Elin now dating a white guy

[The Dark King]

And there lies the drastic difference between sensible care for a child, 100 Million dollars alimony and whether or not a particular athlete's salary is justified. All three arguments have been strategically meshed and or ignored at various points of this thread to win an argument.

I dont think theres a half reasonable person in here that believes a man is not responsible for his child.

Max I'm officially done posting because you keep covering my points. Good day and good luck my friend

 

[Iggy]

Can you ever make a logical point that isn't so blatantly dripping with sexism?

Why does golf have value? I know how capitalism works. Capitalism is based on goods and services. How exactly does 'golf' qualify as a good or service? How does Tiger Woods qualify as a good or service...maybe you can explain that to me.

Explain to me why Tiger Woods is more valuable when it comes to capitalism than Elin Nordegren??

AND again, since you know Elin so intimately. How many staff members does she have? How many days does the nanny she has work? Does she get time off? What does Elin do during the times she's not with the children?

Dear lord you cant be this dumb right? Tiger Woods is in HIGH DEMAND. Thats why his value is so high. You really need to quit embarrassing yourself.

 

[The Dark King]

I'm definitely not paraphrasing she's the one who made being a fetal apartment equivalent to carrying the messiah. Shes the one who made the argument that since carrying a child is taxing and one could lose her life giving birth she should be entitled to compensation. Please reread what she wrote and quit making me sound like I took it out of context. She makes motherhood sound like a burdened forced on women by men and btw WE don't make any decisions on child birth that's all you baby doll.Its your bodies your decision or so I've been told over and over. So even if we both say we want kids you make the decision if it'll happen.

Please join the hp thread.

I think you're paraphrasing there, and that's not how I read DB's comment. She specifically stated 'if we're married', and I guess I took her statement to imply it was a mutual decision. I fully realize that women don't need men to consent to them having a child, I actually know a frightening number of women who see pregnancy as a solution to a failing relationship and who got pregnant on purpose, but without their man's knowledge just to extend a relationship. In those instances, I don't really think it appropriate to then expect him to support that child, which I'm sure is not a popular stance. But I digress, I don't think DB meant it as you took it, however if she did that's her opinion and she's entitled to it. Just because you don't agree with something, you don't have to demean, belittle or insult... sometimes asking for clarification is all that's necessary. I find DB to be one of the more level-headed people on here, and I appreciate how she typically states things in an objective and fair manner. When I get to know a poster over time, and I run across a post that seems to say something that appears out of character for them, my first instinct is to assume I took it wrong, rather to assume they wrote it wrong. That's all I'm saying.

(And before the haters rush in to jump on the previous paragraph... save it. If I'm not addressing you, I'm not talking to you, and if you have a problem with something I say, that's your issue not mine.)

BTW, I thought the latest Harry Potter was sadly lacking. It had a few good points, but overall I felt it missed the mark. If you didn't read the book, it would likely have been adequate. However, I've read the book and I actually remember the details, and they varied more from the book than they did on any of the previous movies. I know that the movie rarely is as good as the book, but Lord of the Rings spoiled me and now that's what I expect. HP just fell short in too many areas. I had a feeling you would like it though, which is why I told you last week that I'd keep my thoughts to myself until you saw it.

Wow, how's that for some major off-topic thread-jacking! Sorry, but I'm too lazy to look for the HP thread at the moment. Bookie already knows my thoughts anyway.

 

[goodlove]

And goodlove, before you wander in here to tell your tale of woe and assert that all us ex-wives are money crazy bitches who won't let men see their kids, please save it, I don't want to hear it. Your one experience does not translate into the experience of all men everywhere. If you want something, you fight for it, in divorce I have found that is particularly true. If you don't fight & keep fighting, and you don't get what you want, you have no room to bitch.

Your ex was mean, she lied, she uses your child as a bargaining chip... it's not right, but it's a divorce, they aren't easy or enjoyable. Rarely do you find two individuals who can be reasonable in a divorce, even if issues like infidelity don't exist, there is just something about divorce that makes a lot of people crazy and mean spirited. It's something you just have to get through so you can move on. As Jordan said, if you aren't happy with the results, go back and fight. Saying that it's expensive to do that and bitching that it costs men more in a divorce is horseshit. Yes divorce attorneys cost you, sometimes a lot, and it can be incredibly time consuming, but saying I didn't get custody of my kid because it would have cost me too much to fight... how is that not putting a price tag on your relationship with your child? That's a rhetorical question BTW, and an answer isn't necessary.

1) no where did I assert women are money crazy. go do your homework.
2) My statements were women whining about the money but giving men a hard time about seeing kids. my situation is not an anomaly. men on here talked about it before. we talked about it on the hally berry thread
3) bicthing and shit is only thrown at men when you guys bring up the child support shit and nothing was stated about that.
4) when women and men act like kids you are driving up the cost of the divorce.
5) fight- why should a person fight to get access to the kids ? that is something people say who love drama. you shouldnt have to fite about getting time with the kids.
6) remember - you guys started whining about child support and lack of men participating in childs lives so we can talk about child visitations.

as far as answer isnt necessary. then if you didnt want an answer then keep out of the convo.

It is really funny women can scream and holler about child support and how not enough it is and how sorry men are but when men speak on visitation and the cost of divorce then we are whiners.

 

[goodlove]

All we're saying is that she didnt deserve 100 million. THATs IT.

I never said she didnt deserve 100 million. she she should get what is appropriate in proportion to what he makes for child support. just like all of us. then the women started whining about their child support. so if they want to dish it out about men then damn it be tuff enough to take it. its called equal rites.

alimony is another form of prostitution

 

[Espy]

I'm definitely not paraphrasing she's the one who made being a fetal apartment equivalent to carrying the messiah. Shes the one who made the argument that since carrying a child is taxing and one could lose her life giving birth she should be entitled to compensation. Please reread what she wrote and quit making me sound like I took it out of context. She makes motherhood sound like a burdened forced on women by men and btw WE don't make any decisions on child birth that's all you baby doll.Its your bodies your decision or so I've been told over and over. So even if we both say we want kids you make the decision if it'll happen.

Please join the hp thread.

I did read it, and I still don't interpret it the way you do. So we'll just agree to disagree. However, it takes two to make a child, a woman can't make it happen without male participation, or at least a donation. So to say it's solely the decision of the woman is an erroneous statement. Yes, we're in charge of our bodies, however last I checked y'all were in charge of where you put your dicks too, so again it's a mutual cooperation thing. I get that sometimes one party may not know he's cooperating, and while I find that unfair and unfortunate, ultimately if you don't want a kid then it's on you to make sure that can't happen. You leave the prevention of that up to another person, regardless of how well you think you know them, you're foolish. And as we know, creation of a child is typically all that's required to be held financially responsible for that child, which I know is something you don't agree with. We've discussed this before and there is no one size fits all solution.

 

[The Dark King]

I did read it, and I still don't interpret it the way you do. So we'll just agree to disagree. However, it takes two to make a child, a woman can't make it happen without male participation, or at least a donation. So to say it's solely the decision of the woman is an erroneous statement. Yes, we're in charge of our bodies, however last I checked y'all were in charge of where you put your dicks too, so again it's a mutual cooperation thing. I get that sometimes one party may not know he's cooperating, and while I find that unfair and unfortunate, ultimately if you don't want a kid then it's on you to make sure that can't happen. You leave the prevention of that up to another person, regardless of how well you think you know them, you're foolish. And as we know, creation of a child is typically all that's required to be held financially responsible for that child, which I know is something you don't agree with. We've discussed this before and there is no one size fits all solution.

I can use all the birth control I want but if she gets pregnant whether I want the kid or not his soley up to her. Period the end no two ways about it.
I'm not saying what it should or shouldn't be just what it is.

 

[Espy]

1) no where did I assert women are money crazy. go do your homework.
2) My statements were women whining about the money but giving men a hard time about seeing kids. my situation is no an anomaly. men on here talked about it nefore. we talked about it on the hally berry thread
3) bicthing and shit is only thrown at men when you guys bring up the child support shit and nothing was stated about that.
4) when women and men act like kids you are driving up the cost of the divorce.
5) fight- why should a person fight to get access to the kids ? that is something people say who love drama. you shouldnt have to fite about getting time with the kids.
6) remember - you guys started whining about child support so we can talk about child visitations.

as far as answer isnt necessary. then if you didnt want an answer then keep out of the convo.

It is really funny women can scream and holler about child support and how not enough it is and how sorry men are but when men speak on visitation and the cost of divorce then we are whiners.

You do whine, a lot. Nowhere did I whine about anything. I have no issue with not receiving child support from my Ex, and never tried to withhold the kids from him. I find that repugnant, unless the parent in question is a danger to them.

Your situation is not an anomaly, but neither is it the standard. IMO you'd be better off to get over thinking you got a raw deal and that's all on her, and that all or most women are just like your Ex. I agree you shouldn't have to fight to see your child, however if that's the only way you're going to see her, then were I in your shoes I'd fight like hell till I got to. I would under no circumstances give up time with my children, I would fight until I was dead before I quit. I'm sure not gonna sit back and say 'well it's not fair that I have to fight, so I'm not going to', and then bitch when, rather predictably, I got nowhere on that. I knew going into my divorce that every single ridiculously small detail was going to be a huge fight, and I made up my mind from the start that I would fight on every single thing that was important to me... and my children are the most important thing to me. I would have spent every dime I have, liquidated every asset if necessary, to fight for my children. My divorce cost me an s-load of money, because I got the best lawyer I could afford. It cost my Ex nearly nothing as he went with the cheapest guy he could find. So your experience is the exact opposite of mine, do I think that means all men are petty assholes who care more about assets and bank accounts than their children... no I do not. It's an individual thing, you however try to lump all women into the same group and paint them as caring about how much child support they get and denying visitation. It's pretty clear from the responses you've received from the women here that they are not like that, you just don't want to hear or see it.

I know men and women who got screwed over in divorce on child support, custody, property, etc. The one thing they seem to have in common is they gave up, at some point they decided it wasn't worth the money, the drama, or the time to continue to fight. It's a pain in the ass to deal with an unreasonable person every day for years, and to drag out what should take 90 days indefinitely, but if that's the price you have to pay to get treated equitably then so be it. Life isn't fair goodlove, and sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt, no matter how shitty that hand is. You give up, give in, then don't whine that you got fucked on the deal... because you fucked yourself.

 

[Espy]

I can use all the birth control I want but if she gets pregnant whether I want the kid or not his soley up to her. Period the end no two ways about it.
I'm not saying what it should or shouldn't be just what it is.

I don't disagree with that Andrae. I know that's the way it works most of the time, and I don't agree with that either. But that's me, and I don't think it's my place to tell anyone else what to do. However if she's supposedly using birth control, and you are as well, then the chances of an unintended pregnancy are almost nill. I realize no form of birth control is 100% effective, which is why I would never leave that to one person to handle. I think if you don't want kids, you need to take responsibility yourself and not trust someone else to do that, and that dramatically reduces the chances of an unexpected pregnancy, or one that only one of the parties planned... which in turn makes the chances that you'll end up paying child support nill as well.

 

[goodlove]

You do whine, a lot. Nowhere did I whine about anything. I have no issue with not receiving child support from my Ex, and never tried to withhold the kids from him. I find that repugnant, unless the parent in question is a danger to them.

Your situation is not an anomaly, but neither is it the standard. IMO you'd be better off to get over thinking you got a raw deal and that's all on her, and that all or most women are just like your Ex. I agree you shouldn't have to fight to see your child, however if that's the only way you're going to see her, then were I in your shoes I'd fight like hell till I got to. I would under no circumstances give up time with my children, I would fight until I was dead before I quit. I'm sure not gonna sit back and say 'well it's not fair that I have to fight, so I'm not going to', and then bitch when, rather predictably, I got nowhere on that. I knew going into my divorce that every single ridiculously small detail was going to be a huge fight, and I made up my mind from the start that I would fight on every single thing that was important to me... and my children are the most important thing to me. I would have spent every dime I have, liquidated every asset if necessary, to fight for my children. My divorce cost me an s-load of money, because I got the best lawyer I could afford. It cost my Ex nearly nothing as he went with the cheapest guy he could find. So your experience is the exact opposite of mine, do I think that means all men are petty assholes who care more about assets and bank accounts than their children... no I do not. It's an individual thing, you however try to lump all women into the same group and paint them as caring about how much child support they get and denying visitation. It's pretty clear from the responses you've received from the women here that they are not like that, you just don't want to hear or see it.

I know men and women who got screwed over in divorce on child support, custody, property, etc. The one thing they seem to have in common is they gave up, at some point they decided it wasn't worth the money, the drama, or the time to continue to fight. It's a pain in the ass to deal with an unreasonable person every day for years, and to drag out what should take 90 days indefinitely, but if that's the price you have to pay to get treated equitably then so be it. Life isn't fair goodlove, and sometimes you have to play the cards you're dealt, no matter how shitty that hand is. You give up, give in, then don't whine that you got fucked on the deal... because you fucked yourself.

if Im not anomaly then it happens often then what is it. When I state an opinion then Im whining but when you state an opinion then like the person I was responding to who stated about the child support and father is not doing this and that...that is whining but to you thats an opinion. I didnt mention my ex or my situation....I mention the fact it happens to alot men having to pay child support and then have to fite for visitation. This is in the context of the convo. I didnt just only mention what I went thru but what a LOT of men go thru. so get your facts str8. go back and read what I stated. as a matter of fact I dont even think I mention the words "my wife". so who is whining. if Im whining so is everyone who is talking about C/S being too much and men not being in the kids lives and I responded. so againand again get yiour facts str8

 

[goodlove]

as far as men giving up...why do think they gave up / it cost financially and spiritually.

the thing is I took her to court and got what my visitation. and paid C/S while I wasnt getting visitation so why should a man fite for his child ? not a rhetorical question

 

[Espy]

if Im not anomaly then it happens often then what is it. When I state an opinion then Im whining but when you state an opinion then like the person I was responding to who stated about the child support and father is not doing this and that...that is whining but to you thats an opinion. I didnt mention my ex or my situation....I mention the fact it happens to alot men having to pay child support and then have to fite for visitation. This is in the context of the convo. I didnt just only mention what I went thru but what a LOT of men go thru. so get your facts str8. go back and read what I stated. as a matter of fact I dont even think I mention the words "my wife". so who is whining. if Im whining so is everyone who is talking about C/S being too much and men not being in the kids lives and I responded. so againand again get yiour facts str8

You've mentioned the facts of your situation many, many times all over the forum, goodlove. I recall what you've previously posted. All I am saying is you state it like it's the gospel according to goodlove, and it happens to the majority of men in divorce... at least that's how it comes across. Frankly I know of more men who want nothing to do with their children, than I know men who actually want to spend time with them, but I would in no way attempt to assert that all men are like that based upon the experiences of people I know... maybe the women I know just have bad taste in men. Broad generalizations are rarely appropriate, and tend to make people look jaded and bitter. It's hard to take someone seriously who appears to be so jaded and bitter. I think often their comments and opinion just gets immediately written off as sour grapes and people start to dismiss everything they say.

 

[Iggy]

So what we've learned in this thread is that popping out a baby should entitle you to 100 million and that Tiger is just a guy that "got lucky"

lmao

 

[goodlove]

You've mentioned the facts of your situation many, many times all over the forum, goodlove. I recall what you've previously posted. All I am saying is you state it like it's the gospel according to goodlove, and it happens to the majority of men in divorce... at least that's how it comes across. Frankly I know of more men who want nothing to do with their children, than I know men who actually want to spend time with them, but I would in no way attempt to assert that all men are like that based upon the experiences of people I know... maybe the women I know just have bad taste in men. Broad generalizations are rarely appropriate, and tend to make people look jaded and bitter. It's hard to take someone seriously who appears to be so jaded and bitter. I think often their comments and opinion just gets immediately written off as sour grapes and people start to dismiss everything they say.

again we are talking about here and now. I didnt mentioned anything here about my situation. NOW with that being said....people experiences shape their opinions. if I didnt go thru it then I couldnt see thru the bullshit women talk about C/S or alimony.

as far as gospel....truth is truth. men dont pay child support and you guys talk about it saying my ex-husband this and that. what the fuck is that. when I mention that shit here and Im whining . thats a bunch of BULLSHIT. lets be 100% here. women love bashing men and when men say back the fuck up..... yall shit do stink now yall get mad. yall love for men to take your shit about men dont know how to handle relationships and dont be there for the kids....well damn it when men say hold up now yall be doing A.B.C and yall get mad.

yall want to talk about this shit own your terms. BULL SHIT. look, if you do dirt then you gonna get dirty. so if you dont want to get dirty then dont do it. if you dont like the whole "women aint up for talking about the whole thing about men not getting visitation" then dont talk about C/S because they go hand and hand.

 

[goodlove]

So what we've learned in this thread is that popping out a baby should entitle you to 100 million and that Tiger is just a guy that "got lucky"

lmao

LOL. no doubt and people are misinformed

 

[TheHuntress]

Dear lord you cant be this dumb right? Tiger Woods is in HIGH DEMAND. Thats why his value is so high. You really need to quit embarrassing yourself.

You really need to take a long walk off of a short pier.

 

[TheHuntress]

So...wait a second, let me get this straight...

I brought the discussion to the level most of the dollar-worshiping meatheads could understand by trying to equate the difficulty of pregnancy and childbearing to a monetary level, and now I'm the evil woman who doesn't want kids because I think that there's UNSPEAKABLE value to being a mother that you guys don't understand because she got 100 million?

Fucking REALLY?!!

My whole point was trying to get you guys to see that you don't just get to devalue Elin because she was 'just' a nanny before she married Tiger. And to try to make a sports star a better person just by virtue of the fact that he can whack a ball with a stick a few hundred yards further than most people? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Just because someone can make a jump shot, or run really fast, doesn't make them a better person in any way, shape, or form- and you will never convince me of that. Nevermind that there are tons of very, very talented people who've worked their asses off for their entire lives and they'll never be famous- because part of being famous is LUCK. So yes, Tiger was also one lucky SOB to get to be the celebrity he did. I can't believe you're even trying to deny that.

What's even more troubling is that you're completely missing the point- all of you- on the subject. That you'd even consider a sports star, or a movie star, or really ANY CELEBRITY to be a better person just because they're a celebrity when they've wronged people they love, is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with America.

And now, feel free to twist my words some more. I'm done.

 

[goodlove]

So...wait a second, let me get this straight...

I brought the discussion to the level most of the dollar-worshiping meatheads could understand by trying to equate the difficulty of pregnancy and childbearing to a monetary level, and now I'm the evil woman who doesn't want kids because I think that there's UNSPEAKABLE value to being a mother that you guys don't understand because she got 100 million?

Fucking REALLY?!!

My whole point was trying to get you guys to see that you don't just get to devalue Elin because she was 'just' a nanny before she married Tiger. And to try to make a sports star a better person just by virtue of the fact that he can whack a ball with a stick a few hundred yards further than most people? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Just because someone can make a jump shot, or run really fast, doesn't make them a better person in any way, shape, or form- and you will never convince me of that. Nevermind that there are tons of very, very talented people who've worked their asses off for their entire lives and they'll never be famous- because part of being famous is LUCK. So yes, Tiger was also one lucky SOB to get to be the celebrity he did. I can't believe you're even trying to deny that.

What's even more troubling is that you're completely missing the point- all of you- on the subject. That you'd even consider a sports star, or a movie star, or really ANY CELEBRITY to be a better person just because they're a celebrity when they've wronged people they love, is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with America.

And now, feel free to twist my words some more. I'm done.

you are going to have to start a new thread LOL. you cant say value without mentioning money. so she took 100 million dollars. is it because the kids are worth that much . look at the child support system ...what does it mean ? are you saying he should get millions of dollars because he is a golfer versus a Nannie who should get millions of dollars because she take care of kids

 

[TreePixie]

you are going to have to start a new thread LOL. you cant say value without mentioning money. so she took 100 million dollars. is it because the kids are worth that much . look at the child support system ...what does it mean ? are you saying he should get millions of dollars because he is a golfer versus a Nannie who should get millions of dollars because she take care of kids

Raising kids...being a good parent and helping to launch good humans into the world is actually a rather important job.

(We require licenses to drive, to marry, to own a weapon - but anyone can reproduce - no I'm not suggesting licenses for child rearing).

 

[Max Mosley]

And there lies the drastic difference between sensible care for a child, 100 Million dollars alimony, whether or not a particular athlete's salary is justified, the value of a person as a human. All three four arguments have been strategically meshed and or ignored at various points of this thread to win an argument.

I dont think theres a half reasonable person in here that believes a man is not responsible for his child.

Felt the need to edit my post.