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

bucky

Ostrich
Other Christian
When a woman loves you, she really loves you. Once she has lost that feeling of love, she will never respect you again. That's a woman's biological nature.

There is no way to ever create a legal circumstance that will counter that effectively.
I basically second everything you said here. I wanted to add that I think it's possible for a woman to love you but not respect you and the latter is actually far more important as far as her desire to be with you.

I was roughly as clueless as you were about women's nature in my previous marriage. She was a terrible wife in most ways and eventually cheated on me, among other things. Still, I had this dumb, romantic "beta" idea that we she was something like my soul mate and that I should try to "work through it." It's embarrassing now to think I was ever like that, but I was. Even after we divorced we had a tortured on-again-and-off-again relationship that went on for years where she'd be with some bad boy, it wouldn't work out, and then she'd show up again and tell me she really loved me.

I always offered to take her back and when I did she'd quickly disappear again. I didn't understand her behavior at all and it literally drove me to the point where I considered suicide. Again, embarrassing to think about now, but I didn't have God or even "the red pill" in my life at the time, and that's where I was.

Thinking back on it now, I think she did really love me. She just couldn't respect a man who was willing to take her back after all she'd done and no woman can really be excited to be with a man she perceives as weak and unworthy of her respect.
 

darknavigator

Robin
Catholic
@MorganAlpha

"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"

This probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law?

"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"

The system doesn't care what you (or any of us) think.

"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"

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen!
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
@ 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?
It’s not ethical. That’s what paternity tests are for.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
@ 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?
It’s not ethical.
That’s what paternity tests are for.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
The error is in spending thousands of dollars on a woman who is not your wife or mother.

If you are expecting women to believe in a quid pro quo reciprocity for material things a man is offering her, you are expecting something that is unnatural and only makes sense from a male, logical brain, and not a feminine, emotional one. In other words, you could force her to pay you money back, but that will not make sense to her and she will not alter her behavior.

Outside of vacations, which were always places I wanted to go anyway, and only cost marginally more to bring a girlfriend along, I have never spent more than a few hundred dollars on women I have dated. I have a friend who just bought a $100+ dress for a girl on their 3rd date. If you want to go that route, don't expect to ever see that money again, and be aware you may be sending bad signals to the woman, encouraging gold diggers, and being seen as a simp.

Plus if she was getting $7,000 vacations as a girlfriend, what is she going to expect as your wife?
Greed is part of human sin nature.
Most of us would be tempted to take advantage of any opportunity to get free stuff without reciprocating.
Just don’t spend more money before marriage, or engagement, than you’re willing to “lose”.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
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?
Some men view such expenditures as “courtship”; others view them as “paying as you go” for “services rendered “. If a man tried to sue to recoup these expenses, on what grounds could he win? “Breach of promise”, MAYBE—if he could prove the woman had promised fidelity and/or marriage in exchange for the “gifts”. But the law doesn’t work that way anymore, if it ever did. A typical court would say the man got what he was paying for at the time; and unless there was a formal, documented monetary loan—case dismissed.
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
Undoubtedly your policy of only spending a few hundred dollars is by far the best approach. However, it may well be that there are exceptional circumstances, let's say her sister has an accident and needs an operation, which costs 3000 USD, you have the money, and she asks you to help. You do, and further down the line she decides to end the relationship for whatever reason.

Now, clearly you are out of pocket. I am not concerned with her changing her behaviour, you're of course right, she will never do so. However, should you not be entitled to have that money repaid if she was the one who unilaterally then changed the terms of the relationship? You were there for her, but she abandons you. You paid out money based on her false promise to be faithful.

If a money gets paid for her services of domestic duties, such expenses should be re-paid to men, I think.
If you’re going to pay for an expense like a relative’s operation, you should do so only to help a fellow human, and/or to help the loved one of someone you care about—not as payment for expected fidelity or for anything else. And if you have paid for “domestic duties” (whatever those are) and have received those services during the relationship, why would you expect a refund? Do you ask a housekeeping service to refund what you paid—for services which you did indeed receive—after you, or the housekeeper, decides to end the business relationship?
By the way, why should we view a mere relationship or “courtship” as a contract? Isn’t marriage what we’re supposed to do if we want a contract?
 

typtre

Woodpecker
Other Christian
Should that not be the case, and if so, how could one effectively put such provisions in law?
You see - if the Law didn't work against the people it would serve no purpose. A law that keeps men down is good for the ruling class. Keeps him weak, miserable, and dependent. Trust between women and men are eroded while the man's labor is conquered. The ruling class is dependent on our labor. Thus, you cannot change this with "law".

The State is the Law and it is unconstitutionally enforcing itself on the people.
 
Last edited:

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
What if you get her to sign an agreement that stipulates that if she ends the relationship all money you paid her is deemed a loan and to be repaid? Would she then not be contractually obliged to repay you the money?
But according to such an agreement, exactly what would you be paying her FOR?
If the payment is for marrying you, shouldn’t it be payable only after said marriage takes place?
 

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
Other Christian
You see - if the Law didn't work against the people it would serve no purpose. A law that keeps men down is good for the ruling class. Keeps him weak, miserable, and dependent. Trust between women and men are eroded while the man's labor is conquered. The ruling class is dependent on our labor. Thus, you cannot change this with "law".

The State is the Law and it is unconstitutionally enforcing itself on the people.
There may be an element of that. But historically, the law has tried to protect women who risked their health and sacrificed other marriage prospects and maybe paid work opportunities to risk pregnancy, and/or to actually bear and raise children, by giving them some assurance of financial security even if the marriage ended. Otherwise women would have been reluctant to gamble that a man wouldn’t leave—or cheat or become abusive or otherwise impossible to live with. The law has perhaps gone overboard in making homemaking seem like an appealing and secure career choice for women. But if we were to remove all guarantees of compensation for long-term opportunity costs, fewer women would marry or bear children—and certainly very few would devote themselves to caring for children or a home at even the partial expense of paid work.
Maybe that’s a tradeoff we would be willing to make, in order to free ourselves of what in some cases seems an unfair financial burden. In recent decades, society—with the enthusiastic consent of many men—has indeed started to move in that direction. Believe it or not, “alimony” and child custody law no longer favor “full-time-homemaker” women quite as much as they did before the 1970s. Maybe we will go on to remove all guarantees of financial security as compensation for homemaking and caregiving.

But is that what we really want?

One reform that might be palatable is to bring back the concept of “fault” in a divorce, such that proven infidelity could somewhat affect the financial settlement (at least to the extent of who gets or doesn’t get how much) and maybe the amount of time each parent gets with minor children. Although public sentiment probably wouldn’t tolerate infidelity being punished with absolute poverty or total loss of custody. And when “fault divorce” existed, it resulted in lengthy and often inconclusive court battles, and much manufacture of false evidence and other trickery. Maybe that’s a can of worms best left unopened.
 
Last edited:

scarfaceantonio

Sparrow
Other Christian
In Austria in the Middle Ages such a whore would have been taken to a grave which was also her place of execution & there a stake would be driven through her & the whoremonger who had sinned with her. Of course in this particular case that'd be rather problematic; how would the authorities obtain a stake of sufficient length ha ha. That is the only sort of thing that will stop these self-made subanimals. I pray every day that the Almighty would pour out His wrath on this rotting cesspit of a world.

Do not worry.... rather PRAY for them (that are lost). GOD is much more angry than we can imagine.....

Malachi 4:
1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
 

typtre

Woodpecker
Other Christian
There may be an element of that. But historically, the law has tried to protect women who risked their health and sacrificed other marriage prospects and maybe paid work opportunities to risk pregnancy, and/or to actually bear and raise children, by giving them some assurance of financial security even if the marriage ended. Otherwise women would have been reluctant to gamble that a man wouldn’t leave—or cheat or become abusive or otherwise impossible to live with. The law has perhaps gone overboard in making homemaking seem like an appealing and secure career choice for women. But if we were to remove all guarantees of compensation for long-term opportunity costs, fewer women would marry or bear children—and certainly very few would devote themselves to caring for children or a home at even the partial expense of paid work.
Maybe that’s a tradeoff we would be willing to make, in order to free ourselves of what in some cases seems an unfair financial burden. In recent decades, society—with the enthusiastic consent of many men—has indeed started to move in that direction. Believe it or not, “alimony” and child custody law no longer favor “full-time-homemaker” women quite as much as they did before the 1970s. Maybe we will go on to remove all guarantees of financial security as compensation for homemaking and caregiving.

But is that what we really want?

One reform that might be palatable is to bring back the concept of “fault” in a divorce, such that proven infidelity could somewhat affect the financial settlement (at least to the extent of who gets or doesn’t get how much) and maybe the amount of time each parent gets with minor children. Although public sentiment probably wouldn’t tolerate infidelity being punished with absolute poverty or total loss of custody. And when “fault divorce” existed, it resulted in lengthy and often inconclusive court battles, and much manufacture of false evidence and other trickery. Maybe that’s a can of worms best left unopened.
How far historically are you talking? It sounds like you are talking post-WW2 female empowerment era because to risk health (not sure what you are getting at), sacrifice marriage prospects, and work opportunities is a very new (dare I say progressive) mindset. Historically, divorce was not an option, not favourable for any party, shunned by society, and ultimately in a God fearing household unthinkable.

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matthew 5:31-32

Divorce laws are part of the Matriarchy / Clown World inversion / Judaism (but I repeat myself) and the grounds from whence they came are bogus and already a part of the subversion of society up until that time. They were never about "protecting" anyone, but that was how they was sold and passed to the 'public'. As with all laws.
 
But according to such an agreement, exactly what would you be paying her FOR?
If the payment is for marrying you, shouldn’t it be payable only after said marriage takes place?
What is the Bank paying you for when you take a loan?

The contract would be structured as a loan. It would specify that repayment can be demanded in the event that she ends the relationship, in the sole discretion of the lender, ie you.

You're not paying her for anything. You're insuring your assets in case the woman unilaterally changes the terms of the rel in an unacceptable way. You can not prevent that. However, you could insure your financial assets if you get her to sign a contract when you advance her money over and above de minimis amounts.
 
Some men view such expenditures as “courtship”; others view them as “paying as you go” for “services rendered “. If a man tried to sue to recoup these expenses, on what grounds could he win? “Breach of promise”, MAYBE—if he could prove the woman had promised fidelity and/or marriage in exchange for the “gifts”. But the law doesn’t work that way anymore, if it ever did. A typical court would say the man got what he was paying for at the time; and unless there was a formal, documented monetary loan—case dismissed.
Indeed any man would only advance substantial money on the basis of such a promise, the promise of fidelity. However, society is developing in such a way that religious, societal pressures to remain faithful are no longer what they used to be, in fact the law effectively rewards a lack of fidelity with current divorce laws (which were largely designed by female lawyers). And let's be realistic, promises get broken.

You're quite right, a formal contract would be the only way for a man to claim money he has spent on a woman. The practice of using contracts to govern relationships is well established. There are co-habitation agreements, divorce agreements, pre-nups, separation agreements.

I don't see why a courtship agreement can not be signed. It would only have to be put in place if the woman asks for a serious amount of money.

You can not rely on breach of promise. And you certainly can not rely on society today having any strong powers to enforce fidelity. In fact you can not enforce fidelity. You can however have two parties enter into a contract. You can safeguard your assets.
 
If you’re going to pay for an expense like a relative’s operation, you should do so only to help a fellow human, and/or to help the loved one of someone you care about—not as payment for expected fidelity or for anything else. And if you have paid for “domestic duties” (whatever those are) and have received those services during the relationship, why would you expect a refund? Do you ask a housekeeping service to refund what you paid—for services which you did indeed receive—after you, or the housekeeper, decides to end the business relationship?
By the way, why should we view a mere relationship or “courtship” as a contract? Isn’t marriage what we’re supposed to do if we want a contract?
To be honest I would not view it as a "payment for fidelity". You can't pay for fidelity, you can't force someone to stay faithful. I would view it merely as an insurance policy against the breach of the promise of fidelity and any loss you would suffer as a result.

Neither would it be a refund for services she provided, though you raise a good point, she would have provided domestic services doing courtship conceivably. However, there are instances when the money paid by men surpasses the value of the services rendered by the woman.

You are quite right, courtship is not a contract. However, you can create a contract each time you are going to spend large sums of money on a prospective courtship mate to ensure your assets.

Indeed marriage itself is viewed as a contract. So why not the courtship period as well, which can extend for years now. It is no longer a case of courtship taking only a few weeks today.
 
To be honest I would not view it as a "payment for fidelity". You can't pay for fidelity, you can't force someone to stay faithful. I would view it merely as an insurance policy against the breach of the promise of fidelity and any loss you would suffer as a result.

Neither would it be a refund for services she provided, though you raise a good point, she would have provided domestic services doing courtship conceivably. However, there are instances when the money paid by men surpasses the value of the services rendered by the woman.

You are quite right, courtship is not a contract. However, you can create a contract each time you are going to spend large sums of money on a prospective courtship mate to ensure your assets.

Indeed marriage itself is viewed as a contract. So why not the courtship period as well, which can extend for years now. It is no longer a case of courtship taking only a few weeks today.

Keep in mind that some wealthy men like Elon Musk, will actually *pay* a girlfriend for having been their partner for a few years time! Lol Musk actually paid twenty million dollars to a girlfriend, who had dated him for three years. It was as if he was saying, "I never married you, when you may have been drooling over that prospect, but at least I paid you tens of millions for the fun times we had together." And of course that is the dirt cheap option for him, compared to being divorced in America.
 
Keep in mind that some wealthy men like Elon Musk, will actually *pay* a girlfriend for having been their partner for a few years time! Lol Musk actually paid twenty million dollars to a girlfriend, who had dated him for three years. It was as if he was saying, "I never married you, when you may have been drooling over that prospect, but at least I paid you tens of millions for the fun times we had together." And of course that is the dirt cheap option for him, compared to being divorced in America.

Well we all pay a woman for being our girlfriend, if we have a longer term relationship, it's just a question of how much. Let's not kid ourselves.

Certainly, as the net worth of a man goes up clearly he will pay more, and is at risk of losing more of his assets. That is why Musk had his first wife sign a postnuptial agreement, see this extremely interesting honest account of his first wife:


Despite the post-nuptial agreement Elon Musk had Justine sign, he has to pay her 80,000 USD in nanny and household fees every month. According to the post-nup she was also to receive 20 million USD, which she then proceeded to fight in court on the grounds that he did not disclose his wealth fully, which she knew was a lie. Musk offered her 80 million USD. She still was unhappy and demanded shares in Tesla and Space X.

The court found in Musk's favour, and Justine ended up with getting a Bel Air house worth 30 million, 2 million USD in cash, 80,000 USD a month for 17 years, and a Tesla Roadster worth 170,000 million USD. So she never got the Tesla or Space X shares, but a package worth in excess of 50 million USD.

Musk replies with his side of the story:


Remember, this after she had signed a postnuptial agreement where both parties agreed that what Elon makes is his and what Justine makes from her books is hers, with her getting 20 million USD. Lest we forget, Justine Musk makes 3 million USD from her book sales.

Just because you are rich and can hire the best lawyers does not mean you will not get screwed by a woman. Even with a post-nuptial agreement Musk ended up paying twice the amount he had agreed with his wife, and this after a court found in his favour!

Now of course we do not have the assets of Elon Musk, and arguably that make it even more important that we protect our assets.
 
Top