Elin now dating a white guy

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my humble opinion, I felt it was fair to support my ex during the first months of our son's life because he was a newborn. We agreed to that and I was already the primary financially responsible party in our marriage, so it was not real change anyway, just that she had less spending money during her hiatus from work for 6 months. After that, she went back to work.

If a guy forces his wife to stay at home, he's a nimrod. I believe that not having the wife work distorts the equilibrium and power balance that I (just me) believe should exist in a marriage: a relationship of equals. If a guy is on some sexist retrograde 1950s throwback behavior, then he deserves to suffer the price for that troglodyte thinking.

That being said, I don't believe that, beyond child support, a woman should be cared for into perpetuity just because she bore a man's children. I guess what I'm saying is I'm in favor of child support, not alimony.
 
orejon4 said:
In my humble opinion, I felt it was fair to support my ex during the first months of our son's life because he was a newborn. We agreed to that and I was already the primary financially responsible party in our marriage, so it was not real change anyway, just that she had less spending money during her hiatus from work for 6 months. After that, she went back to work.

If a guy forces his wife to stay at home, he's a nimrod. I believe that not having the wife work distorts the equilibrium and power balance that I (just me) believe should exist in a marriage: a relationship of equals. If a guy is on some sexist retrograde 1950s throwback behavior, then he deserves to suffer the price for that troglodyte thinking.

That being said, I don't believe that, beyond child support, a woman should be cared for into perpetuity just because she bore a man's children. I guess what I'm saying is I'm in favor of child support, not alimony.
Click to expand...

We can't force them to do shit. They choose to stay home.

Amen
 
MrFantastic said:
We can't force them to do shit. They choose to stay home.

Amen
Click to expand...

Seriously, though, I know of lot of old-school Catholic politicians who do not ALLOW their wives to work. Granted, they're not physically assaulting them to prevent them from leaving the house in search of work, but some guys demand and the women acquiesce. I don't think it's right, but I do know a lot of examples of marriages populated by domineering men. Seriously.
 
Tamstrong said:
You're not being fair or realistic here, Drae.

You keep harping that the choice for her to stay home & raise her kids is completely on her & that's a load of crap. Within a marriage the decision as to whether or not someone will stay home is typically made by BOTH partners. Yes, there are many women who would love to be able to stay home & raise their children, but there are also many men who want or expect their women to stay at home. The fact that there was enough money being made for her not to have to work outside the home is a blessing I'm sure they both appreciated. Many men are proud of the fact that they can provide such benefits for their families, because it's not always easy to afford to do in today's society. If it was easier, many more families would have a parent at home with the children.

As far as contributions to a marriage being "equal", it doesn't have shit to do with money. Being the bread winner doesn't make him the more important partner in the marriage. I think you're too focused on the money itself & not what's really important. To say that her contribution was or wasn't worth a certain dollar amount is not for anyone else to decide. Different things have different values to different people, & in many respects it's a subjective thing. To some people, a parent staying home to raise the children is priceless.

He made the choice to dishonor his vows & destroy his family, & it's only fair that he be held accountable for that. Like Jordan said, the amount of that percentage is based on a person's income, & if it was someone who made less, they would've paid less. The only screwing over he got was what he did to himself.

It's also unfair to assume that love was not basis of the relationship. How can you say without knowing that she was just looking for "a comfortable lifestyle" & the he "probably wanted a family"?

It's funny that when it comes to a rich man, there's always a negative focus on the woman who dates or marries him, assuming that she just wanted him for his money. Sometimes it's true & sometimes not, BUT it makes no sense for all the focus to be on the woman & assuming she's some whore looking to get paid. There is also a negative side to some rich men in their pursuit of women. The ones who use their money as a way to buy the women they want are just as bad as the women who are looking to be bought. When it comes to whores & whoremongers, one can't exist without the other.






Great posts, TP & JC. I couldn't have said it any better. :smt038
Click to expand...

Thanks, though I think you were *way* more articulate on this than I was. Marriage is a partnership, not an ownership. You don't buy a woman, or a man. It's two people joining their lives together, and in that relationship *they* decide what each partner's "job" is.
 
orejon4 said:
In my humble opinion, I felt it was fair to support my ex during the first months of our son's life because he was a newborn. We agreed to that and I was already the primary financially responsible party in our marriage, so it was not real change anyway, just that she had less spending money during her hiatus from work for 6 months. After that, she went back to work.

If a guy forces his wife to stay at home, he's a nimrod. I believe that not having the wife work distorts the equilibrium and power balance that I (just me) believe should exist in a marriage: a relationship of equals. If a guy is on some sexist retrograde 1950s throwback behavior, then he deserves to suffer the price for that troglodyte thinking.

That being said, I don't believe that, beyond child support, a woman should be cared for into perpetuity just because she bore a man's children. I guess what I'm saying is I'm in favor of child support, not alimony.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly in agreement here. Division of marital assets isn't alimony, and it's an entirely different issue. If a guy forces his wife to stay home, or even if they both agree to it, if the marriage is long enough that whatever marketable skills she has are outdated, alimony for a set period of time while she retrains is not unthinkable.

I stayed home with my son for four years, because that's what we decided. In Massachusetts, where I divorced, you couldn't even *ask* for alimony unless you'd been a stay at home parent for more than 10 years. (Of course I took on all the marital debt, and he never bothered to pay child support, but that's an entirely different matter).

BTW, I know several stay at home dads, and my advice to them is the same I give to stay at home moms - don't do it. Something happens, you're left high and dry and you aren't going to find going back into the workforce easy after being out of it for a few years.
 
orejon4 said:
Seriously, though, I know of lot of old-school Catholic politicians who do not ALLOW their wives to work. Granted, they're not physically assaulting them to prevent them from leaving the house in search of work, but some guys demand and the women acquiesce. I don't think it's right, but I do know a lot of examples of marriages populated by domineering men. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Me too. I also know a lot of women whose husbands "allow" or don't allow them to spend money, go out with the girls etc. I think it's bullshit.

I used to work with a guy who thought he had feminist cred because, hey, he'd just given his wife $200 and "let" her go spend it on herself. Of course, they BOTH worked full time and made about equal salaries. So it was *her* money to start with.
 
TreePixie said:
Me too. I also know a lot of women whose husbands "allow" or don't allow them to spend money, go out with the girls etc. I think it's bullshit.

I used to work with a guy who thought he had feminist cred because, hey, he'd just given his wife $200 and "let" her go spend it on herself. Of course, they BOTH worked full time and made about equal salaries. So it was *her* money to start with.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that man controlling the money stuff creeps me out. My current gf told me about her husband giving her an allowance when she made 2/3 of the bread. I couldn't stop laughing. That's ridiculous.
 
MrFantastic said:
It annoys me that you put greatier value on her just because she is a woman. She took care of their home not just his, she took care of their kids not just his. She played her role in their family. What's his compensation for being the bread winner being "allowed" to be her and his kids?
And let's be fricking real for a second Elin Woods was not closing deals for Tiger he has an army of lawyers and agents for that so please stop suggesting that her going with to cocktail dinners landed him huge endorsements like Buick and Gillete. Him the best fucking golfer to ever touch a club did that. Decades of relentless practice and sacrafice got him to where he is not a nice "baby you can do it" and if he owes Elin 20% shit does his mother and father deserve 50 and then maybe another 25 to his coaches because those people have far more to do with Tiger Woods being Tiger Woods. She came into the picture after he had made something of himself. She definitely did do 100 million dollars worth of service to his career. Please stop over valuing her just because she's a woman and you emphathize as a divorce.
Click to expand...


Funny 'cause Tiger hasn't DONE SHIT since he divorced from Elin.:smt026

Matter of fact, his missing domestic tranquility at home seems to have blown a friggin garage door sized hole through his career.

Never underestimate how important a stable home life can play in one's career.

If Tiger is so smart he should have had a prenup. If his prenup stipulated Elin was going to receive 20% of their assets, it is what it is.
 
andreboba said:
Funny 'cause Tiger hasn't DONE SHIT since he divorced from Elin.:smt026

Matter of fact, his missing domestic tranquility at home seems to have blown a friggin garage door sized hole through his career.

Never underestimate how important a stable home life can play in one's career.

If Tiger is so smart he should have had a prenup. If his prenup stipulated Elin was going to receive 20% of their assets, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Um yeah I'll go with never ending negative media attention for 2000 Alex. Let's just ignore the decades of hard work. Elin being around is what made it all possible at least 20 percent anyway. Smdh lol
 
orejon4 said:
Yeah, that man controlling the money stuff creeps me out. My current gf told me about her husband giving her an allowance when she made 2/3 of the bread. I couldn't stop laughing. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes! When I bought my house, my mother's husband was *very* concerned. "But what if she gets married again?" he said to my mother. "It's HER house. And it will stay HER house."
 
MrFantastic said:
Money is the life blood of marriage. Whats the biggest reason couples divorce or what do they fight over the most during a divorce? It can't be ignored because its uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's a really jaded view of what marriage is about. It's a PARTNERSHIP. It isn't a financial arrangement. If you think that marriage is about a guy putting in money and getting pussy in return (which apparently isn't worth much), here's a small tidbit. Women are not ATMs. We're people.
 
TreePixie said:
Wow. That's a really jaded view of what marriage is about. It's a PARTNERSHIP. It isn't a financial arrangement. If you think that marriage is about a guy putting in money and getting pussy in return (which apparently isn't worth much), here's a small tidbit. Women are not ATMs. We're people.
Click to expand...

In that scenario men would be the ATM lol
 
MrFantastic said:
In that scenario men would be the ATM lol
Click to expand...

Haha no kidding

I think the moral of this story is that Tiger should of NEVER gotten married. He should of just did his thing and been able to rail all the trim he wanted. Really stupid of him to get married and not even have a prenup.

If I was even 1/8 as wealthy as he was I wouldnt even get married lol
 
Iggy said:
Haha no kidding

I think the moral of this story is that Tiger should of NEVER gotten married. He should of just did his thing and been able to rail all the trim he wanted. Really stupid of him to get married and not even have a prenup.

If I was even 1/8 as wealthy as he was I wouldnt even get married lol
Click to expand...

Cosign. Thread shut down
 
pettyofficerj said:
greedy fuck

100 million dollars, really?

tiger is a chump for cheating, but she's a loser too for taking all that money that HE made

none of the women here are jumping on her case for that, right?
Click to expand...

And you won't because apparently four years of fucking and holding hands is worth 20% of your wealth lol
 
TreePixie said:
Check the link I posted - she's getting $100mn, not 750. And I believe she's got physical custody, but not full legal custody.

And I agree, especially with his history of having a revolving door on his bed, that he shouldnt be allowed (and neither should she) to bring people in and out of the kids lives - it's bad for kids.

And she's had to sign an agreement never to speak or write about their marriage and/or his infidelity even after his death.
Click to expand...

Link doesnt work for me.

I also remember reading $100 mill was a complete exaggeration, and was actually around $40 mil. I think she deserves all the money she got. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom