We simply see things differently. Nothing wrong with that. I can still appreciate what you went through, being the BS myself and yet disagree with the choice to take alimony (not child support) over say splitting other assets, taking a lump sum, selling the house.

Basically, if you are going to divorce, cut as many ties as possible.

But I do understand the need to balance not uprooting the kids (I.E. not selling the home) and the choices you had to make.

I gave my preference, and I admit, saying having someone else pick up the tab was not one of my more sensitive moments.

It was insensitive.In my case,I got the home and my STBX gets all the retirement funds.I get all the household belongings because,well let's face it,he wants to start anew with the OW so all that we had built up over the years he wants nothing to do with now.Everything we had was split and agreed upon.

Also,we agreed to make all the money he gives me alimony since for tax purposes,it works out better for us but it's used as I said: to maintain the home the kids are growing up in( stability) and pay for school needs,clothes,everything.Running a household.Maybe it's semantics.Afterall,the money is used the same as in CS.Alimony has a negative connotation to it still,unfortunately for women,and the stereotype is still ever present.If kids were not involved and I was as independent as I was when we first met,then there would not be a question of alimony.Too much was at stake,to many assets,etc.

I just don't understand your thinking.It's making women,such as myself,stigmatized for the situation we were placed in, not by choice.I am not flawed just because my STBX gives me alimony.That is the underlying theme to your posts.But as you would not be involved with someone who gets alimony,nor would I be involved with someone like you who doesn't *truly appreciate those circumstances.IMO.

Well, your DJ about if I truly understand or not doesn't mean I don't understand.

But that's what is great, we all get choices. You can choose to get bent out of shape by what I say, or you can simply say different strokes for different folks.

From where I sit, it looks like you chose to get bent out of shape and hurl a DJ my way.

Opinion or not, it's still a judgment.

Remember, you filled in the word flawed, not me. For me, it's merely a preference. If you want to bend that into my thinking it's a flaw (another DJ, if not a downright fabrication) then I cannot stop you.

But I can call you on it.

Ok.You can choose to get "bent out of shape" too and it would seem to me you have by MY observations.Because they are MY observations and you disagree they are now labeled DJ's.IMO means just that.IMO means that I don't believe you do appreciate what it is to "take" alimony and be in my situation if you state that you wouldn't be involved with someone such as myself,your choice,yes.

Opinion and judgment are quite similar and I have witnessed other's here over the years use the "judgment" label when they feel attacked.

Judgment: Defintion:the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.

Which is what I did after reading your past posts.I stated I don't understand why you consider women who receive alimony people who you would not be with.I formed an opinion based on what you said and I don't think it is fair but it's your choice.Just as I may make choices that other's may not deem fair for whatever reason.I mentioned it and disagreed because what you said struck a cord as I am in the very situation described.I picture myself out with a man who decides that he no longer wants to be with me after finding out that I receive alimony from my ex.It's intriguing.Is it because technically I am still "relying" on my ex,if only for money? Is it that all strings are not truly cut in your view? What is it that makes me not a viable option for someone because of alimony? Questions I will mull over on my own time now.

And here is another observation,IMO,you sound angry so I will bow out before this turns into an ugly mess.It was not my intention to go down that path.

The DJ comes in when you say I consider it a flaw.
I said no such thing, nor do I think it. I simply have a preference.

The DJ comes in when you say I feel a certain way when I've clearly expressed otherwise. You are in essence telling me I don't know how I feel, that you know better.

I can't think of much that is more disrespectful that doing that.

Now if you were to say you don't believe it, well that's another story, because you are talking about yourself, and you are probably a better judge of what you think, feel and believe than do I.

When you tell someone how they feel, it can come across as an attack. When you put words in the mouths (or keyboards) of another, it essentially attacks or is an attempt to invalidate what they say.

I am angry because you twist my words, you put words into my mouth that I did not say.

Wouldn't you too be angry?

Tell me, what is wrong with preferring someone with as few ties as possible to their ex spouse?

It's neither right, nor wrong, but merely a preference.

I hope you better understand my frustration with having words put into my mouth that I did not utter, nor do I harbor in my heart.

How about this: A SAHM has earned the alimony she's awarded. Working to maintain a home & tend to the children's needs as well as the needs of the H is NOT a "gravy train". She has worked to help the H get where his is. Could he have done that with children without the W?

Consider alimony as deferred pay. As a SAHM the W basically worked for room & board. Yes, she may have enjoyed some perks such as vacations, as did the H. She did not draw a salary she worked instead for living expenses. In some cases a good standard of living. But her work is what allowed the H to have this SAME standard of living. Was he living on the "gravy train" provided by her work? Could he have enjoyed a family life without the work provided by the W?

Obviously the "wary of alimony" part of this thread has hit a nerve (or at least opinions) of some people, mostly female.

I have a feeling that most of the women here at MB who receive alimony were married for a fairly long time (maybe longer than Enlightened was thinking). Perhaps that's why we were so incensed by the original statement, because of our long marital history.

As for cutting ties - my ex does not have much to do with giving me alimony, it is done through automatic online banking. I really don't see it as "a tie". So while I receive a monthly check for a certain number of years, I honestly have absolutely NO interaction with my ExH. This is how I prefer it to be, anyhow.

I think many would agree that there doesn't NEED to be any ties post-divorce unless about children, altho some people chose to remain friendly. If that works for them, so be it.

I'm just curious -- when and how do you weed these women out of your dating pool? I'm only separated from my WH so the last time I had a date was, um, in the first Bush administration and I'm a little out of touch with you kids today.

However, I can't see my date asking me about my finances until some time into our budding romance, by which time he will surely be won over by my winning personality and charming yet shy smile. Not to mention my big knockers. If I happen to draw a man who shares your opinion, when can I expect the dumping? When he turns to me tenderly and says, "Sweetheart, can I see a copy of your divorce settlement and the last three years of your tax returns?"

And people said romance was dead. Pish-posh.

So then, you would be willing for him to continue to recieve the benefits of the marriage as well. I mean, if a faithful husband has to pay alimony because of the length of the marriage, why wouldn't a faithful or unfaithful SAHM have to continue to wash his BVD's. He has become dependent upon her to do this, he gave up keeping up with laundry technology, to earn a living for his household.

Or what about delayed compensation for his missed time with the children. The agreed upon plan was for him to work up front, so they could get set up, and then retire early so he could spend all day with the kids. Shouldn't he then get "back pay" as far as time with the kids?

Take out money and put anything that is stereotypically done or provided by the wife and then tell me you are still in favor of such items being provided by the now ex-wife after the marriage has ended.

I mean, if we are being fair, then there should be more than just monetary awards. Isn't that the whole premise of this thread, does money matter?

It seems reasonable, if money doesn't matter, then more than money should be awarded. A transistion plan for services should be mandated, make-up time for the career father, his deferred compensation.

I'm all for fairness, let's apply it across the board,shall we?

Alimony? Depends on the age and health... e.g. she's 45-50+ (or much younger but unhealthy/uncapable to work... but, then, where is going all that money from our taxes...), spent 20+ years in marriage as SAHM, no education... receiving alimony would be fair, for she invested too, and she can no longer provide for herself... but, if she's 20-30+ and healthy, and yet accepts alimony, for me it's... parasitical...

Different theme somehow, but... as I see around... amazing how hard working women are less appreciated in M than the other kind that wait for S to provide everything... during the marriage, that is... no later on, but later on is too late anyway... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm a bit bemused by all this talk of "fairness" within a situation which is founded upon betrayal. I don't see how fairness can even enter into it. On the one hand, alimony paid to the BS can in no way compensate for the betrayal, and it should be no surprise if a someone who turns his or her back on one responsibility attempts to get out of any others as well. On the other hand, alimony paid to the WS merely adds insult to injury, whatever the financial realities.

When you come right down to it, situations are individual, and the "fairest" solution could only be found by working together to figure out how to maximize the welfare of both parties. But if that were possible, then the divorce wouldn't be happening in the first place, would it?

If you're looking for the legislature or the courts to do impose something "fair," please! Don't make me laugh! Laws simply don't have the kind of granularity to handle individual situations well. The courts don't care, and they can hardly be expected to sort anything out anyway, bombarded as they are with lies and distortions from all sides.

The flexible spending account idea fails because child support seldom is enough to cover all the expenses which could be deemed eligible. The "fairness" problem usually enters in because the child support can free up more of the recipient's own income for frivolous expenditures.

Let's face it. When you're screwed, you're screwed.

I agree the courts can't possibly do the job we'd like to see done. They can't & don't consider how & why marriages brake up, who's responsible, who's willing to work to keep the marriage together. If this were possible, to make sure each divorce is judged on an individual basis & things fairly divided we'd still see alimony payments. Perhaps more going to men, less or none going to the wayward spouse.

I see a problem with the notion that women continue washing the BVDs. While the H was working, while the W was doing her job at home, part of her compensation was deferred. Not only for retirement but in the form of weekly wages. She forgoes this compensation, either from the H or by being at home not working outside the home, to create the home & a situation in which the H can concentrate on his career. He is in the position to better his earning potential while she can not. This is the reason her compensation is deferred. The H can continue on in his career while the W is left to start from scratch. The need to catch up in terms of capabilities so she will be in a position to take care of herself is one reason why she is awarded alimony.

AmericanBeauty, you eloquently stated a strong case for alimony. And GDP added on about working together for the welfare . . . . AB, it sounds to me that you have worked together for the welfare of the most important people involved, the children. And you don't sound angry. Whether it is called Alimony or CS makes no difference, the end result is to benefit the children. I like that you determined there would be tax benefits by calling it all alimony and that you were able to maintain the home for the benefit of the children.

I've been following this thread, but I don't respond to EE because he is angry and wants to punish his X and everyone is wrong if they don't agree. There are many instances where alimony is appropriate and necessary. "Cutting all ties" is not always in the best interests of all involved.

We all need to look to our own contributions to the decline in our marriages and learn from those mistakes in order to build our lives and our futures. In many cases, that means working on our anger.

I admit I am angry. I am angry at a situation that allows cheating spouses to just walk away. I am angry at a society that turns a blind eye to infidelity. I am angry at courts that just give children to the mother because that's the way we've always done it.

I am not angry with any of the ladies here. I may disagree, but disagreement is not anger, nor punishment.

I don't wish to punish my ex-wife. I want to change the system, and frankly am frustrated that I am powerless to do so.

Newly, I really think what you wrote was the biggest of all DJ's, by trying to label me and dismiss me because of what you believe instead of getting to the know the man on the other side of the screen.

So you can write me off as a man who is angry at women and wants to get back at his ex-wife. But you would be wrong.

I know the payback that God has, is far more than I could ever do. So while I am angry at the situation, and would like to be able to change things so they are more fair, or even better, to be more effective in preventing divorce so others don't suffer the pain. I am not out to get back at anyone.

So take it or leave it.

This is absolutely incorrect. Both the husband and wife are are benefitting from his income real-time by what they contribute "real-time". The wife who is supporting her H by being a SAHM is receiving the benefits of his enhanced income (because of her work) real-time. She gets all of her material needs met.

The fact that her standard of living would decrease if she left the marriage without alimony is indicative that she is receiving REAL-TIME benefit from the marriage.

Now, I do believe one is entitled to assets accumulated in the marriage. If a wife works to put her H through school, half the cost of that education should be hers at the divorce.

All investments are a gamble. If you choose to invest in increasing the education/earning capacity of another rather than yourself, you are gambling with your own financial security.

This makes no sense to me at all. This argument also applies to the current system...you only get so much support and it assumed that it is used to provide for the children's needs. If the support needs exceed the mandated support amount, the spouses are having to work out alternate agreements anyway.

All an FSA system would do is enforce accountability for those funds. As such, I expect it would be vociferously opposed by those who don't want to be held to those standards.

I have been told here before that trips to Disney and $40,000 SUVs are justifiable support expenses. THIS is the kind of thing that burns men up...and it should bother women, too.

It makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.



Haven't seen one yet.

Exactly!

I might be a little more sympathetic if I could go to court and get the over 100K I lost in deferred compensation when the market crashed in 2001 or so.

But instead, I have to take it.

Why shouldn't everyone else who suffers and unexpected loss, due to no fault of their own?

If you choose to invest in increasing the education/earning capacity of another rather than yourself, you are gambling with your own financial security.

Low Orbit, I realize that now. Which is why I'll never put myself in the situation again. However, it is a contract and if a spouse breaks part of it, then there should be consequences. My atty. told me that in our state, if a dependent spouse cheats (he/she) could literally screw themselves out of $$$.

I guess Im back in for a bit to address you newly.

Thank you for understanding.Im not trying to bash EE by any means but his responses struck me as being unfair or misguided.I know he has his opinion and that is fine but it's one thing to suggest you would not date a person because they smoked,as it poses a health risk,versus "penalizing" a woman who receives alimony that in my view,is helping to secure a better life and future for the kids.

I wonder what he thinks about men who DO pay alimony willingly and are responsible that way.Isn't that also trying to secure a better life for the children? Would I refuse to date a man who did so? No.I think that is a positive aspect to D,a man( or woman) who helps the situation financially instead of saying,well,too bad,you are on your own now.My concern is with the stereotype of women that are out and about spending money on pedicures,Gucci bags and "frivilous" items in lieu of proper child care and expenses.I for one am not like that.My children always have and always will come first.From day one when my WH was in his own world,*I* was here,holding down the fort through so much pain and suffering of my own.I struggled thru to be sure my kids were ok.And I want them to stay ok despite the D.That means same home,same school,same stability as can possibly be secured.

As you suggested,each case is different and there is no one size fits all court judgment.

I also had a problem with the BVD analogy.That to me is not right either.To reiterate,the money I get,and many other women too I know,use that money to run the household and pay for expenses related to it all including child care.My STBX now has the OW to help with his BVD's or he can do them himself!I feel very fortunate and blessed that things worked out the way they did.He could have easily taken me to court to try and sell the home and cause so much more pain.But through a lot of determination and discussion,we were able to come to an agreement that suited us both and especially the children.I give him credit for that since I have heard horror stories here about the opposite happening.He also rarely sees the children and lives far away( his choice) so it's all the more important to me that I am financially stable since I am essentially a single working parent now.Money does matter to me,IMO.It can mean the difference between a painful, struggle of a life versus being secure,feeling good and having a hopeful future for my children and a bit for me too.