From Human Stupidity, an MRA blog rather obsessed with underage girls and the alleged evil of age of consent laws:
[I]f a 15 year old … can decide to have sex with a 16 year old … [h]ow come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?
Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? I have a solution:
what about legalizing sex with underage adolescents, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. More safety that is offered to 21 year old tipsy Friday night party girls who may feel sorry for what they did yesterday
I think he might actually be serious here. Though it’s pretty clear he’d be happy with any excuse to make it legal for 35 year-old men to have sex with 15 year-old girls.
Brandon: As I’ve said before, the bed you are lying in, you made. You’ve earned more snark and snide than you are getting, mostly because you are casually assholish.
You, of course, don’t see it that way but it’s why so many people are being short with you.
Brandon: Although I respect Wikipedia, it is a source geared towards lay people, and therefore not reliable when it comes to legal stuff. You best consult a textbook on contracts, instead. A contract is a contract, whereas marriage is marriage.
So…now we’re back to the idea that Brandon just doesn’t want any commitment whatsoever. Not so much a principled stand against the well-documented issues with marriage as an institution as a personal preference not to have to commit to and care for a partner. Okay, fine. But don’t dress that up as anything but selfishness.
And note the gender neutral ‘partner.’ Men and women care for each other and commit to each other in serious heterosexual relationships. I’m not suggesting that you as a man should support your wife but that the two of you together could commit to, support, and help each other.
Wait… let me get this straight…
Getting married (Legal costs ~$100) and the (societal norm) of celebrating it with a party (because of all the silly things to celebrate is a couple of people’s happiness) is a waste of money in spite of the automatic granting of nearly 10,000 rights and privileges.
But spending tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to duplicate the same rights and privileges over hundreds of contracts is a “reasonable” allocation of resources?
For someone who believes they’re rational and savvy, this would never pass as a Best Practices in the corporate world.
@Amused: Is marriage binding in court? Is it an agreement that comes with obligations and privileges? Does the court system have to handle disagreements?
A contract is a contract and marriage is a type of contract. Marriage is marriage which is a contract.
So…since you think Wikipedia is for layman’s that makes it unreliable? As if one error dismisses their millions of pages of verified and cited information. Granted, there are errors in Wikipedia, but you should be able to critically examine what you read and double check if you think something doesn’t sound quite right.
I also included the definitions of contract and marriage from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. If you think they aren’t the authority on what definitions are, then I don’t really know what to tell you.
@Comrade: Again, I help and support my girlfriend where I can. However, I don’t think she should have the right to demand that I keep her “in the lifestyle in which she became accustomed too” if the relationship goes sour. Shit happens, life changes. And anyone that thinks they should be “kept in their lifestyle” without working for it…is an entitled brat.
You contradicted yourself in the same sentence. I should support my girlfriend but you aren’t suggesting it?
@Cynical: Let’s assume that you actually do get 10000 rights and privileges. Not every one of them is going to apply to you. Some only apply to veterans while others aren’t added benefits because you might already have it (insurance benefits).
If you go through the list, you can usually get rid of at least a third of them as “not applicable”
Then you get rid of the ones that you have already duplicated in other documents (wills, trusts, etc…)
Then you look at what you have left and make a decision on if those rights are actually important to you, or if you find them useful.
So out of the 10000, there might only be 1000 that you actually 1) want and 2) that are applicable to you.
Then you make the decision if those 1000 rights are worth the legal and financial obligations that come with them. Nothing is free and those rights come with responsibility. Are those rights worth it?
For me…absolutely not! Just the idea of having to deal with the courts is reason enough for me to avoid it. I would rather not be apart of some kangaroo court that is heavily biased against me.
Secondly, contracts are better served for business issues not matters of love and intimacy. Business is business and impersonal. Love and intimacy is highly emotional and often times fleeting. It’s hard to make a contract that accounts for whimsy.
Brandon: @Comrade: Again, I help and support my girlfriend where I can. However, I don’t think she should have the right to demand that I keep her “in the lifestyle in which she became accustomed too” if the relationship goes sour. Shit happens, life changes. And anyone that thinks they should be “kept in their lifestyle” without working for it…is an entitled brat.
Do you read yourself?
How does one partner become accustomed to that lifestyle? (pop quiz, how many people who were employed at the time of their divorce last year got spousal support?).
Are you honestly trying to argue that it’s some sort of plot.
Step 1: Get married.
Step 2: Give up independence and self-sufficiency.
Step 3: Divorce.
Step 4: PROFIT!!!!
Bullshit.
If one partner is doing something which isn’t externally remunerative, the other partner had to consent to it. Even outside a marriage this can lead to repercussions.
implied contract
Definition
A legally enforceable agreement that arises from conduct, from assumed intentions, from some relationship among the immediate parties, or from the application of the legal principle of equity.
For example, a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift. Therefore, the party accepting the benefit is under a legal obligation to give fair value for the benefit received. Opposite of express contract. See also express contract, implied in fact contract, and implied in law contract.
That’s the principle behind spousal support. It’s “something they didn’t earn.”. I realise you don’t think cooking, cleaning, making the beds, looking after the kids, etc. is “real work”, because “anyone can do it” (even if you admit that kids can be a hassle).
Good luck getting someone to come in and do all of those (even excluding the childcare), for free. If you like, you can try thinking of spousal support as back pay.
Massachusetts recognises that room and board are equivalent to pay. It is well established that the value of room and board provided in lieu of pay for services is rightly included in the calculation of average weekly wage. See Brewer’s Case, 335 Mass. 601, 604 (1957); Palomba’s Case, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 881 (1980)(rescript); Corbett v. The Druker Co., 14 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 276 (2000). (a href =http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdterminal&L=7&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=EOLWD+Publications&L3=Workers%27+Compensation+Publications&L4=Reviewing+Board+Decisions&L5=2002&L6=March&sid=Elwd&b=terminalcontent&f=dia_review_board_decisions_02a_william_ning_ma&csid=Elwd>Ning Ma v General Electric So saying the non-externally employed partner was somehow freeloading (anyone that thinks they should be “kept in their lifestyle” without working for it…,) isn’t justified.
To Recap: (1) Partners who work outside the home don’t get spousal support in a divorce; and your insistence of this happening is either confused, or dishonest. Since we keep pointing out that it’s not, and you keep bringing it up, I am beginning to tend to dishonest).
(2) A partner who doesn’t work outside the home isn’t going to be doing it unilaterally.
(3) Work inside the home is both recompensable, and reduces the ability of that person to obtain work capable of enabling self-sufficiency.
(4) The employed partner received a benefit, in exchange for this limitation on the part of the non-working partner.
(5), Ergo, as that diminishment of earning potential was understood to be the case, and cannot be considered a gift, the principle of implied contract dictates that payment for the ongoing loss of earning potential can be extracted from the other party.
It’s a matter of fairness.
Comrade Svilova. wrote: “Men and women care for each other and commit to each other in serious heterosexual relationships. I’m not suggesting that you as a man should support your wife but that the two of you together could commit to, support, and help each other.”
See, I don’t think Brandon has ever been in, or seen, a relationship like that. Earlier he talked about having to choose between a boring, prudish woman and a slutty, funny one, as if there were no other options in life. Just now he wrote, “Secondly, contracts are better served for business issues not matters of love and intimacy. Business is business and impersonal. Love and intimacy is highly emotional and often times fleeting. It’s hard to make a contract that accounts for whimsy.” He’s bought whole hog into the idea that marriage is like this:
“Step 1: Get married.
Step 2: Give up independence and self-sufficiency.
Step 3: Divorce.
Step 4: PROFIT!!!!”
because he’s never seen or felt anything else.
Crap: The case link is:
Massachusetts recognises that room and board are equivalent to pay. It is well established that the value of room and board provided in lieu of pay for services is rightly included in the calculation of average weekly wage. See Brewer’s Case, 335 Mass. 601, 604 (1957); Palomba’s Case, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 881 (1980)(rescript); Corbett v. The Druker Co., 14 Mass. Workers’ Comp. Rep. 276 (2000). (Ning Ma v General Electric . So saying the non-externally employed partner was somehow freeloading (anyone that thinks they should be “kept in their lifestyle” without working for it…,) isn’t justified.
As a piece of anectdata the only case of spousal support in my circles is the ex-wife paying the ex-husband. He spent his time restoring their house.
Over the past, call it 20 years, I’d have to say there have probably been 60 divorces in my various circles. One case of spousal support. Not dispositive, but strongly indicative.
@Pecunium: I am not saying it is a plot or some lofty conspiracy. There are male and female users. That is why we have con men and gold diggers. This isn’t some government plot to ransack my checking account.
I also know that 2 working adults don’t get alimony. This is a reason why I wouldn’t want a stay at home wife. In the long run, it is more productive for her to stay in the workforce than to stay at home.
1) When was I being “insistent” on this? I have many times said that alimony is not paid when 2 working adults are married. It only becomes an issue when one stays home and the other works.
2) Not all the time. I have known some women that have told their husbands they are staying home. Weak willed bastards…eh it’s their own fault for not standing up for yourself. But yes, most of the time both people come to that decision.
3) You should be paid because you are taking care of your own shit? That is your house, your kids, your everything…That’s like asking someone to pay me for cleaning my own bathroom.
Stay at home parents willingly (willingly!!!!) make the decision to stay at home. Hence why should they be compensated when they knew damn well that their job prospects were going to suffer for that decision. If I took 5 years off of work, I wouldn’t be asking others to give me money when I knew that I was going to have to start over.
4) What benefit? The benefits of a stay at home spouse can be replaced with a weekly maid and day care. That is why we have dishwashers and washing machines…and swiffers.
5) Fairness my ass. Everyone knows that if you remove yourself from the job market…you are fucking yourself over in the future. And again…the non-working partner made a decision to have a diminished earning potential.
@Molly: I don’t think those are the only two options…but they are two extremes.
I think step 1 and 2 are correct. Step 3 happens at a 50/50 chance. You can’t really profit from divorce…damn thing is a money pit. Lawyers, Court fees, staff…way to damn expensive. I don’t want to have to pay someone to basically say “I don’t love this person anymore and I want to be single again”. I would rather just pack a bag, say bye and leave. Much easier and simpler.
“I would rather just pack a bag, say bye and leave. Much easier and simpler.”
All about you, all the time. This must be the Tao of Brandon.
“4) What benefit? The benefits of a stay at home spouse can be replaced with a weekly maid and day care. That is why we have dishwashers and washing machines…and swiffers.”
So, Brandon… what if someone didn’t have enough money for a maid? Or day care? Then what?
“I think step 1 and 2 are correct.”
I’m also confused as to why marriage always results in dependency. What kind of dependency? The dependency of having someone to cuddle at night or have dinner with?
We’ve been talking about stay-at-home parents here, mostly, but that’s not always the norm. Can two people get married, not have kids, and remain independent tho married? Is the dependency negated if they both work?
@HellKell: No, I just don’t want to get into a long drawn-out fight when a relationship goes sour. At some point, it is time to cut your losses and find someone else. It is better for me and better for her.
@Molly: Umm…then they do their own cleaning and cooking. Parents can also ask friends and family to help during rough spots when it comes to kids.
Also, I have little sympathy for people that have children when they know they can not afford them or reasonably take care of them…it’s borderline abuse.
“Also, I have little sympathy for people that have children when they know they can not afford them or reasonably take care of them…it’s borderline abuse.”
Not having a maid and a nanny is “boderline abuse”? o.O
Okay, how about my second question? If a married couple doesn’t have children, and they both work, are they still dependent?
@Molly: Dependency as in relying on that person far to much or too often. It inhibits personal growth. Financial dependency is also at play here.
I do not have to get married to cuddle with my girlfriend or enjoy dinner with her. In fact, I do those things right now.
Then there is treating marriage like a business and combining bank accounts and other financial assets and liabilities.
Marriage takes two independent people and merges them into a co-dependent business.
@Molly No…not having enough money to feed, cloth and otherwise take care of a child without it impoverishing someone and/or that child. That is the abusive part. Having a maid is just a luxury and a time saver.
“Dependency as in relying on that person far to much or too often. It inhibits personal growth.”
Okay, so what kind of “personal growth” are you having with Ashley that you couldn’t have in a marriage?
“Marriage takes two independent people and merges them into a co-dependent business.”
I’ll let me husband know, even though we both work and do stuff around the house, that we’re trapped in a co-dependent business. Totally ignoring the fact that both of us survived quite well on our own, yet–wait for it–wanted to get married (and we lived together quite awhile too).
You really are sad.
Molly, that would be the personal growth needed to be “poly” without the others knowing about each other.
@hellkell, I don’t think Brandon’s poly. I think he used to have other partners, is now monogamous with Ashley, and for some reason still referred to himself as “poly”. XD
I don’t think he’s poly either, I think he confuses that with regular old cheating.
So in the situation of a failure of birth control (even with proper use, there is a smidgen of a possibility of pregnancy) and since you already said you are anti-choice for yourself, you and Ashley decide to have the baby. And further, you choose not to put the baby up for adoption.
First there is bill with the birth-let us say you and Ashley have the common method of c-section. $6,000 is MA’s average cost. You have insurance, Ashley does not because her employer recently decided to cancel it. The baby’s care is covered under your policy but since Ashley is not your wife (and therefore on your insurance), she has to pay the entire cost of the bill herself.
Luckily she has the money at this time because she is a good saver. But then she gets laid off. Granted that saves you the average $10,000 a year in childcare because right now she can stay home most of the time. However since she spent all of her savings paying for the birth of the kid she no longer is 50/50 with expenses.
Hate to say it but it looks like the first thing you will do is kick her out and take her to court to get sole custody because she is “abusing” her child by being broke.
Deny it all you want but your own statements lead us to that conclusion.
Brandon: That’s an F for you in Contracts 101. Not every enforceable obligation is a contract. You have an obligation to pay taxes, which is enforceable in court, but citizenship is not a contract. As for the definition of contracts, no, a standard dictionary is not an authority on the subject, at least as long as you are talking about contracts in the legal sense. The only reliable source in that regard is legal literature on the subject. Incidentally, Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “contract” is about a page long.
Marriage is not a contract. It just isn’t. One of the most fundamental requirements of a contract is that it have a very definite, clearly defined subject matter — which marriage does not. And this is by far not the only distinction.
@Molly: I was poly in the past. Right now, I am in a monogamous relationship with Ashley. However, If that situation changes, I have no problem going back to poly.
The way I structure my relationships, I am unable to actually cheat. The women I am with know up front what to expect. If she chooses to continue the relationship…well that’s on her.
@Elizabeth: Women have pills, IUD’s, Plan B, condoms, abortion and adoption. Women basically have all the say in if you want a child. I don’t buy the “whoops” argument. If you are pregnant, you can still abort or give the child up for adoption. I personally think it is abusive to bring a child into this world when you are unable to care for it. If you can’t take care of yourself…why would you add a child to that bad situation.
We live in Massachusetts…we are legally obligated to have health insurance. Otherwise we get fined. So both of us has insurance.
At the end of it all…you are just bringing up “what if” scenarios. I don’t structure my life around every conceivable outcome.
I wouldn’t kick her out because of a kid. I would kick her out if 1) The house/lease was in my name 2) We were breaking up and 3) That she had somewhere to go once she left (parent’s, friends, etc…)
@Amused: Citizenship is a contract. It is called your birth certificate and passport. You can terminate that contract by renouncing your citizenship, which is dissolving that contract.
Oh I am sorry…the most well known and trusted dictionary is apparently not good enough of a source for you. Well, I guess you can point me to some heavily biased pages that agree with your point of view.
So in order to debate this point with you, I have to buy a subscription to Black Law’s Dictionary Online.
BTW, my buddy actually is an attorney and I asked him if marriage was contract. He said marriage is in it’s own “special category” and depending on the lawsuit it can be treated just like a contract.
So…”shifting, hard to pin down contract”…Oh I am just so giddy to get one of those.