The rewritten rules of marriage and divorce

[VK]

A wimpish knave. A charlatan. VK, you are a merkin and a tatty one at that.

In case you haven't read the board rules, personal attacks are not allowed.

Just how do you see that as an attack?  He is likening you to a pubic wig not calling you an asshole.

And that isn't a personal attack?

wimpish: Characteristic of a 'wimp'; feeble, ineffectual; snivelling

knave: A boy or lad employed as a servant; hence, a male servant or menial in general; one of low condition.

charlatan:  assuming empty pretender to knowledge or skill; a pretentious impostor

merkin: An artificial covering of hair for the female pubic region; a pubic wig for women. Also: an artificial vagina.  typical name (usu. derogatory) for: a lower-class, untidy, or sluttish woman, esp. a servant or country girl. An impotent or effeminate man; a weakling

[dr e]

I saw it as a playful response where he was teasing you.  Let's hear what Sir Percy has to say about this.  Was it meant as a personal attack SP?

[VK]

My apologies then, I guess I must be feeling a little oversensitive.

[devia]

I'm glad it's been established that VK wasn't going to punch the guy out.

Old English terms do not mean it's not a personal attack, that being said VK you sure have gone on the defensive hence pretty much looking for an attack of some sort.

Besides this, when people take advantage of people for finacial gains it is morally wrong.. period. I'd guess we can all agree with that.

[FP]

A wimpish knave. A charlatan. VK, you are a merkin and a tatty one at that.

:roll:

[Sir Percy]

That is an attack? That is a description.

[SIAM]

Besides this, when people take advantage of people for finacial gains it is morally wrong.. period. I'd guess we can all agree with that.

Yeah, and there are many, many women who do it.  Is it a coincidence that women almost always 'marry up'?  Aren't they taking advantage of their husbands for financial gain? Or is that somehow different? I'm interested in VK's sense of outrage because this time round it happens to be a man taking advantage of a woman's finances.

[Setaseba]

Besides this, when people take advantage of people for finacial gains it is morally wrong.. period. I'd guess we can all agree with that.

Yeah, and there are many, many women who do it.  Is it a coincidence that women almost always 'marry up'?  Aren't they taking advantage of their husbands for financial gain? Or is that somehow different? I'm interested in VK's sense of outrage because this time round it happens to be a man taking advantage of a woman's finances.

i've met women who saw themselves as failures; as less-than-women when they ended up on the losing end of these kinds of exchanges. the society of women tells them that they are supposed to get the kids, the house etc etc and when they don't or have to pay, they see it as failing as a woman - a "what's wrong with me" kind of thing. it's hard on their ego to be sure

IMO women are just like men in most respects when it comes to a relationship. they want it to be good and enduring and it isn't about money (although any honest woman will tell you that it helps). Also, i have difficulty with the idea that "woman almost always 'marry up'". most women, like most men, don't have the looks, bucks or status to really marry up - the prospective groom is usually someone in her own economic or social sphere and the difference in incomes is usually not that huge, at least in the beginning

my own feeling is that there are just as many cads as gold-diggers out there

[zarby]

That may be so.

The difference is that the law doesn't actively conspire with and assist the CADS.

The law does actively conspire with and assist the gold diggers.

I have no problem with the assertion that men would probably be just as bad as women if the law were reversed.

But, that is just a hypothetical. I doubt we will ever got to test this hypothesis at least not anytime in our life times.

[Setaseba]

The law does actively conspire with and assist the gold diggers.

I have no problem with the assertion that men would probably be just as bad as women if the law were reversed.

But, that is just a hypothetical. I doubt we will ever got to test this hypothesis at least not anytime in our life times.

yep, that's the main difference between the cads and gold-diggers alright. gov't/judicial aid and abetting

personally though, i'd be prouder of us if we could remove the special priviledges of women rather than just benefitting from the same kind of scam some of them run in court

[Daymar]

the society of women tells them that they are supposed to get the kids, the house etc etc and when they don't or have to pay, they see it as failing as a woman - a "what's wrong with me" kind of thing. it's hard on their ego to be sure

LMAO. That's nice.

So when they feel like they're in the same position as a man, they feel less then a woman. The poor things! How can you not feel sympathy.

[VK]

Besides this, when people take advantage of people for finacial gains it is morally wrong.. period. I'd guess we can all agree with that.

Yeah, and there are many, many women who do it.  Is it a coincidence that women almost always 'marry up'?  Aren't they taking advantage of their husbands for financial gain? Or is that somehow different? I'm interested in VK's sense of outrage because this time round it happens to be a man taking advantage of a woman's finances.

I'd be just as horrified the other way round. I think the worst part is they had an agreement he'd support her for the next year, and it looks like he is gonna welsh. (I'd also like to point out it wasn't like he was keeping house for her - he was out most of the day, either studying or drinking or directing student shows). At least most of the times women marry up, the husband gets washing and cooking included.

Normally I think divorce settlements should be straightforward - each leaves with whatever they brought to the marriage, and half of anything gained as a couple since the start of the marriage.  But that doesn't seem fair here, and I'm not sure what would be.

[Malakas]

Normally I think divorce settlements should be straightforward - each leaves with whatever they brought to the marriage, and half of anything gained as a couple since the start of the marriage. But that doesn't seem fair here, and I'm not sure what would be.

You know what's the simple flaw in that VK? IT WOULD MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE.
(And I thought my country was dysfunctional).