How to make women accountable for the costs of courtship in the case of betrayal?

[MorganAlpha]

We all know that in the case of divorce a woman can claim for any work she has done for a man, housework etc, in hard coin, and add this to the bill in the divorce. Often women are given a share in a house based on housework.

However, men spend gigantic sums of money on women even before marriage on the courtship itself, and here I define courtship loosely as the time of living together before marriage, for things such as joint holidays, expensive restaurants, expensive gifts, outright financial help.

Why are men not able to claim back those amounts of money in cases where the woman betrays the man? Should that not be the case, and if so, how could one effectively put such provisions in law?

 

[darknavigator]

@ Morgan Alpha

"Why are men not able to claim back those amounts of money in cases where the woman betrays the man?"

I'd imagine it's because in civil court cases the court tends to favour the weaker party? Guy Ritchie received US$ 75 million from Madonna when they divorced - he was obviously the weaker party. Most of the time the man will be in a stronger position economically than the woman. The man might have a financial claim if he was the homemaker / house husband? Any legal experts out there?

 

[iop890]

It's because divorce laws are designed to incentivize divorce. There are a few exceptional cases like Madonna where the roles are reversed, but in the overwhelming majority of cases divorce laws are simply a way of offering the party that's already more prone to divorce for frivolous reasons an additional cash payout if they go ahead and pull the trigger.

 

[MorganAlpha]

@ Morgan Alpha

"Why are men not able to claim back those amounts of money in cases where the woman betrays the man?"

I'd imagine it's because in civil court cases the court tends to favour the weaker party? Guy Ritchie received US$ 75 million from Madonna when they divorced - he was obviously the weaker party. Most of the time the man will be in a stronger position economically than the woman. The man might have a financial claim if he was the homemaker / house husband? Any legal experts out there?

I am sure that is true. However, it strikes as fundamentally unjust that a woman can claim for every pair of trousers she has washed for a man but a man can not claim for a 7000 USD luxury holiday, an expensive gift he made, money paid in otherwise in the expectation that the woman would be faithful to him. However if she then leaves, unilaterally breaks the contract, should she not be financially accountable as well?

That seems only equitable and would in theory further underline a woman's need to be faithful in a world where 50% of marriages end in divorces, the vast majority initiated by women.

 

[Thomas More]

Pretty much every thing is the opposite of the way it ought to be. Once you internalize this reality and get used to recognizing it in action, it become obvious that of course men can not be reimbursed for bad faith behavior by a woman being courted.

 

[darknavigator]

@ Morgan Alpha

An even more unfair situation is 'paternity fraud' were the man can be held financially liable for a child that is not his biologically. The woman cheats, becomes pregnant and doesn't tell her husband / partner. The husband / partner signs the birth certificate in good faith. The relationship ends and he's still on the hook financially for a child that's not his biologically. How is this ethical?

 

[MorganAlpha]

Pretty much every thing is the opposite of the way it ought to be. Once you internalize this reality and get used to recognizing it in action, it become obvious that of course men can not be reimbursed for bad faith behavior by a woman being courted.

Indeed you are right, and at this point in time men can not be reimbursed for money they spent in courtship. Yet women can be reimbursed for any work they do for a man prior to marriage even.

However, it would be so easy to change. You could create an implied contract any time a woman promises to be exclusive with a man. Or on reasonable grounds by an objective observer would be deemed to have an exclusive relationship with a man.

Then, if the man has spent thousands of Dollars on expensive gifts, restaurants, holidays etc, and she decides to break the contract unilaterally, ie betrays the man, then the man could make a claim for all the money he has spent.

This would be so easy to put into practice, and would make a lot of sense in terms of making a woman understand that her being faithful is a serious requirement of her. Given the tremendous financial claims women can make it would be only fair if men are reimbursed for the money they spent on a woman who then turns around and betrays them.

 

[MorganAlpha]

@ Morgan Alpha

An even more unfair situation is 'paternity fraud' were the man can be held financially liable for a child that is not his biologically. The woman cheats, becomes pregnant and doesn't tell her husband / partner. The husband / partner signs the birth certificate in good faith. The relationship ends and he's still on the hook financially for a child that's not his biologically. How is this ethical?

Please tell me this is not happening in reality. How could the man be on the hook, surely he could show with DNA tests the child is not his?

 

[Jaeric]

If a man spends gigantic sums of money on a women before marriage, he is announcing to her that he has little to no self-esteem and that he is willing to be used as a doormat.

That is going to have the opposite effect of what the man desires.

He is essentially telling the woman that he will pay her money to spend time with him.

 

[Thomas More]

Indeed you are right, and at this point in time men can not be reimbursed for money they spent in courtship. Yet women can be reimbursed for any work they do for a man prior to marriage even.

However, it would be so easy to change. You could create an implied contract any time a woman promises to be exclusive with a man. Or on reasonable grounds by an objective observer would be deemed to have an exclusive relationship with a man.

Then, if the man has spent thousands of Dollars on expensive gifts, restaurants, holidays etc, and she decides to break the contract unilaterally, ie betrays the man, then the man could make a claim for all the money he has spent.

This would be so easy to put into practice, and would make a lot of sense in terms of making a woman understand that her being faithful is a serious requirement of her. Given the tremendous financial claims women can make it would be only fair if men are reimbursed for the money they spent on a woman who then turns around and betrays them.

There is no social or political consensus in favor of making it this way. It's not just difficult to put into practice, it's impossible.

 

[darknavigator]

Please tell me this is not happening in reality. How could the man be on the hook, surely he could show with DNA tests the child is not his?

In France and Germany paternity testing is illegal (unless you have a court order) - which is only granted in exceptional circumstances.
In the United States once the man signs the birth certificate he is considered the father / guardian of the child. The law doesn't care if later on the relationship breaks down and he's discovered that the child is not his biological child.

 

[MovingForward2050]

Wasn't there a famous case where a woman admitted to not loving her wealthy husband, and he took the audio recording to a court and divorced her, getting an extremely equitable settlement? I remember something along those lines...

 

[david.garrett84]

Men need to show more responsibility and initiative than they are currently. If your financial and other records do not show how money is actually spent, or they are so vague as to allow the woman to claim she is owed something significant that she is not, then that is on you.

Yes, the system incentivizes bad, even terrible female behavior and freeloading. But that is already well-known and established. I have seen this kind of thread 1,000 times over and we are not covering any new ground here.

I am not saying this is the case for OP but countless starters of these threads on various forums or on sites like Reddit really just want to vent and know full well what preventative steps they could take if they really wanted to. They wish the world was different without taking steps to change their own personal world.

Prenups, proof of paying for domestic help (if you hire a cleaner or outsource your laundry), minimizing expenditures on her, making her pay for a lot of items (counterintuitive as it may seem, this can show you were never funding her entire lifestyle if she later wants exorbitant maintenance after divorce etc) - these are all ways to avoid catastrophe.

It is an art and not a science. Places like London are known for throwing out prenups, so there is no guarantee your plans will work as intended, but if many men gathered more intestinal and testicular fortitude and set clear boundaries in their relationships, the impact of divorce later on would be much more minimal.

Men have known about this system’s general outlines for years, if not decades, and they still walk blindly into relationships and marriages, insisting their gal is “different” or they have secondary plans if things get awry. They’re lying to themselves.

 

[El Draque]

Because you pays your money, you takes your chances, ultimately.

 

[El Draque]

Honestly unless you're a) cheap, or b) ridiculously OTT in paying for everything, and a borderline mark, why do people care?

You date a girl, unless you're a douche, you pick up the bill for stuff, and unless she's a leech, she will appreciate that and reciporacate here and there with buying drinks, buying you gifts here and there, and generally the thing balances out.

If you've got bad judgement and end up throwing good money after bad, then ultimately that's on you, and crying after the event is pointless.

This sort of 'we should be able to claim money back on failed courtships' stuff makes men sound like Male Feminists.

At a certain point, just dust yourself down and move on.

 

[Magnus Stout]

The framing of this question is problematic: I hate when X happens to me, so how can we empower government to prevent X from happening in the future?

Empowering government here trades one kind of abuse (female manipulation) for another (petty and woke System bureaucrats). Government has a reverse-Midas touch: whatever it touches becomes not gold, but manure (Exhibit A: Family Court).

If you got played by a loveless girlfriend, then you should reflect upon (1) what attracted her to you, and (2) why the relationship failed. If the relationship was loveless (each selfishly extracting from the other), then it was already doomed. Spiritually, you should reflect the opportunities to learn and grow: what is God trying to teach you? What is His plan for your life?

Whatever that Plan is, it will certainly abide by His Laws, not those of Egypt and Sodom (Clown World).

 

[get2choppaaa]

Except for California and a few other commie states... Men really only pay for child support and you split the assets down the middle and collaborative debt is split. Even a Pre-nup doesnt mean nothing will be lost when the assets are divided. As a Judge views a divorce/break up as purely a business transaction unless children are involved... in which case you have to really have a crackhead mom for her to not have custody.

In my case, when my exwife left (and kidnnapped the kids for 3 months until I got a judge to straighten that out) she took everything that was paid off (even tried to take my brand new suburban, which I got back once she could't register it in her name since I had the title... hehe)

To this day she makes half of what I make and wanted more to be a nurse than a mother, and threw away a debt free - EZ life because of being "unhappy".

In our case, we both were in lust. I didnt respect her because she was/is an air head, she didnt love me because I wasnt a door mat and had rules, and am pretty type A high strung and a little rough.

In short. There is no way to hold a woman accountable for their actions the same way a man gets screwed. But that is the way of the world and something one must accept in negotiation of the dating/courtship/marriage life.

Speaking from a VERY VERY long and painful experience on the way not to do it... my advise is always "Chose better and make sure you find a woman who's pursuing the same faith (hopefully in Jesus Christ) as you are as the most likely way to have a successful and joyous relationship. "

There is no real societal pressure to make women accountable the same way men are. Thats just the reality of political expediency in their victimhood status allowing big goverment to regulate/tax/and accrue leverage on society

 

[MorganAlpha]

Except for California and a few other commie states... Men really only pay for child support and you split the assets down the middle and collaborative debt is split. Even a Pre-nup doesnt mean nothing will be lost when the assets are divided. As a Judge views a divorce/break up as purely a business transaction unless children are involved... in which case you have to really have a crackhead mom for her to not have custody.

In my case, when my exwife left (and kidnnapped the kids for 3 months until I got a judge to straighten that out) she took everything that was paid off (even tried to take my brand new suburban, which I got back once she could't register it in her name since I had the title... hehe)

To this day she makes half of what I make and wanted more to be a nurse than a mother, and threw away a debt free - EZ life because of being "unhappy".

In our case, we both were in lust. I didnt respect her because she was/is an air head, she didnt love me because I wasnt a door mat and had rules, and am pretty type A high strung and a little rough.

In short. There is no way to hold a woman accountable for their actions the same way a man gets screwed. But that is the way of the world and something one must accept in negotiation of the dating/courtship/marriage life.

Speaking from a VERY VERY long and painful experience on the way not to do it... my advise is always "Chose better and make sure you find a woman who's pursuing the same faith (hopefully in Jesus Christ) as you are as the most likely way to have a successful and joyous relationship. "

There is no real societal pressure to make women accountable the same way men are. Thats just the reality of political expediency in their victimhood status allowing big goverment to regulate/tax/and accrue leverage on society

Pre-nups are of limited use because, as you know, they have to be "fair and equitable" in any event, so you can't really protect your assets fully with pre-nups. However, I really meant a scenario prior to marriage, where a man has been in a lose bf/gf rel and nonetheless paid for substantial things like holidays, or other outlay which incurred cost for the gf. Obviously before you marry you will be in several bf/gf rels, normally speaking. And normally speaking none of those come with zero cost. However, there will be the one girl who ostensibly agrees to exclusivity and promises to be faithful.

I fully accept that there is no societal pressure that women are accountable in the same way men are. However, this really should be the case. Just on fairness alone.

What if, before you paid over any money, you had her sign an agreement that the money you pay her is considered to be a loan, to be repayable as and when she decides to leave the relationship? Perhaps in contract you could then pursue a claim? After all even pre-marriage, men are expected to pay for things and suffer sometimes financial loss in the many thousands.

I know that we must accept the way things are now, because that is the way things are. However, could one not put in place a framework to enable men to re-claim the expenses they incur when a woman causes the dissolution of the relationship? If not in law, then a contractual paper, that you get her to sign before you hand any money over?

 

[get2choppaaa]

Pre-nups are of limited use because, as you know, they have to be "fair and equitable" in any event, so you can't really protect your assets fully with pre-nups. However, I really meant a scenario prior to marriage, where a man has been in a lose bf/gf rel and nonetheless paid for substantial things like holidays, or other outlay which incurred cost for the gf. Obviously before you marry you will be in several bf/gf rels, normally speaking. And normally speaking none of those come with zero cost. However, there will be the one girl who ostensibly agrees to exclusivity and promises to be faithful.

I fully accept that there is no societal pressure that women are accountable in the same way men are. However, this really should be the case. Just on fairness alone.

What if, before you paid over any money, you had her sign an agreement that the money you pay her is considered to be a loan, to be repayable as and when she decides to leave the relationship? Perhaps in contract you could then pursue a claim? After all even pre-marriage, men are expected to pay for things and suffer sometimes financial loss in the many thousands.

I know that we must accept the way things are now, because that is the way things are. However, could one not put in place a framework to enable men to re-claim the expenses they incur when a woman causes the dissolution of the relationship? If not in law, then a contractual paper, that you get her to sign before you hand any money over?

What sort of woman are you interacting with that you would have these needs for pre-conditions?

Thats the issue you need to address in this case... not with them, but with you.

Not to be harsh, because I have been there... but you need to look at the type of people you're attracting that this fear/insecurity is so prevalent that it s causing you to worry about it.

 

[MorganAlpha]

What sort of woman are you interacting with that you would have these needs for pre-conditions?

Thats the issue you need to address in this case... not with them, but with you.

Not to be harsh, because I have been there... but you need to look at the type of people you're attracting that this fear/insecurity is so prevalent that it s causing you to worry about it.

Obviously one has to be very careful with any woman you choose to be with. However, you do not really know a person, ever really. Plus women are exceptionally skillful at appearing one way and hiding their true intentions.

So my point applies to all women really. I don't have a specific fear or insecurity, rather for all women the fact would apply that none, not a single one, will repay you the money you paid in your courtship with her, if you separate due to her. Like you said, right now, that is just considered the price of how society works. Nevertheless, since this amount of money can run into thousands of Dollars for a man I think it would indeed be wise to be very careful.

One way, perhaps to safeguard yourself would be to put in place a contract, which stipulates that if she leaves the relationship all money you paid is to be repaid as a loan.

I don't see why, in the case of marriage, men should pay for any service ever rendered by a wife, whereas in courtship, none of the services or monies paid are to be repaid, if the woman unilaterally changes the term of the relationship. It just strikes me as non-equitable.