband and wife and money.

if this was a thread about coaching teams or playing duets on the piano with my son or doing science experiments together or rubbing my wife's feet or making love or spending holidays with our families - i'd have plenty to talk about there too.

It is getting less and less clear what you mean by "entitlement". Yes, for a long time men were providers, but it was hardly the case that women were therefore entitled to their earnings. They were quite vulnerable, divorce was often illegal and there was no child or spousal support. I doubt may women would like to go back to those times of "entitlement".

Some people (men and women) today consider whatever either party makes to belong to the family, not individuals. Would you consider that entitlement?

While the conversation we are having is interesting (to me at least) and the financial divide amongst my wife and I the proper way to do things I believe, it is really moot. The law says something different. The law still allows for financial claims to be made on a husband's current and future earnings.

This mechanism is from the old system that you mention, where divorce was only legal in cases where actual crimes were committed such as adultery, abuse, etc. In those events, the wife gained a divorce and then financial renumeration for many years to follow.

However, today, "no fault" divorce allows for women (and men) to leave for any reason at any time. But the law still provides a mechanism for the now Ex-wife to make claims to the husband's marital earnings and in fact his future earnings as well.

This is both a reflection of and a source of the entitlement that I am talking about.

Wife can divorce for literally no (good or otherwise) reason and yet take his assets with her.

Today's marital contract is no contract at all. It is rather merely a set of consequences for the husband to be enforced by the court at the whim of the wife.

Until this is remedied, the entitlement, both legal and seemingly moral, will remain

I believe, that no fault divorce should be permitted, but only at the expense of losing both child custody as well as any claim to financial support - for either spouse. Same for men or women.

And At-Fault divorce should be the only way that child custody or financial support can be wrangled from the other spouse.

Absent that, a marriage contract is quite literally a promise for a man to handover to a woman his assets and future income in the event she choses to leave for no good reason

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many many documented advantages to breast feeding mothers including:

"Immediately after birth, the repeated suckling of the baby releases oxytocin from the mother's pituitary gland. "

Oxytocin - the bonding chemical - the love chemical

Breastfeeding is, among many other things, a physiologically bonding experience for baby and mother.

If this was written by the PP that keeps posting, game over. This is insane.

how is that insane?


http://www.llli.org/nb/nbjulaug01p124.html

"A Well-Kept Secret
Breastfeeding's Benefits to Mothers
Alicia Dermer, MD, IBCLC "

Ask 10 dads that have lived through newborns learning to breastfeed about the benefits to the mom. 0 will copy and paste a selection from LLL. Probably all 10 will offer words of compassion and possibly a bottle of wine.
-LLL member

well, i've lived through three breast feeding periods and count me as the sole male able to see and understand the totality of the experience - which is confirmed by science and touted by LLL.

i'm sorry you and all these 10 men have seen the experience as so negative.

The totality of BF experience is, by your own lights, entirely irrelevant. According to your logic, your wife is providing a service and needs to be compensated for it (over and above going rate for an average, non BFing nanny). Just because I enjoy my job doesn't mean I don't get paid for it. I am sure you understand .

I'd really like to know what OP's wife spent $15k on, and how much of that were typical monthly expenses. Where is OP?

Indeed. I still want to know how much and what was covered by "bills etc." and if the stuff on Amazon was household expenses and/or Christmas gifts for everyone in their extended family and employ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their issue is that it's a blended family (wanna guess why his first marriage fell apart?). He feels overburdened by all the kiddos, and possibly some spousal support, and married her only under the condition she wouldn't cost him more money. That's my guess, anyway.

My second guess is that once her children are old enough, she'll be out of there.

I earn $250k+. The burden is no issue. There is no spousal support. And there were no conditions about extra costs.

She and I are very happy, have a warm and honest relationship with lots of hot sex.



I dont know why I expected anything else from this discussion though, ad hominem is the only route people take here rather than actually considering the question. I know the question hits home, obviously. Not a single person has put forth a rational argument as to why a wife shouldn't contribute 50/50 or why she would literally be entitled to a subsidy. Name calling emotional responses, mentions of the 'way it should be' etc - but no real argument.

The only one that actually made any sense had to do with child bearing but I hardly doubt that most woman want to reduce their relationships with their husbands to an exchange like that - i.e. wife gets additional income in exchange for child rearing.

because your "question" is beside the point. normal people do not pose or think about such questions. it never occured to me (or my husband) to demand any kind of split - we simply married because we liked spending time together. the rest of the things (money, childcare, house chores etc) have just worked themselves out (for almost 20 years).

on the other hand, you are obviously very invested into it, both in the real life and here, and one has to wonder why.

no you never considered it, likely because you just assumed that you were entitled to all his earnings without any question, right?

This is where you keep losing people PP. No one is posting about feeling "entitled." These are massive assumptions you're making about people who don't follow the same game plan you and your wife are following. This is why you are turning people off. People are more than capable of having rational discussions with their spouses - their family - and come to different conclusions about what works best for their families without it being a sense of entitlement by one spouse or someone being subsidized by another.

I really wonder what your sense of family is. Because for you, it's a zero sum game, all based on money.

no one said specifically that they were entitled, but when people just start out with ad hominem with no discussion it creates that. the system for how many years has been men provide. its the status quo, or was. the entitlement comes based in the presumptions that are created over time and history in our culture.

i am happy to hear honest discussions and thought processes.

it just seems all to likely that the woman just 'kinda assumed' that husband's higher salary would accrue in portion or in total to her benefit.

and frankly, you have no idea about family life, certainly not enough to say it is "all based on money"

this is a thread about husband and wife and money.

if this was a thread about coaching teams or playing duets on the piano with my son or doing science experiments together or rubbing my wife's feet or making love or spending holidays with our families - i'd have plenty to talk about there too.

It is getting less and less clear what you mean by "entitlement". Yes, for a long time men were providers, but it was hardly the case that women were therefore entitled to their earnings. They were quite vulnerable, divorce was often illegal and there was no child or spousal support. I doubt may women would like to go back to those times of "entitlement".

Some people (men and women) today consider whatever either party makes to belong to the family, not individuals. Would you consider that entitlement?

PP is still trying to wrap his brain about what this concept of family is that you speak of. He's heard of it.... He read about it in a book one time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their issue is that it's a blended family (wanna guess why his first marriage fell apart?). He feels overburdened by all the kiddos, and possibly some spousal support, and married her only under the condition she wouldn't cost him more money. That's my guess, anyway.

My second guess is that once her children are old enough, she'll be out of there.

I earn $250k+. The burden is no issue. There is no spousal support. And there were no conditions about extra costs.

She and I are very happy, have a warm and honest relationship with lots of hot sex.



I dont know why I expected anything else from this discussion though, ad hominem is the only route people take here rather than actually considering the question. I know the question hits home, obviously. Not a single person has put forth a rational argument as to why a wife shouldn't contribute 50/50 or why she would literally be entitled to a subsidy. Name calling emotional responses, mentions of the 'way it should be' etc - but no real argument.

The only one that actually made any sense had to do with child bearing but I hardly doubt that most woman want to reduce their relationships with their husbands to an exchange like that - i.e. wife gets additional income in exchange for child rearing.

because your "question" is beside the point. normal people do not pose or think about such questions. it never occured to me (or my husband) to demand any kind of split - we simply married because we liked spending time together. the rest of the things (money, childcare, house chores etc) have just worked themselves out (for almost 20 years).

on the other hand, you are obviously very invested into it, both in the real life and here, and one has to wonder why.

no you never considered it, likely because you just assumed that you were entitled to all his earnings without any question, right?

This is where you keep losing people PP. No one is posting about feeling "entitled." These are massive assumptions you're making about people who don't follow the same game plan you and your wife are following. This is why you are turning people off. People are more than capable of having rational discussions with their spouses - their family - and come to different conclusions about what works best for their families without it being a sense of entitlement by one spouse or someone being subsidized by another.

I really wonder what your sense of family is. Because for you, it's a zero sum game, all based on money.

no one said specifically that they were entitled, but when people just start out with ad hominem with no discussion it creates that. the system for how many years has been men provide. its the status quo, or was. the entitlement comes based in the presumptions that are created over time and history in our culture.

i am happy to hear honest discussions and thought processes.

it just seems all to likely that the woman just 'kinda assumed' that husband's higher salary would accrue in portion or in total to her benefit.

and frankly, you have no idea about family life, certainly not enough to say it is "all based on money"

this is a thread about husband and wife and money.

if this was a thread about coaching teams or playing duets on the piano with my son or doing science experiments together or rubbing my wife's feet or making love or spending holidays with our families - i'd have plenty to talk about there too.

It is getting less and less clear what you mean by "entitlement". Yes, for a long time men were providers, but it was hardly the case that women were therefore entitled to their earnings. They were quite vulnerable, divorce was often illegal and there was no child or spousal support. I doubt may women would like to go back to those times of "entitlement".

Some people (men and women) today consider whatever either party makes to belong to the family, not individuals. Would you consider that entitlement?

NP here.

My husband and I split expenses roughly 50/50 too. We don't keep an exact tally. DH and I have made more than one another at different times, and we didn't change that 50/50 based on earnings. It has never been a big deal. We do understand all money earned is shared, just "manage" (invest) our "own" money separately. (Our diversification strategy does depend on what the other's money is invested in, however.)

I'd really like to know what OP's wife spent $15k on, and how much of that were typical monthly expenses. Where is OP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many many documented advantages to breast feeding mothers including:

"Immediately after birth, the repeated suckling of the baby releases oxytocin from the mother's pituitary gland. "

Oxytocin - the bonding chemical - the love chemical

Breastfeeding is, among many other things, a physiologically bonding experience for baby and mother.

If this was written by the PP that keeps posting, game over. This is insane.

how is that insane?


http://www.llli.org/nb/nbjulaug01p124.html

"A Well-Kept Secret
Breastfeeding's Benefits to Mothers
Alicia Dermer, MD, IBCLC "

Ask 10 dads that have lived through newborns learning to breastfeed about the benefits to the mom. 0 will copy and paste a selection from LLL. Probably all 10 will offer words of compassion and possibly a bottle of wine.
-LLL member

well, i've lived through three breast feeding periods and count me as the sole male able to see and understand the totality of the experience - which is confirmed by science and touted by LLL.

i'm sorry you and all these 10 men have seen the experience as so negative.

And you've confirmed 20:09's identification. I can't imagine why the first marriage didn't work out. I am also done with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their issue is that it's a blended family (wanna guess why his first marriage fell apart?). He feels overburdened by all the kiddos, and possibly some spousal support, and married her only under the condition she wouldn't cost him more money. That's my guess, anyway.

My second guess is that once her children are old enough, she'll be out of there.

I earn $250k+. The burden is no issue. There is no spousal support. And there were no conditions about extra costs.

She and I are very happy, have a warm and honest relationship with lots of hot sex.



I dont know why I expected anything else from this discussion though, ad hominem is the only route people take here rather than actually considering the question. I know the question hits home, obviously. Not a single person has put forth a rational argument as to why a wife shouldn't contribute 50/50 or why she would literally be entitled to a subsidy. Name calling emotional responses, mentions of the 'way it should be' etc - but no real argument.

The only one that actually made any sense had to do with child bearing but I hardly doubt that most woman want to reduce their relationships with their husbands to an exchange like that - i.e. wife gets additional income in exchange for child rearing.

because your "question" is beside the point. normal people do not pose or think about such questions. it never occured to me (or my husband) to demand any kind of split - we simply married because we liked spending time together. the rest of the things (money, childcare, house chores etc) have just worked themselves out (for almost 20 years).

on the other hand, you are obviously very invested into it, both in the real life and here, and one has to wonder why.

no you never considered it, likely because you just assumed that you were entitled to all his earnings without any question, right?

This is where you keep losing people PP. No one is posting about feeling "entitled." These are massive assumptions you're making about people who don't follow the same game plan you and your wife are following. This is why you are turning people off. People are more than capable of having rational discussions with their spouses - their family - and come to different conclusions about what works best for their families without it being a sense of entitlement by one spouse or someone being subsidized by another.

I really wonder what your sense of family is. Because for you, it's a zero sum game, all based on money.

no one said specifically that they were entitled, but when people just start out with ad hominem with no discussion it creates that. the system for how many years has been men provide. its the status quo, or was. the entitlement comes based in the presumptions that are created over time and history in our culture.

i am happy to hear honest discussions and thought processes.

it just seems all to likely that the woman just 'kinda assumed' that husband's higher salary would accrue in portion or in total to her benefit.

and frankly, you have no idea about family life, certainly not enough to say it is "all based on money"

this is a thread about husband and wife and money.

if this was a thread about coaching teams or playing duets on the piano with my son or doing science experiments together or rubbing my wife's feet or making love or spending holidays with our families - i'd have plenty to talk about there too.

OK, we get it. Ad hominem is your favorite phrase. We get it.
It's OK for you to make all these assumptions - and that's what they are, huge massive assumptions - about an entire class of people, and you have the audacity to then refer to things as ad hominem attacks on YOU?!
I'm done with you. Glad you found a woman with an inheritance who fits into your money plans. Too bad you'll never know what it's like to truly partner with someone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many many documented advantages to breast feeding mothers including:

"Immediately after birth, the repeated suckling of the baby releases oxytocin from the mother's pituitary gland. "

Oxytocin - the bonding chemical - the love chemical

Breastfeeding is, among many other things, a physiologically bonding experience for baby and mother.

If this was written by the PP that keeps posting, game over. This is insane.

how is that insane?


http://www.llli.org/nb/nbjulaug01p124.html

"A Well-Kept Secret
Breastfeeding's Benefits to Mothers
Alicia Dermer, MD, IBCLC "

Ask 10 dads that have lived through newborns learning to breastfeed about the benefits to the mom. 0 will copy and paste a selection from LLL. Probably all 10 will offer words of compassion and possibly a bottle of wine.
-LLL member

well, i've lived through three breast feeding periods and count me as the sole male able to see and understand the totality of the experience - which is confirmed by science and touted by LLL.

i'm sorry you and all these 10 men have seen the experience as so negative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their issue is that it's a blended family (wanna guess why his first marriage fell apart?). He feels overburdened by all the kiddos, and possibly some spousal support, and married her only under the condition she wouldn't cost him more money. That's my guess, anyway.

My second guess is that once her children are old enough, she'll be out of there.

I earn $250k+. The burden is no issue. There is no spousal support. And there were no conditions about extra costs.

She and I are very happy, have a warm and honest relationship with lots of hot sex.



I dont know why I expected anything else from this discussion though, ad hominem is the only route people take here rather than actually considering the question. I know the question hits home, obviously. Not a single person has put forth a rational argument as to why a wife shouldn't contribute 50/50 or why she would literally be entitled to a subsidy. Name calling emotional responses, mentions of the 'way it should be' etc - but no real argument.

The only one that actually made any sense had to do with child bearing but I hardly doubt that most woman want to reduce their relationships with their husbands to an exchange like that - i.e. wife gets additional income in exchange for child rearing.

because your "question" is beside the point. normal people do not pose or think about such questions. it never occured to me (or my husband) to demand any kind of split - we simply married because we liked spending time together. the rest of the things (money, childcare, house chores etc) have just worked themselves out (for almost 20 years).

on the other hand, you are obviously very invested into it, both in the real life and here, and one has to wonder why.

no you never considered it, likely because you just assumed that you were entitled to all his earnings without any question, right?

This is where you keep losing people PP. No one is posting about feeling "entitled." These are massive assumptions you're making about people who don't follow the same game plan you and your wife are following. This is why you are turning people off. People are more than capable of having rational discussions with their spouses - their family - and come to different conclusions about what works best for their families without it being a sense of entitlement by one spouse or someone being subsidized by another.

I really wonder what your sense of family is. Because for you, it's a zero sum game, all based on money.

no one said specifically that they were entitled, but when people just start out with ad hominem with no discussion it creates that. the system for how many years has been men provide. its the status quo, or was. the entitlement comes based in the presumptions that are created over time and history in our culture.

i am happy to hear honest discussions and thought processes.

it just seems all to likely that the woman just 'kinda assumed' that husband's higher salary would accrue in portion or in total to her benefit.

and frankly, you have no idea about family life, certainly not enough to say it is "all based on money"

this is a thread about husband and wife and money.

if this was a thread about coaching teams or playing duets on the piano with my son or doing science experiments together or rubbing my wife's feet or making love or spending holidays with our families - i'd have plenty to talk about there too.