To repeat...linking alimony to caring for children is smokescreen.

That's NOT what alimony is for...that child support. If you're having to depend on alimony to care for your kids, then something is wrong with your child support agreement or your idea of child support differs from what the court thinks.

So this is the crux of it...alimony is a punitive measure. Just as I always thought.

This is a good point, and one that I see discussed over and over on women's boards. Many working women want to be SAHMs and could afford to live comfortably on their husband's incomes, but will state that they don't want to jeopardize their own financial future if they divorce. The problem with this of course is that marriage brings with it -- or should -- feelings of trust and commitment and other emotional issues that can't go in a cost/benefit analysis.

Should you go into a marriage with one eye cocked for the possibility that hubby will walk out? I don't know. Maybe these women are cynical. Or maybe they are smart. But you're right, it's a gamble. Some would say it's better to trust and be betrayed than be the sort of person who never fully trusted at all.

I read an essay in the NYTimes a few months ago by a woman who had written some books back in the feminist wars of the 70s glorifying being a SAHM. She raised five children, volunteered in the community, etc. Her husband walked out last year and she was told to get job training at the age of 67 (!). She wrote her essay essentially saying "Girls, don't let this happen to you. Don't ever quit your job."

But it doesn't work that way in all states. No fault divorce pretty much says, we don't care who did what to whom, here is how you are going to split the assets.

I may be more inclined to accept alimony if it were tied to laws that indicated fidelity mattered.

Right now, in many states, fidelity is not an issue in alimony or custody decisions.

So there is nothing from stopping a man or a woman from becoming the spouse of a wealthier partner, having an affair and asking for half and perhaps getting it.

Now in my state, alimony is not considered in most cases if the marriage is under 10 years, unless there is a massive income difference, say like 100:1 ratio in income for short term marriages. (I'm making up that number. I know I DID NOT pay alimony and our income difference was 4:1 or 5:1)

Let's be clear, alimony is NOT child support. So to argue that alimony is for the kids is not reality. Alimony is for the lower wage earning spouse, period.

In fact, it's not called alimony, it's called spousal support in most states, right?

So to argue that spousal support is child support is not valid. Let's be honest and call it what it really is, spousal support.

Which brings me back to my point. If it sounds silly for a W to still be providing spousal support in terms of washing his BVDs, then why is it not as silly for a man to provide spousal support to a woman who is divorcing him, regardless of fidelity?

To me, it just doesn't seem logical or fair that he should have to support her, but she gets to walk away from supporting him.

Let's be consistent here, and have them both continue to support each other, or neither continue to support each other.

LowOrbit

In my case,it didn't matter.For tax purposes,we chose to call all the money my STBX gives me as alimony since it's helps us financially and also it prevents Uncle Sam from getting more.The solution was in the best interest for us both.He gets a tax break for calling it all alimony and since I have a large tax bill each year now,my STBX pays me a lump sum to cover that too each year so I break even,not owing but not getting back either.

It's interesting to me that the majority of those I know who deny alimony and it's benefits are men.That stigma still remains.

IMO it is not a smokescreen and how can you "know" for each and every household? If I didn't get alimony as we agreed upon the children and I would be living a much lower standard than we do today.And that lviving that we have had for many years was due to the desires and agreements my STBX and I made *together.Now that he has met someone else during our marriage I am supposed to just say,oh well? As has been eluded to before,I put my career on hold while my STBX concentrated on his,ran up the coporate ladder while I stayed home and made a home and took care of our children.Had I stayed in the workforce I could be making tons more money than I do now.But as with many companies,salary comensurate with experience is one issue that many SAHM's (and dad's ) have to deal with.

Also what the court guidelines were for CS in our state was deplorable which is why we made our own contract for what we felt was right.

Wouldn't you resent having to support someone who said they didn't love you, took off with another man, and still wants you to pay to support them?

It's not a male/female thing, it's a broken vow thing.

Not every man who is asked to pay alimony (and I was asked) was a WH. Not every man who is paying alimony is a WH.

I totally grasp what you are doing, and frankly, I looked into it for myself. However, at the time, I didn't think my ex-wife would go for it. (Yeah, I know, my own DJ, right!) So I took the easy way out, just called it CS. Such a move may have made a $120/month difference in tax liablity which I would have offered to split with her $60 each/month.

She was in full WW mode, wanting it all, so I did not believe that trying to negotiate such a thing would be effective and I dropped the idea.

So financially, I do get the advantages of calling it Spousal Support, or we have Unspecified Support, to move some of my income, taxed at a higher rate, to her side of the ledger to be taxed at a lower rate.

That is very different from making him lose his @ss because you are divorcing him.

I respectfully disagree with you LO. The reason part of a SAHM's wages are deferred is because the arrangement has not allowed for her to keep current in her choosen field in terms of work outside the home.

There has got to be a period of catch up for her to become employable at a level that would be equal to what she may have been up to had she stayed current in her field.

As a couple both H & W have choosen to put H's career first. Most often because of earning power. This does a couple of things. It allows H to persue his career knowing his other desires, a family life, are being taken care of by the W. It also places the SAHM in a holding pattern, or worse, in a position of having obsolete skills to work outside the home. Perhaps this should be written into a prenuptual agreement: The cost of what it will take for the women to earn at a level she would have been capable had she spent those years in the work force instead of at home will be paid by the working spouse.

As to the real-time benefits received by both. Yes, both receive benefits while he works outside the home while she works as a SAHM. But there is a COST for her NOT working outside the home which only becomes payable if she ends up in the position of needing to do so. This cost does not need to be paid should she continue in her role as SAHM.

I'm trying to come up with an insurance analogy. If I miss the mark maybe someone else can tweak it. The H is the insurance co. Both H & W pay into the insurance. What's being covered is the ability to continue in their current living situation of one spouse working, the other working home. Should the at home spouse no longer be able to continue in her position of SAHM she receives insurance to allow her time & training to return to the work force at a certain earning level.

I'm having to pay alimony...lots of it. My kids are grown, so child support is not an issue. I gave her almost every material asset we had...voluntarily...simply because I didn't need or want it anymore. I ended up with the lion's share of the debt. Believe me, she's living well.

But I don't think she deserves it. While we were married, she lived a great life...better than me in most respects. I drove the old cars and worried about buying myself new shoes so she could live well. I was proud that I could do that for her. She got cars, jewelry, clothes and vacations. She thought nothing of dropping $500 on exercise equipment she'd use once.

Whe my ex-W chose to be a SAHM, she did it because it's what "made her happy"

What kind of husband do you think I would have been to insist that my wife maintain her skill set and career path throughout the marriage?

Just like her, I thought marriage was supposed to last, too. A lot of things went wrong with us.

I'm angry too.

BUT SHE MADE THAT CHOICE. Just as I could, today, tell my boss that I'd like to do a lower paying job because I enjoyed it more. Do you think my company would continue to pay me after I leave because I forfeited the opportunities?

Nope...

Alimnoy would've worked in an age and culture when women simply didn't have the opportunities that men had. That is no longer so today.

We all make choices...and we will all suffer the consequences of poor ones.

It's a sweet deal if you can make the system protect you from them. That's how I see alimony.

A lot of couples have Big, Heated Discussions when the kids come along and the wife says she wants to be a SAHM. You can't physically force her to work, but a lot of husbands will "insist" as strenously as they can that their wives continue to work. You could have said, "Honey, I don't want to be in the position of paying you alimony if you walk out. You go back to work, or we create a postnup outlining our obligations."

By agreeing to her being a SAHM, it sounds like you took a gamble too.

I don't look at it as being resentful EE.If I was very wealthy sure,I would not want a single dime from my STBX but I am not so I have to look at what is best for the kids.I don't resent but rather feel grateful that he does pay.It's the least he can do IMO.If he wants to start a new life,fine.But don't make the children and I pay for it more by having us move,change schools and jobs and start over,etc.Even if my STBX wasn't a WH,the issues still stand.

My STBX is far,far from "losing his a**".This is a man who makes a LOT of money.There is essentially plenty to go around for everyone.It was just a matter of coming to an agreement thru an extremely heated and emotional time for us all.But we managed.He is doing very well despite his claims of "poor".He has since stopped that excuse when all Lawyers involved proved that there was plenty to go around.At the time the OW was pressuring him too so it was obvious when he was talking to her,he would completely change his tune.She would like nothing than for my STBX to forget he even has any family at all.And money talks too.The more he has to pay for the children and I,the less she gets.I'm just glad reason won out and we are moving forward as we planned.

Of course the husband takes a gamble when he continues to work while mom is a SAHM.

If you divorce, you have almost ZERO chance of getting custody of your child, even if it is your wife who has the affair and runs off with the kids.

Where is the protection for that.

I might be more willing to entertain supporting alimony if I saw moms arguing with the same zeal for better custody decisions for working dads, especially when they are abandoned by an unwilling or unfaithful wife.

From my point of view, I only see things argued one way, that it all should go to the SAHM. I haven't seen one of you ladies argue or even address the issues of Walk Away Wives.

I believe I've tried to see your point of view, acknowleged that it's a gamble, as well as how it looks like the deck is stacked against men.

For one thing, there is the stereotype that the divorce is because of HIS unfaithfulness. But I haven't seen anyone address the issue of HER unfaithfulness. Well, one person said she didn't believe it happened.

So I guess all those unfaithful husbands are picking unmarried women, every single one of them.

So what about those very real issues. I haven't discounted your issues, so why should I accept that it appears to me many ladies are discounting mine?

Yep, I did. You can be sure I won't be stupid enough to make that mistake again.

Which brings us full circle. A woman who is taking alimony from an ex would just as likely take it from me too.

She wouldn't be someone I'd want to be involved with.

Vasectomy was my choice. I won't have to have that discussion again.

BTW, I was happy to say yes to my XW's request to be a SAHM.

Her gratitude is overwealming <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Now, she has less time to spend with both YD and OM, since she is working full time, LOL.

I can't speak to your situation, but I can tell you that I do not see that. I see that the presumption in the courts is for JOINT custody if both parents want custody -- mom gets 50 percent, dad gets 50 percent. If mom wants to take the kids and move to Australia with her lover, the court will give the dad sole custody.

Is it unfair that you lose half of the time with your kids through no fault of your own? Yes, it is. My WH had an affair with a married woman who divorced her own husband. They share custody but she has been told that if she wants to move anywhere with my husband, her ex will get full custody.

I lose a lot more than 1/2 the time with my YD. I would be happy with 50/50 time. In fact, I proposed several parenting plans that were 50/50 or very close. Week on, week off, two nights/ week and EOW with taking the child to school on Monday's etc. XW said no, and I was advised by my lawyer that unless she was an axe murder the court would go with her because she was the SAHM for so long and had establish a precident already.

I have joint custody, but not as much parenting time as I would like. EOW and one weekday night, every other Tuesday.

To the credit of my ex-wife, she is beginning to say yes to more and more of my requests to have YD, as she is beginning to see the benefits of a night off. YD is starting to say she wants to spend more time with me. I tell her she is welcome anytime I'm not on call. I pull one week of on-call per month.

I keep selling it as fewer opportunities that we have to meet. So if weekends have me take her to school on Monday morning, instead of dropping her off, then she doesn't have to see me. (I guess she is shamed, she had the affair, and she is the one who is really angry. If you think I'm angry, you ought to see her, LOL.)

Also, I find other ways to spend time with YD. I stop by the school for lunch with her. I take her to dinner on evenings when I don't have her overnight, exercising my first right of refusal, etc.

So hoopsie, do you think your STBXH's should get spousal support.

Your case is probably a lot like mine, married man, married woman, they have an affair.

Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? I can sympathize with everyone here and all the pain we have been through.When I think back to the happier times when my H and I were doing so well and our family was great and the times I had a delicious dinner waiting for him when he got home or the birthday cakes I made him and surprised him with,children excited and ready with presents,I feel like how can things have changed so drastically? How did we go from both agreeing to our "assigned" roles in the marriage and family to pain and disrespect? My STBX used to respect me a great deal for all the hard work I did for the home,the kids,for him and his career,etc.When he met the other woman,all that changed and he looked at me like I was some kind of leech,wanting nothing but money and that I could just walk out the door and pick up where I left off 20 years ago all the while taking care of my children,worrying about daycare,their health,schedules that I now had to manage on my own without his help,finances,pain,future,fear.

For all of us things are different now but let's not blame women ( AND men) who appropriately and deservedly need money to help care for children and the home.And it's not so easy to just get back out there.Not for everyone.

That's fine, I guess. I will gently suggest that wondering what a potential love interest might end up "taking from you" is probably not an attitude that will lead to a healthy relationship. I will also suggest that if and when you fall deeply in love with a wonderful woman who makes you very happy, you might find yourself bending this rule. Never say never and all that.

As the old quote goes, "remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience."

This is the kind of thing I'd know early...there wouldn't be a "deeply in love".

It odd, women almost always evaluate a man in terms of how good a provider he is...it's the EN for financial security. Isn't that evaluating a potential partner for what you can take from them?

I'm pretty jaded about marriage in general right now. While I enjoy spending time with the OS, I will certainly not be looking to marry one in the foreseeable future for the very reasons we discuss on this forum.