Woman going to court to pursue gold digging!

[blueblood]

ctv

When will this gold digging end?

She is trying to get the court to make her common law partner dole out 56K per month and a one time payment of 50 million bucks.

That is in essence the highest payment for sex I have ever heard of.

As much as I think Quebec is ass backward when it comes to its language laws and reasonable accomodation, they do have it right concerning not doling out money for common law relationships. I hope that the Quebecers keep this tradition going and not cave in to gold digging trash.

[bill_barilko]

If he's gotta lotta dough he should pay.

The only question is how much and her lawyer said 'Aim for the Moon'!

[blueblood]

If he's gotta lotta dough he should pay.

The only question is how much and her lawyer said 'Aim for the Moon'!

Why should he pay?

Why should she be allowed to participate in what is in theory prostitution?

Why is she entitled to so much money?

[Drea]

lived together for ten years and had three children.

Duh.

I can't see anything wrong with needing to maintain the lifestyle that her and the children have grown accustomed to. Marriage is simply a piece of paper after ten years and three kids. It should be a moot point. They are, for all intents and purposes, married.

Boys, boys, boys... listen up! DO NOT cohabitate or marry a woman who has no earning potential of her own! Find a woman equal to you so that if something goes wrong she will not be dependent on you for the rest of her life. Or be prepared to support her no matter if you split or not.

Trust me on this boys... having a stay at home wife may seem ideal, but you are taking a big risk.

[DrGreenthumb]

Duh.

I can't see anything wrong with needing to maintain the lifestyle that her and the children have grown accustomed to. Marriage is simply a piece of paper after ten years and three kids. It should be a moot point. They are, for all intents and purposes, married.

Boys, boys, boys... listen up! DO NOT cohabitate or marry a woman who has no earning potential of her own! Find a woman equal to you so that if something goes wrong she will not be dependent on you for the rest of her life. Or be prepared to support her no matter if you split or not.

Trust me on this boys... having a stay at home wife may seem ideal, but you are taking a big risk.

I actually think that quebec has it right like usual on this social issue. Obviously the man should make sure that his kids properly financially supported, but I do not see why a man or woman should have to pay anything to their spouse(common law or otherwise) after a breakup. The spouse should at the very least not be entitled to a share of anything the other had coming into the union unless there was some sort of contract to that effect.(like a signed marriage certificate) The woman already benefited from living the high life for the past 10 years and having three children who she will never have to worry about being a financial burden. I'm pretty sure they will have their educations paid for and anything else they want to ask daddy for. What's even worse is that the deadbeat spouse who is asking for the other's money can be at fault for the breakup and the innocent party is forced to pay a cheating ex spouse, and support the new couple financially. If you are wealthy and are going to get married get a pre-nup. Hell even if you are not wealthy get one. Common law spouses should have no right to the ir partner's money because he or she doesn't have a signed contract that implies shared ownership of assets. Treating cohabitation the same as marriage in law is wrong and cheapens true marriage in my opinion.

[DFCaper]

I actually think that quebec has it right like usual on this social issue. Obviously the man should make sure that his kids properly financially supported, but I do not see why a man or woman should have to pay anything to their spouse(common law or otherwise) after a breakup............... Treating cohabitation the same as marriage in law is wrong and cheapens true marriage in my opinion.

She's getting $35,000 a month. Plus I believe was given a multi-million dollar house.

He was always clear with her that he never wanted to marry her, so why should he have to pay as if he did?? That and the laws in Quebec while they lived together were clear, so even if they change the laws, since he's arrangement was prior to the laws change so he should not be victimized by the new law.

I think common-law laws outside of Quebec need to be updated. I knew people who lived with girlfriends as a cost savings, as it can be expensive to have 2 places, even though one sleeps over every night. If your not ready to make a commitment like marriage, should it be a life long financial commitment? I don't think so. Not without the contract...

Is it because of not allowing gay marriage for so many years why we have such strong common-law laws?

It also promotes Drea's class dating. Which is sad

Edited January 23, 2009 by DFCaper

[Ontario Loyalist]

I can't see anything wrong with needing to maintain the lifestyle that her and the children have grown accustomed to. Marriage is simply a piece of paper after ten years and three kids. It should be a moot point. They are, for all intents and purposes, married.

Honestly, if that's the way you think, no wonder you have problems. The "piece of paper" is simply a formal documentation of what should be a mutual, permanent inent to remain faithful, supportive, committed, and responsible to one another. They both caused a problem by having a similarly flippant attitude towards their relationship. It's the type of problem that should not be being created in the first place. This is the cost of immorality, sin, hedonism, greed, wealth, and selfishness.

Boys, boys, boys... listen up! DO NOT cohabitate or marry a woman who has no earning potential of her own! Find a woman equal to you so that if something goes wrong she will not be dependent on you for the rest of her life. Or be prepared to support her no matter if you split or not.

Women always marry up, and when something does go wrong they always still want half.

Trust me on this boys... having a stay at home wife may seem ideal, but you are taking a big risk.

No, it's better for raising children so long as she is of the right mindset. Whatever the case, advice from you is something no man in his right mind should take. You're one of them, you're playing the game, too.

[blueblood]

Duh.

I can't see anything wrong with needing to maintain the lifestyle that her and the children have grown accustomed to. Marriage is simply a piece of paper after ten years and three kids. It should be a moot point. They are, for all intents and purposes, married.

Boys, boys, boys... listen up! DO NOT cohabitate or marry a woman who has no earning potential of her own! Find a woman equal to you so that if something goes wrong she will not be dependent on you for the rest of her life. Or be prepared to support her no matter if you split or not.

Trust me on this boys... having a stay at home wife may seem ideal, but you are taking a big risk.

What are you talking about? This whore isn't making sure her kids don't live in a carboard box, she is wanting to live the high life by charging excessively for sex. That is bloody sickening.

As the song goes, if she liked it she should have put a ring on it.

If she's going after sole custody, then the man shouldn't pay a dime.

Your last point is BS because these dinosaur laws enable gold digging trash bag whores to cohabitate with guys, and when they end the relationship, they get a golden parachute. Not only that they get to ruin the guy's credit rating to boot. It doesn't matter if the woman has a job or not, she gets half the belongings. This is not only legalized prostitution, it's legalized theft.

It's cases like this where I think marriage laws should be thrown out the window.

[DrGreenthumb]

What are you talking about? This whore isn't making sure her kids don't live in a carboard box, she is wanting to live the high life by charging excessively for sex. That is bloody sickening.

As the song goes, if she liked it she should have put a ring on it.

If she's going after sole custody, then the man shouldn't pay a dime.

Your last point is BS because these dinosaur laws enable gold digging trash bag whores to cohabitate with guys, and when they end the relationship, they get a golden parachute. Not only that they get to ruin the guy's credit rating to boot. It doesn't matter if the woman has a job or not, she gets half the belongings. This is not only legalized prostitution, it's legalized theft.

It's cases like this where I think marriage laws should be thrown out the window.

Holy shit we have found some common ground! lol

Know what else i think is sickening? The schools teaching explicit sex eduction to co-ed classes starting as young as grade 5.

My 12 year old daughter just came home and informed me that question 2 on their sex-quiz was "is a vagina always wet?" They were then instructed in the benefits of foreplay, and had a discussion on how vaginas become wet. Is it just me or are certain things better off being taught to kids privately outside the public school system?

The boys all thought this was a very interesting discussion and leered over at the girls imagining how they could verify their learnings through experimentation. Is it any wonder kids are screwing around and getting knocked up earlier and earlier these days?

[guyser]

This is the cost of immorality, sin, hedonism, greed, wealth, and selfishness.

Im not sure if your advocating or fighting against?

They lived together and produced three kids.What is immoral, sinful, hedontistic greedy or selfish about that?

Women always marry up, and when something does go wrong they always still want half.

and vice versa when it is the man marrying up. So?

No, it's better for raising children so long as she is of the right mindset.

Ahem...we are talking about women.....that changes daily

[Mr.Canada]

The billionaire is already giving her $35k a month, bought her a condo in her native Brazil, bought her a mansion in Quebec with a staff of 7 fully paid for by him. What else does she want? Geez, give the guy a break imo.

[guyser]

This whore isn't making sure her kids don't live in a carboard box, she is wanting to live the high life by charging excessively for sex. That is bloody sickening.

Except she aint gettin any, and neither is he, at least not from each other. So now what?

As the song goes, if she liked it she should have put a ring on it.

Well , that would have ensured her spoils from the marriage.

Your last point is BS because these dinosaur laws enable gold digging trash bag whores to cohabitate with guys, and when they end the relationship, they get a golden parachute.

1) the dinosaur civil laws in Que actually help this guy. 2) no law 'enables' anyone , whore or not, to cohabitate w men.

The parachute comes because there are kids involved, and he is doing his part by providing support.Kudos to him .

Not only that they get to ruin the guy's credit rating to boot. It doesn't matter if the woman has a job or not, she gets half the belongings. This is not only legalized prostitution, it's legalized theft.

Dont ruin your argument by including the credit rating BS. "They get to" ? No they dont, that some might or do, and that some men are dumb is not equal to "they get to" .

As for half the estate, yes she should , at least anywhere else she would, get half the accumulated estate while they were married , or they have a legally binding 'release document".

It's cases like this where I think marriage laws should be thrown out the window.

There is no 'marriage law' in this case. Just civil law that deals w it, and frankly, Que is back assward to the rest of the continent , or further ahead depending on your sex.

[guyser]

Know what else i think is sickening? The schools teaching explicit sex eduction to co-ed classes starting as young as grade 5.

Kids are starting younger and younger , so perhaps its time you had a chat with your kids and tell them whats up.

My 12 year old daughter just came home and informed me that question 2 on their sex-quiz was "is a vagina always wet?" They were then instructed in the benefits of foreplay, and had a discussion on how vaginas become wet. Is it just me or are certain things better off being taught to kids privately outside the public school system?

Perhaps, but they are not, so the schools have to.

The boys all thought this was a very interesting discussion and leered over at the girls imagining how they could verify their learnings through experimentation.

They are boys, the word 'bumps' puts them into a lather. Hasnt changed since the Lindbergh baby fell into the toilet.

Is it any wonder kids are screwing around and getting knocked up earlier and earlier these days?

Considering the female body is developing earlier and earlier due to various growth hormones and others tuff in our food, what does one expect?

But there isnt a real connection (IMV) between sex ed and kids getting jiggy with it, unless of course you want to talk about how prepared they are vs a much younger version of ourselves.

Abstinence programmes have higher than average STD rates than the kids who never pledge . Strange huh?

[blueblood]

Except she aint gettin any, and neither is he, at least not from each other. So now what?

Of course they aren't gettin any, when the job's done in her eye's it's time to foot the bill.

1) the dinosaur civil laws in Que actually help this guy. 2) no law 'enables' anyone , whore or not, to cohabitate w men.

The parachute comes because there are kids involved, and he is doing his part by providing support.Kudos to him .

I was refering to the dinosaur civil laws in the ROC, Quebec for once has done something right. No marriage, no loot.

The guy has provided support, this gold digger is going for more. Obviously 35K a month and a mansion isn't enough for her. She wants 50 million and 50K a month. That's flat out gold digging and you know it.

I'm going to ask you why does she deserve all of this money she wants? Quebec law is on my side in this issue. Her kids are already been looked after. Why should is she entitled to half of his money if she isn't even earning any of it? Does she go to his job and do half his work for him? Why does she deserve 50 million dollars plus 50K per month just for breaking up with a guy. Do you not see the ethical dilemna here?

Dont ruin your argument by including the credit rating BS. "They get to" ? No they dont, that some might or do, and that some men are dumb is not equal to "they get to" .

As for half the estate, yes she should , at least anywhere else she would, get half the accumulated estate while they were married , or they have a legally binding 'release document".

I'm pretty sure having a divorce hurts the credit score and complicates things regarding money and big purchases. Does a person have the right to go into a relationship for 6 months and end it to get a nice cash payout, not to mentioning causing potential financial problems to the breadwinner (man or woman)?

There is no 'marriage law' in this case. Just civil law that deals w it, and frankly, Que is back assward to the rest of the continent , or further ahead depending on your sex.

Only ass backward depending on whether your the breadwinner or the leech. I'm sure sugar mommas wouldn't like a dead beat husband raiding their bank accounts after living together for 6 months and "conveniently" breaking it off.

[guyser]

No marriage, no loot.

I suspect that will change soon. It should.

The guy has provided support, this gold digger is going for more. Obviously 35K a month and a mansion isn't enough for her. She wants 50 million and 50K a month. That's flat out gold digging and you know it.

Thing is we dont know that.

Could be a lawyer is prompting her to allow him to try this. Could be a contingent fee arrangement. Who knows?

I'm going to ask you why does she deserve all of this money she wants? Quebec law is on my side in this issue. Her kids are already been looked after. Why should is she entitled to half of his money if she isn't even earning any of it? Does she go to his job and do half his work for him? Why does she deserve 50 million dollars plus 50K per month just for breaking up with a guy. Do you not see the ethical dilemna here?

Does she deserve it ? I dont really know. Is she deserving of more, based on his income between the time they shacked up and then produced 3 kids to now? Very well could be deserving.

Obviously the man has a business that does very well. It could well be that she had some hand in that business doing so well, or improving its profitability.

I have witnessed enough to know that one spouse succeeds because the other spouse supported and aided in that success.

My dad had to do a lot of entertaining of executives from around the world. If it wasnt at a restaurant, it was at home, or it was my mom being named the Chair of the womens group at some far away conference, chaffeuring around a bunch of women from far off lands.

All entertaining was done together. Conference? Dinner engagements?Flying off for speeches or meeting govt officials of other countries ? They did it together. (typically it looks better)

That my mom was a gracious host was never lost on anyone. It wasnt lost on my dad, nor his company, nor the clients...especially the clients. So, my moms abilities along with the abililties of my dad meant he moved into the penthouse so to speak.

That my dad lived in Australia for 3 months in the very early 70's, lived and worked in Iran for little more than a month (demanding to be sent home the day before the Embassy fell-he knew something was going on) and numerous other spots meant my mom was doing his job.

He had to go to some very strange places (pictures of him w headhunting aboriginals in the outback for one) and he contracted some strange ailments, or worse the drugs he would have to take prior to leaving would make him violently ill for days (sweating and shaking so bad you could hear the bed shaking downstairs) meant my mom would have to care for him along with 4 kids who needed to get to school, hockey games and practices (3 boys) and figure skating (1 girl)everyday of the week . And that is an unpaid job. The illness was caused by work, yet there wasnt compensation for it other than his regular pay.

Her doing her job (entertaining,et al) meant he was able to make more money , rise up , get more clients and retain them (thanks to my mom), ergo more money.

My mom was never paid by his company. Should we ignore that contribution?

No, she was working right alongside him. (they never divorced)

I have seen the very same thing with many other people. A wife on a rising career who decides to either fund the other while schooling or to give it up (the job) and have some babies.

I also know that the very same thing, only in reverse, can happen and some spouses are not deserving of what they ultimately end up with. But no law is perfect.

I'm pretty sure having a divorce hurts the credit score and complicates things regarding money and big purchases

Credit score problems speaks to the inability to manage money, not the divorce itself.

. Does a person have the right to go into a relationship for 6 months and end it to get a nice cash payout, not to mentioning causing potential financial problems to the breadwinner (man or woman)?

No. But nowhere on earth does that occur. From what I know it takes 2 years co-hab and/or the union of a child.

No one is an advocate for a May to Sept relationship and a subsequent payout.

Only ass backward depending on whether your the breadwinner or the leech. I'm sure sugar mommas wouldn't like a dead beat husband raiding their bank accounts after living together for 6 months and "conveniently" breaking it off.

Again, this has nothing to do with a 6 month deal.However, a dead beat husband would be entitled to his share of the estate.

[Drea]

Honestly, if that's the way you think, no wonder you have problems.

I have no problems.

Hubby and I cohabitate. I make the same amount and contribute the same amount to our mutual family account. If we split, I get half, he gets half. Fair, don't you think?

I would like to get married officially some day... but it's not a requirement for us to feel fully committed to one another.

The "piece of paper" is simply a formal documentation of what should be a mutual, permanent inent to remain faithful, supportive, committed, and responsible to one another. They both caused a problem by having a similarly flippant attitude towards their relationship.

Just never got around to getting married... happens.

It's the type of problem that should not be being created in the first place. This is the cost of immorality, sin, hedonism, greed, wealth, and selfishness.

So in your view having children is sinful, hedonistic, greedy and selfish unless one has stood in front of an "official" and said vows?

You "born again" or sumpthin'?

Women always marry up, and when something does go wrong they always still want half.

Bullshit! TRADITIONAL women marry "up" because they are trained that they are helpless waifs who need a man to earn the bucks.

No, it's better for raising children so long as she is of the right mindset. Whatever the case, advice from you is something no man in his right mind should take. You're one of them, you're playing the game, too.

What game? And no, it is not better to stay at home. Nor is it worse. Circumstances are not all alike in all famillies.

A man should make sure he is marrying (or cohabitating) with a woman who won't be dependent on him for life, should something happen.

My advice to young women is make sure you have a career to fall back on (even if you decide to stay home while the kiddies are little) because you never know what the future may bring.

Feminists want equaltiy, not a goddamn handout. Only traditional women in traditional roles are dependent. Hey if you want a dependent woman... you just might get one... for life no matter what. And that, is your bed to lie in. *shrug*

Me, if something happens between hubby and I... oh well, neither one of us will die without the other. We are both equally able to care for ourselves emotionally and financially.

[Oleg Bach]

When you see a woman go into a court with all the "support" provided by what appears to be do-gooders and those protecting what is said to be feminist values...you will notice on close inspection that there are always other men - other than the tormented husband involved..some are lawyers. These others under the guise of helping the poor down trodden female are actually using her as a conduit to drain money from the husband - the woman are just being used...and most are so gleeful at the new found sense of power that their brains don't get past the power surge and the dollar signs - This case is just a grander version of the same old stuff - How can one man steal from another ---- and it's legal...what a joke.

[blueblood]

I suspect that will change soon. It should.

Thing is we dont know that.

Could be a lawyer is prompting her to allow him to try this. Could be a contingent fee arrangement. Who knows?

Does she deserve it ? I dont really know. Is she deserving of more, based on his income between the time they shacked up and then produced 3 kids to now? Very well could be deserving.

Obviously the man has a business that does very well. It could well be that she had some hand in that business doing so well, or improving its profitability.

I have witnessed enough to know that one spouse succeeds because the other spouse supported and aided in that success.

My dad had to do a lot of entertaining of executives from around the world. If it wasnt at a restaurant, it was at home, or it was my mom being named the Chair of the womens group at some far away conference, chaffeuring around a bunch of women from far off lands.

All entertaining was done together. Conference? Dinner engagements?Flying off for speeches or meeting govt officials of other countries ? They did it together. (typically it looks better)

That my mom was a gracious host was never lost on anyone. It wasnt lost on my dad, nor his company, nor the clients...especially the clients. So, my moms abilities along with the abililties of my dad meant he moved into the penthouse so to speak.

That my dad lived in Australia for 3 months in the very early 70's, lived and worked in Iran for little more than a month (demanding to be sent home the day before the Embassy fell-he knew something was going on) and numerous other spots meant my mom was doing his job.

He had to go to some very strange places (pictures of him w headhunting aboriginals in the outback for one) and he contracted some strange ailments, or worse the drugs he would have to take prior to leaving would make him violently ill for days (sweating and shaking so bad you could hear the bed shaking downstairs) meant my mom would have to care for him along with 4 kids who needed to get to school, hockey games and practices (3 boys) and figure skating (1 girl)everyday of the week . And that is an unpaid job. The illness was caused by work, yet there wasnt compensation for it other than his regular pay.

Her doing her job (entertaining,et al) meant he was able to make more money , rise up , get more clients and retain them (thanks to my mom), ergo more money.

My mom was never paid by his company. Should we ignore that contribution?

No, she was working right alongside him. (they never divorced)

I have seen the very same thing with many other people. A wife on a rising career who decides to either fund the other while schooling or to give it up (the job) and have some babies.

I also know that the very same thing, only in reverse, can happen and some spouses are not deserving of what they ultimately end up with. But no law is perfect.

Credit score problems speaks to the inability to manage money, not the divorce itself.

No. But nowhere on earth does that occur. From what I know it takes 2 years co-hab and/or the union of a child.

No one is an advocate for a May to Sept relationship and a subsequent payout.

Again, this has nothing to do with a 6 month deal.However, a dead beat husband would be entitled to his share of the estate.

Why should that deal in Quebec change. Without common law status, nobody gains anything, and nobody loses anything. You leave the relationship the same way you came in, fair no?

I have witnessed people who succeed in spite of their spouses. This woman is not looking to make sure her kids are looked after, she is wanting to get rich. That's just flat out evil.

Credit score problems do speak to the ability to manage money improperly, a divorce on top of piss poor management is a recipe for credit score disaster. They do ask the divorce question on some applications regarding big sums of loot.

I have had a friend who had to settle out of court for the cohab thing, and from what I understand it's six months living together and its cohab with full benefits. Needless to say it was the best 20 grand he ever spent.

I'm not playing gender favorites, the dead beat husband who pulls that gold digging nonsense deserves nothing IMO.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Bullshit! TRADITIONAL women marry "up" because they are trained that they are helpless waifs who need a man to earn the bucks.

Please, refrain from using profanity. The majority of women in so-called "traditional" relationships were quite adept at maintaining their dominance in a relationship despite the fact that the man was often the "bread winner". Honestly, if you lived in a society where the two options for work were either going out and working 12 to 16 hours a day in a menial, low-paying job, or staying at home with the kids (those that weren't at school) cooking and cleaning, who really had the raw deal? Yup, the man.

Feminists want equaltiy, not a goddamn handout. Only traditional women in traditional roles are dependent. Hey if you want a dependent woman... you just might get one... for life no matter what. And that, is your bed to lie in. *shrug*

Equality is the standard agenda of any "revolutionary movement" and, of course, is NEVER the true agenda or result. There can be legislated equality of rights, but in practice there is always a dominant partner in a relationship; more often than not, that has been the woman, so the "equal rights movement" is something of a paradox.

[Drea]

Please, refrain from using profanity. The majority of women in so-called "traditional" relationships were quite adept at maintaining their dominance in a relationship despite the fact that the man was often the "bread winner".

Sorry to have offended your fragile senses... won't happen again.

So throughout history (in your opinion) when women had no choice but to stay home .... they were "dominant"? Okey Dokey.

Honestly, if you lived in a society where the two options for work were either going out and working 12 to 16 hours a day in a menial, low-paying job, or staying at home with the kids (those that weren't at school) cooking and cleaning, who really had the raw deal? Yup, the man.

Being a stay at home wife was not "easy" generations ago... wringer washers, cloth diapers, baking from scratch... seriously, back in the "bad old days" being a stay at home wife/mother was darn hard work.

Today however... automatic dishwashers, disposable diapers, cars, muffins at the grocery... seriously a stay at home wife today has absolutely the most cushy "job" possible.

Equality is the standard agenda of any "revolutionary movement" and, of course, is NEVER the true agenda or result. There can be legislated equality of rights, but in practice there is always a dominant partner in a relationship; more often than not, that has been the woman, so the "equal rights movement" is something of a paradox.

Why do you have a problem with equality? Shouldn't the couple decide what roles are right for each of them, rather than society telling them what they should do?

I have an equal relationship. Hubby has now gone back to university (at age 45)... he can only do this because his partner is a feminist who planned ahead and got herself a good career. If he were with a traditional woman he would have no way to get out of his current job as she and the kidlets would be entirely dependent on his income. What would he do? Let them starve while he changes careers? LOL

As a feminist, I made sure I had an education and a good career for myself. Turns out now that it wasn't just good planning for me, but for my hubby as well.

So suck up your anti-feminism and pay for the woman you so desperately wanted to be "traditional".

I'll be laughing all the way to my joint bank account.

[Oleg Bach]

Here here - human rights all around - and no abuse of males or females...and cut throat opportunists who enter into personal buisness that is not theirs should be jailed - lawyers included.

[Renegade]

Shouldn't the couple decide what roles are right for each of them, rather than society telling them what they should do?

Excactly! It is the couple who should decide without having roles or obligations imposed upon them by society. The couple entered into an arrangement which the woman is now trying to get society to unilaterially change.

In this case the couple entered into an arrangement under Quebec common law and the rules are clear:

"No matter how long cohabitation has lasted," a Quebec government document unambiguously explains, "de facto spouses have no legal support obligation to each other, even if one spouse is in need and the other has a high income."

Quebec billionaire's partner launches challenge for alimony

If the woman wasn't satisified with the financial arrangement, why did she willing enter to the cohbitation? If the woman wasn't aware of the finanical arrangment under cohabitation, should we accept that as an excuse any more than we would accept that a man didn't know the finanical obligations when he enters into a marriage?

Edited January 24, 2009 by Renegade

[RB]

ctv

When will this gold digging end?

A couple of years ago I swear I was persuaded to believe women should be independent, work and gather their own dollars.

Today, I support women going after the men for payment of all sorts. More power to the ladies - know your rights, and the limit is boundless/infinite. As a matter of fact, no woman should go ahead and make children without the eternal support of the male.

There I said it.

[Renegade]

A couple of years ago I swear I was persuaded to believe women should be independent, work and gather their own dollars.

Have you changed your mind since?

Today, I support women going after the men for payment of all sorts.

Of all sorts??? Really?? Statements like this would seem to imply that you support women gold-digging. Do you?

More power to the ladies - know your rights, and the limit is boundless/infinite.

Of course. When the law is so skewed towards women, their limits is indeed boundless despite any "fairness".

As a matter of fact, no woman should go ahead and make children without the eternal support of the male.

No they probably shouldn't, but what happens if they don't have the support and have babies anyway? Certainly in this case the man did not offer the support obligations of marriage and she still proceeded to have children with him. No doubt it was still a lucrative endevour even without a marriage commitment.

[RB]

Have you changed your mind since?

Yes. Historically, females marry a rich man gain access to their wealth, in the movie the "Duchess" marry very well – a duke. A couple of years ago I was led to believe that that equality has been achieved and women can become rich all by themselves, like why become dependent on others i.e. a husband - to be a notable rich. But, it is foolish to make quick assumption on the equality matter.

Now, I have decided that women "trying" to become rich by themselves are being despised, because firstly they are making careers their priority, secondly family is material things and thirdly women still cannot become rich by themselves.

Women are unlikely to achieve becoming rich from honest paid work as men reproduce their powers through each other. So men keep getting rich. And it is no surprise women realise they won't get the perks and niceties in life without the help of a wealthy male. Most of the women millionaires are the result of looting wealth via divorces from their rich husbands.

So, fast forward to the now and the future women don't seem to have self-worthiness, e.g. the woman selling her virginity, can be hailed our new beginnings, and more things to come. So, there is general acceptance about "gold digging", prostituting yourself, like grab a rich man, even a sugar daddy and love can always follow afterwards.

Folks are always fascinated when the women boldly reveal their requirements of rich males. Women do not feel shameful to admit that they are looking for a rich man, even it is to cohabitate - they will still have access to a lifestyle and later the parted richness results for the woman. And what the heck picking a rich man should be a woman's top priority, forget this climbing the ladder nonsense, women need to make life easier, get things easier, get something stability in your life, a life that any women can happily grow into.

What's so wrong with gold digging? It results in happiness for women. I am quite sure you men want to keep the woman folks happy.

Of all sorts??? Really?? Statements like this would seem to imply that you support women gold-digging. Do you?

Yes, women are unlikely to get rich all by themselves. Greed is not a bad thing.