On the flip side, if a woman has a problem with a man being non-committal, she should deal with him in particular instead of writing columns bemoaning *all* the young men who don't want to get married.

Waaaaa... I bet the men cited above are the exact commitmentphobes that are in their 40's, unattractive, successful and trying to hook up with 28 year old hotties.

And yes, women who marry expect things, shock!!! Show me the guy who gets married and isn't thiking that finally someone else will decorate, plan and cook meals, do laundry. And even if the wife isn't doing all that, I bet it's her responsibility to find the housekeeper.

Men were so much hotter before they were turned into girls, thanks trailblazers!

Instead of pronouncing these comments "sad," why don't you engage them? How hard is it to accept that life is tough for men in the West, less so for women? Men are expected to live up to all the burdens of the past, without the perks; with women, the opposite. Women these days are immature and treat men as accessories.

I've always been seriously interested in a woman; women, never in me. And lest you think I'm some desperate loser: I'm handsome, highly intellignet, well to do (my family has money, too). I've always had girls/women attracted to me.

What I see around me is good guys getting burned all over the place. I see women playing the field from 15-35 and then suddenly wanting a good guy to give them a baby (when said baby arrives, of course they divorce the father, and he can pay for mother and child for the next two decades).

Honestly, I've learned to treat all women as whores until the opposite is proven. Pump 'm and dump 'm unkess they refuse. Then you can consider them for something more serious.

Honestly, I've learned to treat all women as whores until the opposite is proven.

And you can't figure out why the ones you like don't like you back? You already "pumped and dumped" half of their spinning class.

Posted by: Ari at November 19, 2008 02:12 PM

Yeah, it's amazing how easy it is to commit when you don't have to pay for the wedding, don't have to pay for the counseling, and don't have to pay for the divorce.

Yes Bob and it's awesome to have a baby with over a 50% chance of raising it alone.

Men, as humans, must act rationally. Avoiding a situation where you are effectively signing away your literal life is quite rational.

Why are men avoiding marriage?

Because your "wife" can have you forcibly removed from your home, have a claim on your current and future assets and cut off any contact with your children. All for the "cost" if a make a sexual harassment claim, not that you would hurt her but that she THINKS you could.

It is very rational to avoid marriage.

"Yeah, it's amazing how easy it is to commit when you don't have to pay for the wedding, don't have to pay for the counseling, and don't have to pay for the divorce."

Wait - I missed something there, Bob, you maintain that men are paying for weddings? Yeah? Really? I call bullshit on that.

Using sex as a manipulation tactic to gain access to a bank account and guaranteed child support is a winning strategy for women. But it's a losing proposition for men.

That's why modern women are only left with boys to play with and bankrupt. Men would rather have the money.

You know, the arguments against marriage always seem to come down to A) the woman is just after the guy's money and B)feminism made women not need men anymore. But which is it? These things are mutually exclusive, it really can't be both. We either need men to take care of us or we don't.

I think this is kind of like the political media. 1% of the population is making 99% of the noise.

The men that I know in real life are lovely. And act like men. But online, it's one big whiny, pseudonym-laden, woman-hating echo chamber.

Maybe I'm not in the right social stratus, but I have maybe half a dozen close friends and relatives in their 30s or 40s who are divorced, and none of the men pay alimony. They all pay child support, which is a different animal. And yes, I know that child support terms can be onerous, and there's no real way to know if your ex-wife is spending the money on the kids or herself. But the women aren't getting rich by a long shot. They're going back to work and raising kids by themselves. Maybe these gold-digger scenarios apply to serious high-rollers with trophy wives, but I've never witnessed it in real life.

I have been reading most of these articles and cross blogs all morning. I tend to have an impulsive distrust of women, their motives and designs. I find, in my own history, that I blindly trusted a potential mate too frequently. This blind trust is considered a virtue that Hollywood regularly cements as essential to "true love". Nothing was further from the truth.

I found one of my former mates was using me solely for purposes of housing in an expensive east coast city. She was dumb enough to text message friends about this fact on a cell phone for which I was paying.

Men do not trust women anymore. It seems that pop culture has doubled down on the infidelity meme and portraying hapless, retarded husbands as financing their wives multitudinous infidelity. The more sexually promiscuous women are portrayed on television and in film - married with questionably anecdotal tales told during football gatherings - men will simply believe that marriage is a doomed proposition.

Men now have movies and film portraying vast spousal infidelity as feminist chic. We have statistics telling us that we have a coin-flip's chance of staying with our spouse for any length of time. We have tales of co-workers, relatives, and friends. Each describes the horrors of a controlling, manipulative, cheating spouse and her desire to rip our children away from us and make men foot the bill.

And people think men are being adolescent? In this current environment, I believe men who do marry are either fools enslaved to a soft heart or a hard crotch.

Karol,

I don't think those 2 items (They want money/Don't need) are incompatible. In fact, it may be the root of the problem. In the past (i.e. when I got married) women wanted marriage to be supported, loved and to have kids. Today, they still want to be supported (get the money) but know that they don't need a man around the house. So when they feel less "love" they are quick to pull the divorce trigger.

And Tanya...

I don't give my name for a multitude of reasons (google Deb Frisch) and I am by no means a "woman hater" (or a "hater" at all thank you very much). In fact my wife and I will celebrate 24 years of marriage and 28 years together this spring.

Sinner, in my life, all I've seen are men who leave at the first sign of trouble and disinterest. As my post specifies, I hate the "men suck" genre of thinking but the "women suck" one is really no better.

After *my* blowing the first marriage, and recognizing the pain caused all around by the divorce, I vowed not to do it again until I could commit to the relationship come heck or high water. During my late twenties to early thirties, I dated little, and found most men to be more interested in "Barbie" than an intelligent woman who had more going for her than an impossible figure and fawning attitude. I didn't want the star quarterback of an NFL team either. I just wanted someone who didn't want to marry his mother in an starlet suit, was willing to take responsibility for himself, his own decisions, and his commitment to me and our family. Frankly, I believe men as a species have taken a beating out there. But my experience shows that there are are way too many of them out there that refuse to look beyond the "trophy wife" category for what could be a stellar wife-type of relationship. And I've watched way to many "women" who have no idea how to listen, or take responsibility for their own actions, expect to get everything their own way, and are classless and just awful to be around. Maybe it's just time for everyone to grow up and start being a little more responsible for themselves. I'm happily married now - after a lot of searching.

uh-oh.
That topic seems to always attract fireworks. The last time it irritated me enough to get involved in the flame war was @*neo - and how I regret it!
http://neoneocon.com/2007/11/01/getting-married-whats-in-it-for-me-part-i/
http://neoneocon.com/2007/11/02/getting-married-whats-in-it-for-me-part-ii/
http://neoneocon.com/2007/11/07/liberty-marriage-divorce/

Just D and did so because my wife of 8 years found 'the love of her life'.They also opened up 13 credit cards in both our names and this bum charged up $90,000 in debt to me.After confronting her on this she said,You work 16 hours a day ,making $150,000 ,and I was bored.Huge house 500 aweek spending money for just herself and a Lexus.I Fing hate women and wish I could just be Fing gay.Never again will I get married.

I don't give my name for a multitude of reasons (google Deb Frisch)

Unless your name is Xarflax, I think you could probably manage a first name while retaining your anonymity. :o)

And what made you think I was talking about you? Your comment was pessimistic, but certainly not as toxic as many of them.

Damn Don. Best of luck to you and a speedy recovery.

Don, I'd be pretty bitter too if I were as successfully clueless as you.

Karol, point taken.

I certainly don't want to say "women suck", more like the "family court" system that enables the (low numbers of) horrible women to effectively destroy a man's life "sucks".

Tanya, you don't know Frisch like I know Frisch...

70% of Divorces are initiated by women. 96% of Alimony is awarded to women. The people who are doing the walking away, are the ones getting paid. And walk they do. These laws known as "No Fault Alimony" were bundled quitely along with the "No Fault Divorce" legal changes in the early 70's. I am not sure if any of the lawmakers at the time realized it was nothing more than a perverse financial incentive for women to divorce. Fast forward thirty years, and now we have 70% of divorces being filed by women, who then get rewarded $$$'s for doing so.

Under the no-fault regime, why should any man get married? It took 30 years, but men are finally waking up.

MGTOW

As a heterosexual, never married, 54-year-old female, I am quite satisfied with living a life without a man. Always have been. Nothing was more burdensome to me than the thought of getting married, having babies, getting divorced then living close to poverty level trying to support a house with children whose father doesn't make enough money to support himself let alone another household. And this decision was made at the ripe old age of 16. At that time, I saw first-hand the other side of the "wedded bliss" syndrome.

I've always had a simple philosophy in life that I've passed on to my nieces: if you can't support yourself, you can't support anyone else.

Whatever happened to LOVE?

You know, the true definition that says one cares for another more than one's self. That being without their mate is not an option forever and ever.

silly me!

I have been happily married for 15 years to a man who is my best friend. We have always wondered what makes us different. Reading these comments makes me sad. You must all live in a very lonely world.

You are grown ups. Make good choices. Take responsibility for your actions, trust and respect each other, and stop being so selfish.

Why would a man marry a woman in america
when she is most likely going to
use sex as a weapon
use money as a weapon
use children as a weapon
use the law as a weapon

All a woman has to do is to call the police
or even if she has a bruise the doctor will call the police for her and throw the mans ass in jail

then when he gets out guess what he looses everything and to make it worse has to pay spouse suppport and child support.

Yes their are bad men out there too i realize that but this is sheer insanity.

Just like the public schools who complained that they dont have any White men in the classroom.
WHY because they ran them all out calling them child molesters and racists..

Hey you made your bed now sleep in it.

---
Posted by: Ari at November 19, 2008 03:45 PM
Don, I'd be pretty bitter too if I were as successfully clueless as you.
---

Ari : I don't know if you are conscious of it, but what you have just resorted to against Don is called a Shaming Tactic. Shaming tactics are basically Ad Homimem attacks. Emotional devices meant to play on your opponents insecurities and shut down the debate. To demonize those who ask hard questions.

Well done.

*csparky: why men (never mind, specifically, White men) need to be in the (the?) classroom? do they all have ...er...arrested development? I thought school age is up to 18yo, max.

I don't know even one divorced woman who lives on "spouse support". The courts will only award it in case the woman wasn't working outside of home during marriage - and how many families now can live on one income? Besides, in this case - what was the wife was doing all day while staying home? Wasn't she the one keeping the house taken cared for, kids fed, educated and in good health - while husband's contribution was his salary? Looks like a normal division of labor to me. So, it doesn't make sense to complain "the men looses everything" - that "everything wasn't all his to begin with.

Besides, you're coming out like such a gift for a girl, you know: bruises...doctor...police...jail...

Dearest Tat,

You're just plain wrong. I'm divorced from a woman who worked professionally during our marriage, and I've paid her support for the past ten years. Add to that, she makes a very good living, AND she remarried over a year ago without telling the court, or me. So, I'm realisitically paying another man to fuck her. Good work if you can get it. Maybe in another year or two, I'll get the court to stop taking spousal support from me. Oh but surely I'll get any monies returned that shouldn't have been paid to her, right? No fucking way. It's a one-way street. They go after men to collect, and when they take too much, well they're just not set up to reimburse.

Ari, I always appreciated your cutting wit, until today. A man is stupid because he's been betrayed? Yes, stupid for marrying her in the first place.

I've always loved Zorba's line in Zorba the Greek, when being questioned by the Englishman about whether he's ever been married. He answers, "Wife, house, children, divorce... the full treatment."

Jeeez... if someone opened up multiple credit cards in my name and demolished my credit, you can damn well bet I'm up enough on my finances to have caught that and then had them arrested for stealing/impersonating/credit fraud. No one on top of things gets that fleeced. A cheater can be smart, granted. But not being aware of your own finances? That's Don's fault. Not mine nor his scummy ex.

And shame on you guys for being mad at me for saying so. Don got taken because he let himself be, do I feel badly? Sure. Culpable? No. How did she get 13!! cards past him? Come on - Casca and David, what girl has done that to you?

Ari you do have a point; that Don took his eyes off the wheel for too long.

But this is the whole point about modern-day marriage. You have to watch your back the whole time. It is basically loading a gun and handing it to another person, where the only person that they can shoot with it ... is you.

Check out item #6 in the below list. No Due Process for the Other Spouse in what is now called "Unilateral Divorce":

http://massalimonyreform.org/legislation.html#civil_rights

Before you say it does not happen in real life, check out a recent case from the American Bar Association Journal:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/former_big_firm_lawyer_now_unemployed_still_on_the_hook_for_alimony/

So would you say, like Don, all these gullible men are "stupid" for trusting the law of the land and getting married? I guess you are right.

Oh, so Casca darlin', your premise is that when you were married you essentially paid your wife for the privilege to fuck her (using your briliant expression), and that since she has another man to supply that service for exclusively - your alimony is taken from you wrongly? Were you married to a prostitute? What a charming marriage.

I think your lawyer (and a judge) did a bad job explaing to you what the alimony is for and how it's calculated.

Yeah, I think the divorce/custody laws and the whole legal divorce system in this country is a horrible convoluted illogical mess - but after reading comments on the threads I listed above, that sound similar to what you said, I'm surprised it is not MORE convoluted and illogical and unfair.

No, no, I'm paying her NOT to fuck me.

This is a nice little analogy here. No matter what the men say, or relate from personal experience, they're wrong. Now where have I seen that before? Yet the spinsters are all-knowing.

I too noted both the captioned posts and while I felt they were both groping somewhat for answers, I think the both missed. My latest post at watchcenter.blogspot.com explains why!

Now this is just a depressing thread.
After reading this discussion, I might just need a drink or two for courage next time I go up to a young lady!

I'm not ready for marriage and family, but I also don't feel like a one night fling. I suppose at 31, I might still be a man-boy, but I fully respect the feelings and goals of women.

I don't understand the disdain of evolutionary psychology. Men programmed to want to provide for their young, but also to have as many women as possible. Women are programmed to find mates who are socially powerful, have the resources to fund a family, and are (or at least seem) loyal and loving. It is the role of society and culture to curb this instinct. That is the role of marriage as a social contract. (I am not denigrating the personal commitment of love, loyalty, fidelity, perseverance, honesty and friendship.)

PS. If you were interested in Hymnowitz's piece
you might like Diana West's "Death of the Grown Up"
http://www.dianawest.net/

Casca, 1)there was no analogy present. 2) who do you call a spinster?

Tanya, you don't know Frisch like I know Frisch...

If I recall her correctly, I think I'm glad. Isn't she the one who threatened Jeff Goldstein's little boy, because he wrote something she didn't like?

Tatyana,

For once I'm going to defend Casca and point out that, yes, in this case he _is_ paying her so another man can screw her brains out. Alimony is supposed to stop when marriage happens.

Casca, I strongly suggest you sue your ex for fraud. It has some success even behind blue state lines--seems that certain judges take a dim view to someone basically making their profession seem like jacka**es. If you're really feeling vindictive, you can probably glean two or more torts from her and the man in question (seeing as he would have had to be a party to the fraud). I'm not normally sue happy, but unfortunately our society has "progressed" to the point where merrily taking it out of his hide every month is frowned upon.

Ari, sorry, but the fact that you pay for your wedding does not track to ergo all men forever more _owe_ you. You want to pay for a party where everyone comes to celebrate that you can finally do the horizontal monkey dance without having to beg for forgiveness (if you believe that's a sin in your religion) or they get to illustrate their undying affection towards you via toaster that's your lookout--but it doesn't mean everyone else's point is invalid. Quite frankly, given that the groom normally pays for the honeymoon, if you're spending a crap load of money that could be used for a downpayment on a house for such an event then maybe you need to have your priorities examined. Bottom line--if you're going to feel entitled, justice of the peace may be the way to go. Having done both, I can honestly say that as long as the other party is someone you love and respect you'll be almost as happy.

In general, as the son of one of the world's meanest divorce lawyers who was also a circuit court judge for six years, I can say that both sides can get utterly screwed by the state of matrimony and neither side has a monopoly on being good spouses.

In the end, having been married to the same woman (she who was the opposite party at both weddings detailed above) for eight years, I can only say marriage is what you make of it. If you marry a vindictive she-b*tch who is only out to defraud you, odds are you're going to be standing in court getting fleeced or standing over some hopefully deep lake with a weighted tarp hoping you tied the knots right. On the other hand, if you marry some abusive jacka** who never held down a job and had three kids by two women _before_ you met him...well, odds are you're going to end up sitting at home with three kids working double shifts and that bastard nowhere to be found. What's the common theme here? Generally the person you decide to get engaged to is going to be the same after you jump the broom than before and, if someone gave you and your best friend truth serum, odds are one or both of you saw the train wreck coming.

So, while we can all think of examples where someone was a wench or a boor, most of us can also think of cases where we've known a couple who have been in love as long as we've been alive...or at least as long as we've known them. Know what? They didn't just have the fairie sprinkle magic dust on them and end up that way. Relationships are what you choose to make of them and generally, if you're thinking with your brain rather than your genitalia you don't end up blindsided.

On the other hand, if your reason for marrying the person is they make your eyes cross in the bedroom, they have a fat bank account, or you're scared of dying alone...well, when you play dice with the Devil sometimes you get horribly singed.

James - I didn't say I expect anything because I'd pay for a wedding (I actually wouldn't because there are way better ways to spend money) - anyway, I have no idea where you got that. I just think both sexes expect perks from marriage.

P.S. By the way, all those decrying "no fault" divorce are generally being taken in by a snow job. If your attorney tells you "no fault" means that "you're both equally screwed," fire them IMMEDIATELY.

In most states, "no fault" simply means that facts of the matter are not pertinent to determining whose "fault" it is for breaking the marital contract. On the other hand, I know at least two former circuit court judges (yes, one of them I share DNA with, but still) whose response to a filing party's whimper about losing the house was to point out that maybe they should've considered remaining faithful to their spouses.

Rarely, if ever, are a judge's hands tied when it comes to adjudicating assets--and in general you are paying your attorney to make sure you end up in front of the right judge who may see things your way.

James, I see you didn't get it. I don't want to get involved into taking sides, judging Casca'a situation by his words only, or considering his legal chances - and I don't think you should, either.
What I'm saying is the whole premise, charmingly expressed as in "I'm paying her alimony so she can get fucked by another man for free" is deeply morally wrong, because by extension it means - "as long as I'm paying you, my wife, you are obligated to fuck me" is the foundation of marriage, in Casca's mind.
Tell me I misunderstood you, Casca.
Oh, and by the way: if, as you say, you're paying her NOT to fuck you - what are you complaining about? You will pay her for the rest of her life. Rinse and repeat.

Tatyana - Before you get offended even more, let's clarify the whole historic reason for Alimony. It is essentially paying a woman for past-rendered spousal-services, which mainly includes Sex. That is why it stops when the ex-wife remarries.

Essentially what Alimony says is:

1) A woman's whole worth can be summarized by her sexual services. Nothing less, nothing more.

2) Whomever is doing the most recent boning needs to pay up. If not the ex-husband, then the new husband.

I am sorry but it really is absolutely all about the boning. If you are offended don't get angry at us. Get angry at the way the DIVORCE LAWS are written. Write to your state representatives to have these archaic reformed. This will also be the only way to end the marriage-strike movement.

David, before I'll get offended more you tell me that alimony is pay-for-past-sex?

No, I don't get angry at you. I pity you. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with sickos or been obliged to understand their screwup logic.

I am going to change the topic slightly here, but here is a recorded podcast from this past spring when Kay Hymowitz is a guest author on the Tom Leykis show talking about the huge backlash of emails she received after her initial article.

http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/886957.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/886984.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/887004.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/887010.mp3

She actually defended her original positions pretty well on the show, and gave as well she got. (and it's not easy holding your own against Tom Leykis). I would say she is an intellectual heavyweight in her own right.

Tatyana,

Fair enough--but juding solely from Casca's words yes, he is getting the short straw. I don't think it does our society as a whole any good when someone is getting the short straw, male or female, as it starts to make a mockery of the justice system.

Ari,

Misunderstood your intent for this comment (sorry, can't do cool italic things):

"Wait - I missed something there, Bob, you maintain that men are paying for weddings? Yeah? Really? I call bullshit on that."

David,

Sorry, but if marriage was all about the boning (and thus divorce / alimony is therefore about divvying services rendered) then I'm afraid someone's missing the point. I married my wife because I loved and respected her...oh, and she puts up with me being crazy. All the other stuff (warm bed at night, being introduced to the wonders of cat ownership, etc., etc.) is pretty much a bonus.

So, yeah, while I agree that marriage laws need to be changed, I think arguing "because my wife is basically a really good animatronic blowup doll and I'm tired of paying rental fees for a device I'm not using anymore" is probably not a good approach. Instead, try "arguing that a man should continue to pay so his wife can maintain a social station when her lazy a** can go out and get a job herself"--might get you a bit further.

How much longer will it take before marriage is seen for what it is: slavery?

If men don't want to commit, then let's abolish marriage altogether. This will fix the problem once and for all.

I'm all for serial monogamy. Short bouts of super sex, then on to the next.

Believe me, this is the only way to live.

The world would be such a better place to live if everybody had unlimited personal freedom.

Oh yeah, the world would be an awesome place if "everyone had unlimited personal freedom ". Let's just call it what it is : all rights and no responsibilities. Yeah, that'll work.

Set aside the incredible incidence of STD's that would accumulate ( we now have 12 year old girls being innoculated against ust 4 of the many strains of HPV ); set aside the incredible disregard for how evolution has programmed us ; set aside that most people can't properly handle that kind of unltd freedom -- no, the question is why wouldn't society just collapse back into pre-civilization ? Why would men have any incentive to have a family? Because, you know.. families are the building blocks of civilization .. small item to overlook to be sure

Posted by: Sure.. sure at November 20, 2008 04:28 PM : Let's just call it what it is : all rights and no responsibilities.
###########################

Sure - That day is already here. It has been here for the last 30 years. It's called being the lesser-earner (le) spouse in a no-fault divorce. You have all rights and no responsibilities until the end of your life. For the higher-earner (he) spouse, it's all obligations until the day he dies.

http://massalimonyreform.org/legislation.html#civil_rights

Single Young Men (SYM) are just catching on to the rules. If you are going to blame them, you can only blame them for being slow learners. They didn't start this.

Just so, not with a bang, but a whimper.

Serial monogamy? Really? That's why you want unlimited freedom?

Dude, with unlimited freedom I'd do my da*ndest to cull stupid people on an hourly basis.

Wait, I just proved Sure's point, didn't I?

Casca, you comment makes no sense.

Fair enough, if you were of the ignoratti. One expects a certain amount of literary awareness from you artsy fartsy New Yorkers. It is from the last line of TS Elliot's "The Hollow Men", a poem that one could not escape the collegiate experience without being aware, once upon a time.

This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Casca, it's not the quote that puzzled me, it's the usage in context. Was it a reply to David? to Sure..? To James? To me? Neither connects. Too many links lost in the blanks of the dotted line.

It absolutely dovetails with David's previous line. The destruction of marriage is just part of the overall deterioration of the culture, and it hasn't happened with a bang, but a whimper.

It might formally tie to David's last line, but not to his overall comment.
If you mourn deterioration of marriage as it was understood 30 years ago, you couldn't have agreed with David's complaint that a lesser-earner (he means 'wife' - although in many cases now it is the 'husband' that earns less) gets 50% of assets at divorce.
Traditionally, when man left his wife, he felt obligated to support her financially - including leaving her the house and setting a yearly allowance - despite her being a non-earner, in monetary sense. I suppose, not always, and not if the divorce was scandalous. But generally, it was just what decent people did.

Hi Tatyana,
What you describe about divorces&alimony was correct during the fault-only divorce era. If a man abandoned his wife&family, he was rightfully made to take care of those non-earners he left behind. This was the stick that kept men in line.

The fault-divorce regime also worked in a different way. An adultering woman was forfeited to any alimony rights if she was the one was found at fault (adultery, etc). If she had not faulted, and the man had, then she got her alimony. So this was the carrot that kept women in line.

So Alimony was a highly effective enforcement tool of that era that essentially kept people honest and kept families together.

During the no-fault divorce reforms of the late-60's/early-70's the fault based approaches to divorce were pushed aside. I think these reforms had a good side in that it allowed miserable married couples to get divorce without necessarily some fault being involved. I.e. they could now divorce if either wanted to. But these reformers made a lethal mistake. They didn't know what to do with this Alimony tool in this post-no-fault era. They could have abolished it. But then some genius came up with the idea to keep it, but remove the morality based conditions which used to dictate its use. They changed it into an ammoral tool that would now be used based on using a calculator. It now didn't matter who screwed around on who. Now, the Higher-Earner paid the Lower-Earner. The "HE" regardless if he was the bad guy, good guy, the one leaving, or the one begging to keep the family together. It didn't matter.

As with all things human this new AMMORAL tool, became in people's hands an IMMORAL tool. Now the lesser-earners (originally mainly women, but now more and more lothario type sleazy husbands) could lie, cheat, and walk out on the marriage with impunity. It didn't matter. They got a big cash pay-out, and monthly payments from the sucker they were leaving behind either way. Cha ching!

Fast forward 30 years, and now we have a case with 70% of divorces being filed by women, and 96% of alimony payments being paid to these filers. It's almost like a divorce incentive. And statistics show that it is!