Yesshe's an absolute animal in bed... Thst was also a factor... we would argue like crazy and then she would remove her clothing and pounce. It was like she got off to arguing with me. Pathetic... In fact we had huge arguments because I'd turn her down, and she would punch the wall or dresser screaming "I want to fuck!!!" And so I'd go downstairs and she would take her clothes off and masturbate on the couch near me to get me in the mood or grab me. Sex was great I guess but she was absolutely insane and told me she wanted sex so much because it was the only time she ever feels loved or wanted. Nightmare...
Her dad cheated on her mom and destroyed the marriage so she was beyond insecure. She was having sex with a 22 year old at 16 and when she used to work at dairy queen she would have sex in the back room on a daily basis with her manager. She had a train run on her at 17 and one of the guys was a second cousin or some crazy shit (she claims she didn't know).
She used to tell me she would cheat on her ex all of the time and love it when he got upset. Said she enjoyed it when men felt they were used by her...
I was told all of this after getting married.... It was too late then. She said "I just wanna be honest with you". Yea ok.. Thanks for telling me you're s huge whore after you got a ring. My own fault.. I saw the red flags, she could give a bj like a porn star... I'm an idiot![]()
I know.. and the problem is she doesn't think she is. I remember I was crying when I found out she was having sex at work and the literal words out of this woman's mouth were "good this is your fault. I should get a high five because guys get high fives for getting pussy at work, I should get one for sucking *dudes name" cock at work. Don't worry I didn't swallow even though I wanted to, he wouldn't let me because he has more respect for me than thst"
I remember standing there with tears in my eyes completely blown away at what was just said to me.
I didn't realize how important prenups were until now
Pre-nups, boys.
Don't let them fool you. "If you love me you wouldn't make me sign a pre-nup!" = "He's onto me!"
But if it was just two adults, then it should be treated like any other break up.
Your second job means you working weekends thus can't see your kids. Can't you quit that job and say its so you can spend time with your kids? Sorry if it's been mentioned already, reading on the phone and might have missed it.
OP's lawyer sounds like Larry David's lawyer. Find another one ASAP, if possible.
Stories like the one in the OP are why I would never, ever, ever get married without a prenup. Ever. Its also why I would never marry someone who wasn't on my same level financially.
A pre nup doesn't work like that. It's amazing how many people think pre-nups are a way to get rid of any responsibility. A pre-nup would have done nothing to help him here even if he had one.
I know exactly how a prenup works, thank you. I have assets to protect right now. And as I said, I would never marry someone who didn't make a decent living (i.e. contribute equally on a financial level).
They are. I know so many women I would call terrible mothers who got full custody all because they said their husbands abused them, which they didn't. Cops didn't even investigate, they just said "Whelp, your wife must be telling the truth!"
I know plenty of people who are stay-at-homes, and they still earn money outside of the usual benefit schemes. There's work that can be done from home that will still bring in a tidy pay packet each month, and still allow the stay-at-home to look after the child. This whole 'sacrificing their career' thing is bullshit. You can still have a career and be a parent at the same time, meaning you can be independent and not rely on your partner's wallet should the marriage fall apart.The idea being that one party (especially a stay at home parent) give/gave up the time required to have built up their education, position at a company, etc due to the partnership. So one partner was able to work toward and achieve certain goals while the other sacrificed similar goals for the relationship/situation.
People keep mentioning a pre-nup like that would help here. Marriage is just a bad contract tbh..
Forcing you to keep a job doesn't sound possible.I have, he said thst because I worked the two jobs for over two years they will force me to keep the hours because its what my children are used to, is having that income
He's not technically forced to have two jobs. He's forced to supply a certain amount of income though.Forcing you to keep a job doesn't sound possible.
Damn, you really found someone at the top of that hot/crazy scale didn't you?
Hope it works out in the end, sounds like some bullshit you're going through.
What happens if you get fired and can't pay? Fuck up that second job and get rid of it sounds like the best thing to do right now.
This is by far more important in his scenario than a pre-nup.
How have you not mention this to the judge or your lawyer? Bruh, you're a better man than me because I probably would've snapped
That also seems unconstitutional.He's not technically forced to have two jobs. He's forced to supply a certain amount of income though.
He's not technically forced to have two jobs. He's forced to supply a certain amount of income though.
Holyshit Illinois sucksMaintience is calculated before child support. In the past judges sometimes didn't allow maintience however Illinois changed their law last year stating maintaincen is mandatory now. Maintience can be up to 40% of your income, which is then added to child support which is 32% of your income.. Basically don't get married and have kids![]()
There is some merit to the argument. Let's say that John and Jane both get married at the age of 20. Jane becomes pregnant and stops going to school. John continues his education, gets a job, and they both agree that John will earn the income and Jane will raise their child. After 10 years, John and Jane have a divorce. If they simply split up and only child support was paid, then Jane sacrificed 10 years of her professional life for nothing and John had a free 10 year full time babysitter. This is certainly unfair.I will never understand the concept of paying an ex spouse anything he/she did not help earn. I dont even care about the idea that the mother of your children cannot be left helpless.
No, she is a grown ass woman, she should sort her own shit.
Only payments you should have to pay is towards your children and every month you should get a itemised breakdown of exactly where your money went towards your childs upkeep.
The whole concept is ridiciolus and I wont ever get married because of it.
Except Jane isn't necessarily forced to that. Like you said it was also her decision. If she wasn't ready to sacrifice 10 years of her professional life, maybe she should have chosen daycare. It was a trade off she chose in order to better accompany her child growing up in a way John probably could never hope for.There is some merit to the argument. Let's say that John and Jane both get married at the age of 20. Jane becomes pregnant and stops going to school. John continues his education, gets a job, and they both agree that John will earn the income and Jane will raise their child. After 10 years, John and Jane have a divorce. If they simply split up and only child support was paid, then Jane sacrificed 10 years of her professional life for nothing and John had a free 10 year full time babysitter. This is certainly unfair.
The problems with alimony as it is is that it scales too much to how much the other makes and it lasts too long. But the idea behind it is reasonable.
if your a man its frown upon to adopt aloneYeah, the prospect of having children or marriage can be frightening to say the least if one of the spouses tries to fuck you up. This case in particular had some huge obvious red flags, but it's not always as obvious like this. Sometimes people just change for worse over time.
If I ever eventually want to leave some sort of legacy by contributing positively to someone's life and have the time and money, I'll probably just try single parent adoption...
That also seems unconstitutional.
But it's sad to see that level of income specified by what was likely an unsustainable arrangement, even if they had stayed married.
But the money he owes is supposed to be based on what he makes, not the maximal amount that he's ever made.What part of the Constitution does it violate? There's plenty of cases where a ruling has been made about money owed and suddenly changing your employment or income doesn't change how much money you owe.
That also seems unconstitutional.
But the money he owes is supposed to be based on what he makes, not the maximal amount that he's ever made.
But the money he owes is supposed to be based on what he makes, not the maximal amount that he's ever made.
And potential being reached isn't always under his control. Hell, some people work 80 hour jobs for a while and later decide they don't want to do that anymore. A divorce shouldn't force they stick to that 80 hour job just because that is where they set their 80 hour potential.My understanding is that it's set based on what the person had demonstrated the capability to earn. That way he can't just take a shit job and pay less. He's on the hook for potential, basically.
There is some merit to the argument. Let's say that John and Jane both get married at the age of 20. Jane becomes pregnant and stops going to school. John continues his education, gets a job, and they both agree that John will earn the income and Jane will raise their child. After 10 years, John and Jane have a divorce. If they simply split up and only child support was paid, then Jane sacrificed 10 years of her professional life for nothing and John had a free 10 year full time babysitter. This is certainly unfair.
The problems with alimony as it is is that it scales too much to how much the other makes and it lasts too long. But the idea behind it is reasonable.
Is this a serious post? I honestly can't tell.No. Jane sacrificed 10 years of her professional life to raise her child.
The idea that it is somehow "unfair" that she is somehow disadvantaged by looking after the child she helped to conceive and willing brought to term is the same undercurrent sexism that is the problem with divorce laws.
100% correctNo. Jane sacrificed 10 years of her professional life to raise her child.
The idea that it is somehow "unfair" that she is somehow disadvantaged by looking after the child she helped to conceive and willing brought to term is the same undercurrent sexism that is the problem with divorce laws.
Is this a serious post? I honestly can't tell.
Holyshit Illinois sucks
I do hope to get married in a couple years but after knowing the person very well cause wtf man.
Op how young where you when you got married?
Who cares if it's frown upon? Of course I know chances would be much slimmer, but I want to believe some social services actually have the better interest of kids in mind.if your a man its frown upon to adopt alone