this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
298 points (91.9% liked)
Greentext
4464 readers
1258 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll concede, in specific circumstances, it may be warranted, but it is assumed to be the default currently. Far too often, the courts are used as a cudgel by a disgruntled former spouse who just wants to punch their former partner in the wallet. My father was such a disgruntled person. He was even engaged for the better part of a decade, refusing to marry until the alimony ran out. He was not a stay at home spouse, but due to his own choices, he made less than my mother. The default position should be that neither party is owed anything unless proven otherwise by specific evidence.
Edit: ihad to look these two up. A 31 year old woman courted a 19 year old up and coming footballer and married them. Guess it takes a predator to know one. Even if it left her destitute (it wouldn't), she doesn't deserve a cent.