Divorce

>Now is that plus alimony?
Alimony kinda died alongside the women's liberation movement. It's rare. At least in my state.

Alimony generally depends on the situation of the parties and the longevity of the marriage.

30 year marriage and you told her not to work? Yeah, you’re paying alimony

1 year marriage and you both had similar jobs? Probably not

25 year marriage and you’ve created Multi-billion dollar empire with your wife at your side? Yeah, she’s gonna get some shit

A ton of family law is discretionary and results vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case

Also, consider why the system works how it does.

Marriage = a commitment that all your shit will be shared from here on out. You get tax breaks, insurance benefits, all sorts of shit for being married. Many people focus on the egregious cases where celebrities end up paying exorbant amounts of support, but there are just as many situations in the inverse that would be equally stupid. My earlier example (30 year marriage and husband told wife to stay at home and raise kids) would be phenomenally unjust if the husband didn’t have to pay shit to help the ex-wife get back on her feet.

But again, laws vary from state to state (especially family law). Some states like CA are pretty ridiculous quite frankly.

women are the first NEETs don’t be jealous

I'd say the biggest problem isn't alimony, child support on equitable division of assets, but it is the advent of the no-fault divorce.

Used to, if a woman cheated on her husband, she was marked with a scarlet letter as an adulterous whore. Now, while the husband is working, she can cheat on him because he isn't paying her enough attention. Then, she can decide she wants out of the marriage, and break the partnership and demand and custody of the children and possession of teh house, even though her hands are not clean, and the split is her fault, adn it all gets written up as "irreconcilable differences." It didn't always work that way. Which ever spouse fucked up the marriage got a raw deal in the divorce proceeding. Now, adultery is mostly irrelevant, and treated as a symptom more than a cause.

>Rewind the last 40 years of developments in no-fault divorce if you want to get thots in order.

I happen to agree with the public policy behind no-fault divorce. Not a fan of diving that deep into personal lives and shitflinging. Also avoids the whole “I cheated on him because he beat the shit out of me” or other situations. Again, there are certainly scandalous outliers, but overall I think it’s a good policy. I’d be fine with it affecting alimony/spousal support, but even then there can be problems

Correct. The biased court model was based on the 1950's wife that doesn't exist anymore.

Getting married in today's world is dangerous at best.

Doesn't mean you can't live together or have kids.

Unless your state does common-law marriage or something similar. You can be “married” without actually getting married

Common law doctrine of clean hands, my friend. We shouldn't be so eager to discard doctrines that have been refined for a thousand years. Fault wasn't limited to adultery. Physical abuse, abandonment, habitual intoxication were on the list too. The abused cheating whore in your example can assert the affirmative defense of abuse.

With that said, I don't do any domestic work. I assumed the whole thing was a shitflinging session. Whenever you hear about a lawyer getting shot on the courthouse steps, it's almost always a divorce lawyer. Ambushing men with PFAs and taking their kids away from them and locking them out of their house without notice or due process is a dangerous game.

Wrong. Google it.