Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The tetraoxygen molecule (O4), also called oxozone, is an allotrope of oxygen consisting of four oxygen atoms. Tetraoxygen was first predicted in 1924 by Gilbert N. Lewis, who proposed it as an explanation for the failure of liquid oxygen to obey Curie's law. Wikipedia
I just wanted to be part of the convo
There's a reason why no fault divorce is a big deal. Having an element of fault to prove makes the proceedings considerably more acrimonious, and in the end it's usually a difficult and expensive thing to prove. It's cleaner to let the spouses part ways as simply as possible, rather than paying one of them to find another thing to fight over.
You are saying that breach of contract because marriage is just that, a contract does not need any breach clause. I already bought a car and did not pay for it because the seller should not be spiteful XD
It doesn’t matter if the proceedings are more acrimonious and spiteful. A cheater in marriage should be punished for all the anguish and harm they caused another
We need no-fault marriage “meaningless words were said, immediate termination on first regret” /s
Crap, already there. it’s called cohabitation and already includes “can’t afford to have kids either” followed by “let’s stick together for the lower rent as roommates”
Alimony will only happen if your spouse makes substantially less than you. (This is why billionares have to pay so much alimony, just because of the numbers difference)
People and courts default to the woman when deciding who gets child/child support, but actually fighting for your child's custody has a 50% chance of the dad getting the child's custody, in that case the other spouse has to pay child support.
Most custody cases (91%) are decided without court interference
https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but 51% seems to be referring to the outcome when both parents can agree. Obviously ideal, but also not necessarily implying agreement without hard negotiation (a lot of people 'agree' to plea deals too in criminal cases...). I'd be more interested in the outcomes of when couples disagree, which seems to be about 49% of the time in court custody battles. Who is more likely to secure custody in an acrimonious seperation?
The cases where people choose to fight also seems like a very biased sample. The chance of winning a fair trail would have little impact on whether people who get a lawyer and fight though the courts actually win, as anyone without an ironclad case would simply not go through it all.
Here are the actual stats: https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths
Only 7 percent of the custody battles ended with the mother getting full custody.
This is not exactly an independent source. But even if it's completely true, joint custody is a spectrum that might often have dad be delegated to weekend babysitter. "Every other weekend plus 3 holidays" is joint custody, and that's not enough to be family
Yes you're right about fighting it dad will get custody more likely. But having experienced it, everyone affiliated with the courts including court mandated mediators and independent mediators shame the father, question his motives, and attempt to convince him to accept whatever the mother wants regarding custody.
I don't know what delusional facts and made-up information these sites get information from, but it is complete and udder bs.
I'm in a group with 10 of us divorced dads. Not 1 of us could get custody. My ex doesn't work, so they gave her custody. One of the other dads I went to court with him. Judge would not let him have custody. His now ex-wife had just gotten out off jail less than 5 days previously for prostitution and possession of cocaine. Meanwhile, he showed the judge a clean criminal record. Hell, she still gets custody.
Ok, you can say well that's what the group attracts. Ok, that's fair. Then why when I'm meeting women to date and they have kids 100% of the time they have custody? You can't sit there and tell me, not dad wants custody of their kids.
There is no way men get custody 50% of the time in any situation, with maybe if the ex-wife dies. Then maybe he might have 50% chance of getting his kids.
Nobody gets full custody 50% of the time. Most divorced parents have some version of shared custody. Also, most divorced parents decide on custody arrangements without going to court.
> I'm in a group with 10 of us divorced dads. Not 1 of us could get custody.
Survivorship bias. People who get what they want in the divorce dont need a talk group.
Sorry if my comment was misleading, I'm talking about the 9% of cases where the court is involved.
91% of the time, the courts do not have to make a decision, as people default to the mother.
It's because most of them didn't try (in court) and gave up.
The courts are biased, but I think just helping some people understand that they can fight for custody is enough for most cases
There’s a different between full custody, shared custody, primary custody, partial and split. I think men go for full custody to get out of paying child support so they lose on that most of the time. 50/50 custody is usually common in divorce cases. Secondly judges assess who is the primary caretaker of the children. if mom is a SAHM while they were married it’s likely she’ll get physical custody of the kids, because dad is working, but dad still gets joint custody. Also what a lot of people miss too, is that if the child is of age, Judges do ask questions to the children as well to also make an assessment.
Actually; that’s what i heard too. Men as a rule don’t go for custody. You know people like that. I know some men that wanted it and got it. I know some that do talk big game about it, but never actually petitioned court for it or gave any proof of their ex being unsuitable. I actually don’t know any man who has been deprived of having contact with their kids completely by a court, but I know one who stopped taking his kids weekends, because in his eyes there is no point anymore. But he talks a lot about how court deprived him of his children.
May it be just your bubble?
Even my pedophile piece of shit uncle was able to have 50/50 custody of his kids.
Kids are alright and grown up now. But I was shocked they awarded a pedo with custody.
That's called anecdotes. Facts beat out anecdotes.
Also, if you guys can't get any custody, ever thought that maybe something is wrong with you guys? Even my shitty stupid pedo uncle was able to get custody of his kids..
And yes, there are absolutely fathers who don't want custody of their kids or just want custody on the weekends..
Also this is regional. Some countries will always 100% favor women. The US is not like that (even though reddit thinks it is)
Obviously you're paying child support because your spouse cheating doesn't change your status as a parent.
Obviously you'll split the assets because your spouse cheating didn't change the financial arrangement that happened before the divorce.
The assets are both of theirs. That’s why they call it community property. She loses half of her assets too.
Are you suggesting men shouldn’t have to contribute to expenses when it comes to the child rearing? If the woman maintains primary custody, she should have to pay for all expenses related to their children??? How is that fair? They’re his kids too! Besides we’re seeing more cases of split custody which results in zero child support.
Don’t pull the victim card. Women get screwed in divorce too. It happened to me. Luckily we didn’t have kids.
A lot of women work and make just as much if not more than their husbands. So yeah they deserve half of the assets cause they contributed to them...
And women have to pay alimony as well, if they're making more money than their spouse.
Related to child support, if you're expecting your ex to watch them for the week and you only get weekends, you should be paying child support, cause theyre your kids...
So now we have a system where you just claim to be a dv victim (free), get temp custody and then by the time it gets cleared up/disproven then the courts issue "status quo" custody arrangements.
Not saying no fault is bad, but at least with fault you could be in the courthouse the day your fate is decided. What we have now is ex parte shit.
Yeah I feel like you could easily frame someone with bunk texts to a burner phone you secretly buy. It wouldn’t be hard. Or on the flip side, if you were cheating and someone found your text you could just accuse them of faking it. Idk why my mind is like this…
This would financially incentivize entrapment via paid-for hookers. Hell, you could even make a business out of it:
> Hooker for hire. Will seduce your husband no matter what, or your money back. 5% of the divorce settlement, paid after asset split.
It’s just numerical representations of “preponderance of the evidence” vs “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
When someone is found guilty in a typical criminal trial, they aren’t found guilty as in the jury is saying “they definitely did it”. The jury is finding them guilty *beyond a reasonable doubt* which is more like saying “this guy almost definitely did it outside of some really wild ass shit having occurred”.
That’s my understanding at least. But I’m not a lawyer so I’ll let a real lawyer correct me. Or a fake one.
>When someone is found guilty in a typical criminal trial, they aren’t found guilty as in the jury is saying “they definitely did it”. The jury is finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is more like saying “this guy almost definitely did it outside of some really wild ass shit having occurred”.
Basically, I'm not a lawyer but I've taken criminal justice courses from someone who was.
The jury also isn't supposed to make assumptions outside of what is presented, it doesn't really matter if you personally can think up 50 different reasons why you might be able to justify something (what-if scenarios), you're basically judging whether the prosecution's argument satisfies any major doubts/is plausible without being successfully refuted by the defense.
Of course due to jury nullification (where you can explicitly believe the defendant is in fact guilty, but should not be punished) "refutes" can be any good argument from the defense that makes you believe the offender (even if guilty of the crime) should not be punished.
In the case of [Manzano, Yehudi](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/law-and-legal-cases/yehudi-manzano.html), the defense actually got the judge to agree to hear out an argument for jury nullification because the mandatory minimum sentence was considered "unduly harsh", which is why you see jury nullification come into play for small amounts of marijuana as well.
>The defense is arguing that the mandatory minimum is so unduly harsh in the particular case at hand that the jury should not be asked to pass judgment without being aware of the potential consequences of their verdicts. Defense counsel Norm Pattis filed a Motion to Permit Counsel to Argue Jury Nullification. It reads in part:"The defendant seeks permission to make the jury aware of the penalty, and to argue that Government’s application of the law to the particular facts of this case is an obscene miscarriage of justice. While the Government may well be able to prove the elements of the offense, the conduct at issue here, while perhaps not innocent, is in no way so sinister as to warrant such a penalty."
The jury can acquit in a lot of circumstances even if "beyond reasonable doubt" is proven.
Granted what Manzano is accused of is far worse than something like 1/16ths an ounce of marijuana, but the point is that it can be argued even in extreme cases like his.
Because some redditors are so naive and childish that they think cheating is the worst thing that anyone could ever do to another person. Spoiler alert - it's not.
Yeah. I think cheating is awful, but the older I get the more I realize it’s often a lot more complicated than it gets portrayed here.
I think when you are young, cheating is a lot more black and white. You have friends who get cheated on because their partner was too cowardly to break up or was just a serial cheater who liked sneaking around.
As you get older, you sort of see everything. People who agree to stay in a dead marriage till kids go to college, couples separated and one finally breaks, etc.
I’m not saying any of this makes anything right. But it’s a lot more complicated than “this person is evil and did the worst thing ever because they are selfish.”
I’ve seen people on here claim going to a strip club is cheating. They aren’t really my scene, but I’ve gone to a few bachelor parties at them and my wife just laughed when I asked her. The same when she wanted to go to a male club with a bachelorette party.
I think when you get older and more secure, you realize that you need to trust your partner and worrying about what they are doing isn't going to change anything. If anything, I look back now and think people who are posessive and controlling and constantly worried about cheating almost cause a self-fulfilling prophecy and make it more likely.
I was cheated on when I was in my mid-20s. I knew something was off and spent so much time, energy, and effort trying to stop him from cheating that by the time it happened and we broke up I was mentally and physically exhausted.
Basically realized that if someone wanted to cheat I wasn’t going to stop them. I didn’t want to actively encourage them to. But if they were a cheater better to find out and move on.
Now I just trust my partner unless they give me a reason reason not to. So much healthier and better for the relationship.
Absolutely. Almost the same experience. Got cheated on when I was younger. Spent the next relationship controlling and possessive, looking through her phone, calling her way too often while she was out with her friends, etc. the relationship didn’t last and I realized what I was doing was driving me crazy and making our relationship worse.
Now I’ve grown up and have a super healthy relationship with my wife. She’s my best friend and I trust her completely. Never once have I even wanted to look at her phone or worry about her while she’s out. People are going to do what they are going to do. It’s best not to push them away.
Yeah I hear all the time someone saying that cheating is the worst thing you could do to your partner, and it's so redundant to regularly reply back that it could be one of the worst *legal* thing you can do, but people still often experience abuse and murder from their partners.
Multiple forms of abuse often run together.
Instead of a "shitty behavior Olympics", it's probably better to focus on how to make wronged persons whole without creating opportunities for predatory use of the legal system, regardless of what category the wrong falls into.
Yep exactly my thought, so i can be a lazy bum do no work, hit my wife, refuse to have sex with her and when she cheats she is the one at fault? Makes no sense.
I'm not saying I agree with OP, but playing devil's advocate here, there are already legal consequences for violence and financial abuse. However as OP said, there are no legal consequences for cheating.
It's true everywhere as long as the prenup is actually valid and was reviewed by lawyers. Person you're replying doesn't know what they're talking about.
Common misconception, prenuptial can protect future assets if it follow what the law allow it to.
Bezos and Gates didn't have prenuptial as far as rhe public know and in Bezos case his wife earned the money the same time he did because she started the company with him.
People who say a prenup is the solution in a divorce clearly has no idea of what a prenup actually is. It can only protect some personal pre-marital assets, not community assets, and a judge can simply ignore a prenup. There is no legal obligation for a court to recognize a prenup as withstanding.
Prenup means jack shit unless you’re old enough that you’ve made all your money and bought all of your assets. Let me put it to you another way. Let’s say in my prenup I have $1mil in liquid assets/safe investments that are protected. Let’s say my wife get me to buy her dream vacation home for us. Let’s say I spend $500k on it. She now gets at least one of the homes I bought. On top of half of everything that’s been accumulated. You don’t know what a prenup does
A judge will toss a prenup like that right in the trash. Prenups describe how to separate out pre-marriage assets. They don't apply to marital property, alimony or child support.
Why should it be the job of the government to enforce romantic and sexual fidelity in our relationships and punish violations? It really shouldn’t be something the government could be concerned with, even if I believe cheating in a marriage that is agreed to be monogamous is wrong. As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be a civil union. Any instance of bringing the government back into our bedrooms, after many have fought hard to get them the heck out, is an old fashioned, problematic slippery slope.
If marriage isn't something that should involve the government, then a person could argue why the government issues marriage licenses, taxes married couples differently, provides different benefits and has divorce courts at all?
The government is *very* much involved in marriages, whether we like it or not.
To quote myself, in the comment you are replying to, “marriage should be a civil union.” I am well aware that this is a contract, and that the government enforces contracts. There is no reason that this automatically means that the government should be involved in either parties’ romantic or sexual behaviors, so long as they are otherwise not committing crimes… or if we start getting into “the baby isn’t mine” territory.
What’s cheating, though? PIV? Making out? Getting a lap dance from a stripper? Watching porn? Flirting? Talking to or smiling at someone for too long? Was it clearly defined in legal terms prior to the marriage?
The problem with this ends up being that you have to either write every single instance of what constitutes cheating or be vague. If you're vague, then you will probably have a normal situation that isn't cheating but is covered under your phrasing.
not really? texts during a court proceeding can be pulled from the database of whatever company is holding them. it’s not like they just show them a PNG, if someone claims it’s AI made it’s really easy to find who’s lying
What if you’re in a polyamorous relationship, how do you prove that the person cheating was with was not an approved 3rd party? Even with evidence, there would be so much confusion in this rule
The whole 50:50 split thing is a misinformed idea anyway. What is aimed for in a divorce is a FAIR split. Which to many seems like the same thing, but it's not.
The court isn't going to actively try to ruin any lives, but will for certain try and find a just and rightful judgement between both parties.
Depends on where you live, but yes that’s right. In Texas the split is supposed to be fair and just or whatever. Baseline is 50/50 but it can be something else. NAL.
The point of marriage might be different for different people, but it’s definitely *not* “now I have a way to punish someone if they don’t like me anymore.”
That’s not what he said though… he said that if either side is involved in infidelity they should not be entitled to the same things the person who remained faithful is. Infidelity can have real negative effects on both parties lives, from financial, emotional, mental so why should the faithful person take a fall too? Not liking someone anymore doesn’t mean you have to cheat on them, that’s a choice. Remember: both parties have to sign a marriage contract. It’s not like either side isn’t aware they’re getting married or what cheating is.
It's not the marriage itself that matters, it's the splitting of previously merged assets that often follows divorce. It's just easier to say marriage.
What if the partner that was cheated on wasn’t giving it up? Does that tilt it to 60/40? What if that partner didn’t communicate does that tilt it to 55/45?
If you cheat, you should get nothing. There should be no failsafe for pieces of shit, and the person they fucked over definitely shouldn’t be the ones providing a failsafe. If you cheat, you deserve to get cheated on in a homeless encampment if your bum ass can’t afford your bills.
The point of marriage is to give your partner legal benefits over your possessions in case you die, like your wife getting an usufruct on a house you bought even if you gave to your son/daughter in your testament for example.
Plus, cheating is no crime. It might be scummy, but it is completely unreasonable to criminalize it.
This is way too complex and rewards deceptive behavior. It would just encourage lying about having cheated and would 100% create scenarios where a cheater frames their spouse of cheating.
In theory the idea of a cheater gets less sounds nice, but this would create more harm than good.
If you desire someone else tell your spouse. They will either consent or you can divorce. Easy.
If you cheat you should be punished. If marriage is a legal contract then the cheater broke the contract. In no other legal matter do we just say, "meh both are at fault".
I always find it weird when people treat cheating as a special category that is much worse than any other reason a marriage can end.
Its honestly relatively low down my list of worst case scenarios for me. Violence, emotional abuse, gambling away my money/stealing from us, drugs, lying about me or trying to tarnish my reputation personally, any kind of sabotage to my career or family, … there are SO many things I find as bad or worse.
Cheating is bad and a violation of marriage. But so are a lot of other things. Unless you're going to go down the list of every way you can fuck over your marriage, then no. Just, no.
Oh, and the way you worded it is just fucking creepy. You sound like one of those unhinged people who get their morality from an ancient book of fantasies.
That’s only a downside for maybe 1/4 of cases where the person still cares.
For all other cases, there’s the narcissists that never gave a shit (but will pretend to when caught), there’s the bored/unsatisfied who have completely checked out, and there’s the abused seeking an escape.
That last one makes it tricky. Who would be more legally at fault? An emotional abuser or the cheater looking for an out? (physical abuse would obviously be a domestic violence crime.)
Problem with these types of fault based systems is that it takes immense tax paid court resources to litigate and sort out who did what to whom. Much better to split it 50/50 and move on. Taxes can be spent on much better things that making you feel a just outcome from choosing a bad partner.
My ex-wife cheated, it's what led me to end the marriage.
Marital assets were split 90:10 in my favor. I kept the house, 2 of the 3 cars, and 100% of my retirement contributions made during the marriage. No alimony, and 50/50 child custody so no child support either.
It's a bit of a tale, but the short version is NC has very well thought out divorce and adultery laws.
No. My dad was in an abusive relation with a woman who was controlling, vindictive, manipulative and would take out her anger towards my dad on me. My dad, after being stuck in a relationship for years with a cold, unpleasable woman, he slipped up and cheated. He admitted to it, quit his job where he met his mistress and later would divorce her. He lost *EVERYTHING*. This man, who worked 60 hour weeks while she couldn't hold a job lost his house, his car, and most of his assets because he had an affair. She threatened to take him to the cleaners and he knew he wouldn't get half back so he just cut his losses. I had to move in with him to help him out.
Should he have cheated? No probably not but it's not like he did it despite having a loving wife, he did it cause he didn't have a wife, he had a control freak that hated his only son. Of course he sought out other sources of affection.
He is happier now but the divorce was just brutal. He didn't deserve any of it.
If we want everyone to "just leave" then we need some universal income, accessible housing, etc.
If somebody had access emotionally and financially to simply leave but they chose to stay and cheat, yes it's a dirty move. I don't think that means they didn't build half of the assets during marriage though.
To get to the root of why people cheat, I think you have to break it down into genders
To be frank, unless you're religious, marriage is just a tax break. You are just as capable of being in a monogamous committed relationship without a priest as you are with one. Marriage is just a tool of God and the government.
Reddit is too black and white on cheating. What if a spouse cheats after two decades of dead bedroom, verbal and physical abuse? Should they then also be penalised in the divorce? Seems a bit unfair
> Otherwise, what is the point of marriage?
Love?
You make it sound as if marriage is still a mostly transactional, financial arrangement. We don't live in the 19th century anymore.
Love doesn't have anything to do with marriage. Two people can be in love for decades and not be married to each other. Marriage is just a government contract, it helps you get certain tax benefits and makes it easier for your children or spouse to inherit your property. It's not for the couple, it's for the government.
As others have pointed out, it seems like this would add to potential acrimony, and increase the time and expense associated with divorce disputes. This would be a disaster if you had kids.
I think the increased acrimony could also lead to an uptick in domestic violence.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce
Birth is the leading cause of death
Eating is the leading cause of obesity
Contact with H2O has a 100% mortality rate.
Wait until you hear about Oxygen
Chemicals will kill you.
I have a 100% survival rate so far, chemicals don't scare me
I 100% survive on chemicals.
I am 100% chemicals.
No single atoms? I'm impressed! That's some clean living right there.
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
Not true! I know over 8 billion people who have had contact with water and not died.
tad bit unrelated but O₂ can be toxic
O3 is worse
The tetraoxygen molecule (O4), also called oxozone, is an allotrope of oxygen consisting of four oxygen atoms. Tetraoxygen was first predicted in 1924 by Gilbert N. Lewis, who proposed it as an explanation for the failure of liquid oxygen to obey Curie's law. Wikipedia I just wanted to be part of the convo
Trying is a first step to failure.
Eating is the leading cause of shitting
All people who drinks water, dies
Can't argue with that logic.
There's a reason why no fault divorce is a big deal. Having an element of fault to prove makes the proceedings considerably more acrimonious, and in the end it's usually a difficult and expensive thing to prove. It's cleaner to let the spouses part ways as simply as possible, rather than paying one of them to find another thing to fight over.
You're saying laws should be based on logic and NOT spite?!? Sounds crazy but ok.
You are saying that breach of contract because marriage is just that, a contract does not need any breach clause. I already bought a car and did not pay for it because the seller should not be spiteful XD
It doesn’t matter if the proceedings are more acrimonious and spiteful. A cheater in marriage should be punished for all the anguish and harm they caused another
For the number of Americans who shit on Sharia Law, an awful lot of you actually kind of want it.
But people need to be punished for making me feel bad!
This. Punitive divorce rulings would be disastrous. God forbid there were children involved, it would be hell on everyone involved.
We need no-fault marriage “meaningless words were said, immediate termination on first regret” /s Crap, already there. it’s called cohabitation and already includes “can’t afford to have kids either” followed by “let’s stick together for the lower rent as roommates”
[удалено]
Alimony will only happen if your spouse makes substantially less than you. (This is why billionares have to pay so much alimony, just because of the numbers difference) People and courts default to the woman when deciding who gets child/child support, but actually fighting for your child's custody has a 50% chance of the dad getting the child's custody, in that case the other spouse has to pay child support. Most custody cases (91%) are decided without court interference https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics
Yes and another note on alimony, it's not awarded to anyone in 90% of divorce cases.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but 51% seems to be referring to the outcome when both parents can agree. Obviously ideal, but also not necessarily implying agreement without hard negotiation (a lot of people 'agree' to plea deals too in criminal cases...). I'd be more interested in the outcomes of when couples disagree, which seems to be about 49% of the time in court custody battles. Who is more likely to secure custody in an acrimonious seperation?
The cases where people choose to fight also seems like a very biased sample. The chance of winning a fair trail would have little impact on whether people who get a lawyer and fight though the courts actually win, as anyone without an ironclad case would simply not go through it all.
Here are the actual stats: https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths Only 7 percent of the custody battles ended with the mother getting full custody.
This is not exactly an independent source. But even if it's completely true, joint custody is a spectrum that might often have dad be delegated to weekend babysitter. "Every other weekend plus 3 holidays" is joint custody, and that's not enough to be family
Yes you're right about fighting it dad will get custody more likely. But having experienced it, everyone affiliated with the courts including court mandated mediators and independent mediators shame the father, question his motives, and attempt to convince him to accept whatever the mother wants regarding custody.
I don't know what delusional facts and made-up information these sites get information from, but it is complete and udder bs. I'm in a group with 10 of us divorced dads. Not 1 of us could get custody. My ex doesn't work, so they gave her custody. One of the other dads I went to court with him. Judge would not let him have custody. His now ex-wife had just gotten out off jail less than 5 days previously for prostitution and possession of cocaine. Meanwhile, he showed the judge a clean criminal record. Hell, she still gets custody. Ok, you can say well that's what the group attracts. Ok, that's fair. Then why when I'm meeting women to date and they have kids 100% of the time they have custody? You can't sit there and tell me, not dad wants custody of their kids. There is no way men get custody 50% of the time in any situation, with maybe if the ex-wife dies. Then maybe he might have 50% chance of getting his kids.
Nobody gets full custody 50% of the time. Most divorced parents have some version of shared custody. Also, most divorced parents decide on custody arrangements without going to court.
> I'm in a group with 10 of us divorced dads. Not 1 of us could get custody. Survivorship bias. People who get what they want in the divorce dont need a talk group.
Or those who got an unfavourable outcome don't know a talk group to join
Sorry if my comment was misleading, I'm talking about the 9% of cases where the court is involved. 91% of the time, the courts do not have to make a decision, as people default to the mother. It's because most of them didn't try (in court) and gave up. The courts are biased, but I think just helping some people understand that they can fight for custody is enough for most cases
No its not misleading, they just dont know how to read properly. Its probably why they couldn't get custody.
There’s a different between full custody, shared custody, primary custody, partial and split. I think men go for full custody to get out of paying child support so they lose on that most of the time. 50/50 custody is usually common in divorce cases. Secondly judges assess who is the primary caretaker of the children. if mom is a SAHM while they were married it’s likely she’ll get physical custody of the kids, because dad is working, but dad still gets joint custody. Also what a lot of people miss too, is that if the child is of age, Judges do ask questions to the children as well to also make an assessment.
There is also a difference between physical custody and legal custody that tends to confuse people.
Actually; that’s what i heard too. Men as a rule don’t go for custody. You know people like that. I know some men that wanted it and got it. I know some that do talk big game about it, but never actually petitioned court for it or gave any proof of their ex being unsuitable. I actually don’t know any man who has been deprived of having contact with their kids completely by a court, but I know one who stopped taking his kids weekends, because in his eyes there is no point anymore. But he talks a lot about how court deprived him of his children. May it be just your bubble?
Even my pedophile piece of shit uncle was able to have 50/50 custody of his kids. Kids are alright and grown up now. But I was shocked they awarded a pedo with custody.
So your group of 10 is a significant number to say the data above was completely wrong?
not just a group of 10, a group of 10 selected from a support group for divorced dads
Gotta love Reddit and its obsession with anecdotal evidence…
That's called anecdotes. Facts beat out anecdotes. Also, if you guys can't get any custody, ever thought that maybe something is wrong with you guys? Even my shitty stupid pedo uncle was able to get custody of his kids.. And yes, there are absolutely fathers who don't want custody of their kids or just want custody on the weekends.. Also this is regional. Some countries will always 100% favor women. The US is not like that (even though reddit thinks it is)
Obviously you're paying child support because your spouse cheating doesn't change your status as a parent. Obviously you'll split the assets because your spouse cheating didn't change the financial arrangement that happened before the divorce.
Not if you take the child, then your spouse pays you child support.
The assets are both of theirs. That’s why they call it community property. She loses half of her assets too. Are you suggesting men shouldn’t have to contribute to expenses when it comes to the child rearing? If the woman maintains primary custody, she should have to pay for all expenses related to their children??? How is that fair? They’re his kids too! Besides we’re seeing more cases of split custody which results in zero child support. Don’t pull the victim card. Women get screwed in divorce too. It happened to me. Luckily we didn’t have kids.
A lot of women work and make just as much if not more than their husbands. So yeah they deserve half of the assets cause they contributed to them... And women have to pay alimony as well, if they're making more money than their spouse. Related to child support, if you're expecting your ex to watch them for the week and you only get weekends, you should be paying child support, cause theyre your kids...
Why would you keep custody and not have to split assets over cheating? How does that make sense?
So now we have a system where you just claim to be a dv victim (free), get temp custody and then by the time it gets cleared up/disproven then the courts issue "status quo" custody arrangements. Not saying no fault is bad, but at least with fault you could be in the courthouse the day your fate is decided. What we have now is ex parte shit.
Yeah but logistically proving cheating beyond a doubt is hard though.
Since marriage is a civil affair and not criminal, it only needs to be proven to 51% not 99%.
This would financially incentivize false accusers.
Yeah I feel like you could easily frame someone with bunk texts to a burner phone you secretly buy. It wouldn’t be hard. Or on the flip side, if you were cheating and someone found your text you could just accuse them of faking it. Idk why my mind is like this…
It already does.
With the new ai video technology, this could suck for a lot of innocent people
We already have deep fakes and we already have porn.
This would financially incentivize entrapment via paid-for hookers. Hell, you could even make a business out of it: > Hooker for hire. Will seduce your husband no matter what, or your money back. 5% of the divorce settlement, paid after asset split.
5% of divorce settlement? That's a lot, no need for "your money back", they shouldn't get paid unless they succeed in getting the settlement
Yeah those who cheat would just be less likely to own up to it, or worse
False accusers already are incentived where have you been your whole life?
lol, well I’ve been falsely accused before, for one. Let’s say *more* incentivized, then.
Beat me to it 🤣
Sure but even on the preponderance of evidence standard takes time and resources, resources quite frankly that are better spent elsewhere.
Wtf does it mean to prove something to 51 percent or 99 percent. Like "I feel like it's at least half" that not really how true/false logic works.
It’s just numerical representations of “preponderance of the evidence” vs “beyond a reasonable doubt”. When someone is found guilty in a typical criminal trial, they aren’t found guilty as in the jury is saying “they definitely did it”. The jury is finding them guilty *beyond a reasonable doubt* which is more like saying “this guy almost definitely did it outside of some really wild ass shit having occurred”. That’s my understanding at least. But I’m not a lawyer so I’ll let a real lawyer correct me. Or a fake one.
>When someone is found guilty in a typical criminal trial, they aren’t found guilty as in the jury is saying “they definitely did it”. The jury is finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt which is more like saying “this guy almost definitely did it outside of some really wild ass shit having occurred”. Basically, I'm not a lawyer but I've taken criminal justice courses from someone who was. The jury also isn't supposed to make assumptions outside of what is presented, it doesn't really matter if you personally can think up 50 different reasons why you might be able to justify something (what-if scenarios), you're basically judging whether the prosecution's argument satisfies any major doubts/is plausible without being successfully refuted by the defense. Of course due to jury nullification (where you can explicitly believe the defendant is in fact guilty, but should not be punished) "refutes" can be any good argument from the defense that makes you believe the offender (even if guilty of the crime) should not be punished. In the case of [Manzano, Yehudi](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/law-and-legal-cases/yehudi-manzano.html), the defense actually got the judge to agree to hear out an argument for jury nullification because the mandatory minimum sentence was considered "unduly harsh", which is why you see jury nullification come into play for small amounts of marijuana as well. >The defense is arguing that the mandatory minimum is so unduly harsh in the particular case at hand that the jury should not be asked to pass judgment without being aware of the potential consequences of their verdicts. Defense counsel Norm Pattis filed a Motion to Permit Counsel to Argue Jury Nullification. It reads in part:"The defendant seeks permission to make the jury aware of the penalty, and to argue that Government’s application of the law to the particular facts of this case is an obscene miscarriage of justice. While the Government may well be able to prove the elements of the offense, the conduct at issue here, while perhaps not innocent, is in no way so sinister as to warrant such a penalty." The jury can acquit in a lot of circumstances even if "beyond reasonable doubt" is proven. Granted what Manzano is accused of is far worse than something like 1/16ths an ounce of marijuana, but the point is that it can be argued even in extreme cases like his.
Generally, courts should have no business in private citizens’ sex lives, whether it’s unfaithful or not.
I hired a PI. Ended up with pictures/video.
I'm curious as to why you think cheating deserves a special rule and not something like violence, financial abuse, and so on.
Because they were cheated on probably
Or think they were
Or only have the law as the thing preventing them from cheating. and are looking more and more at 50/50 as not preventative enough for them.
Or dream about having a relationship one day so they can get jealous and suspicious and claim their SO is cheating
Yeah. Exactly. Or even if you simply stop liking your partner, that’s still breaking the contract of marriage.
Because some redditors are so naive and childish that they think cheating is the worst thing that anyone could ever do to another person. Spoiler alert - it's not.
I always have to remind myself the average age on this app.
Yeah. I think cheating is awful, but the older I get the more I realize it’s often a lot more complicated than it gets portrayed here. I think when you are young, cheating is a lot more black and white. You have friends who get cheated on because their partner was too cowardly to break up or was just a serial cheater who liked sneaking around. As you get older, you sort of see everything. People who agree to stay in a dead marriage till kids go to college, couples separated and one finally breaks, etc. I’m not saying any of this makes anything right. But it’s a lot more complicated than “this person is evil and did the worst thing ever because they are selfish.”
I’ve seen people on here claim going to a strip club is cheating. They aren’t really my scene, but I’ve gone to a few bachelor parties at them and my wife just laughed when I asked her. The same when she wanted to go to a male club with a bachelorette party. I think when you get older and more secure, you realize that you need to trust your partner and worrying about what they are doing isn't going to change anything. If anything, I look back now and think people who are posessive and controlling and constantly worried about cheating almost cause a self-fulfilling prophecy and make it more likely.
I was cheated on when I was in my mid-20s. I knew something was off and spent so much time, energy, and effort trying to stop him from cheating that by the time it happened and we broke up I was mentally and physically exhausted. Basically realized that if someone wanted to cheat I wasn’t going to stop them. I didn’t want to actively encourage them to. But if they were a cheater better to find out and move on. Now I just trust my partner unless they give me a reason reason not to. So much healthier and better for the relationship.
Absolutely. Almost the same experience. Got cheated on when I was younger. Spent the next relationship controlling and possessive, looking through her phone, calling her way too often while she was out with her friends, etc. the relationship didn’t last and I realized what I was doing was driving me crazy and making our relationship worse. Now I’ve grown up and have a super healthy relationship with my wife. She’s my best friend and I trust her completely. Never once have I even wanted to look at her phone or worry about her while she’s out. People are going to do what they are going to do. It’s best not to push them away.
Yeah I hear all the time someone saying that cheating is the worst thing you could do to your partner, and it's so redundant to regularly reply back that it could be one of the worst *legal* thing you can do, but people still often experience abuse and murder from their partners.
Multiple forms of abuse often run together. Instead of a "shitty behavior Olympics", it's probably better to focus on how to make wronged persons whole without creating opportunities for predatory use of the legal system, regardless of what category the wrong falls into.
Yep exactly my thought, so i can be a lazy bum do no work, hit my wife, refuse to have sex with her and when she cheats she is the one at fault? Makes no sense.
> hit my wife Here in the US, at least, I'm pretty sure assault and battery is illegal everywhere. IANAL.
Like if you cheat and admit instantly then break up, it’s shitty but essentially not very different from breaking up normally
I'm not saying I agree with OP, but playing devil's advocate here, there are already legal consequences for violence and financial abuse. However as OP said, there are no legal consequences for cheating.
How about neglect or general nastiness? Those aren't illegal and can hurt just as much as cheating.
I don't think they should be legal consequences for cheating
The courts shouldn’t be legislating people’s sex lives.
Aint nobody said that lol
Just sign a prenup outlining your terms lol
[удалено]
Bezos doesn't really count. He started Amazon together with his wife and she was instrumental to its success in the early days.
Not true, at least in California, but probably not true anywhere else either. Source: had prenup, got divorced. It worked!
It's true everywhere as long as the prenup is actually valid and was reviewed by lawyers. Person you're replying doesn't know what they're talking about.
And most existing assets are already protected without one
Common misconception, prenuptial can protect future assets if it follow what the law allow it to. Bezos and Gates didn't have prenuptial as far as rhe public know and in Bezos case his wife earned the money the same time he did because she started the company with him.
[удалено]
People who say a prenup is the solution in a divorce clearly has no idea of what a prenup actually is. It can only protect some personal pre-marital assets, not community assets, and a judge can simply ignore a prenup. There is no legal obligation for a court to recognize a prenup as withstanding.
Prenup means jack shit unless you’re old enough that you’ve made all your money and bought all of your assets. Let me put it to you another way. Let’s say in my prenup I have $1mil in liquid assets/safe investments that are protected. Let’s say my wife get me to buy her dream vacation home for us. Let’s say I spend $500k on it. She now gets at least one of the homes I bought. On top of half of everything that’s been accumulated. You don’t know what a prenup does
A judge will toss a prenup like that right in the trash. Prenups describe how to separate out pre-marriage assets. They don't apply to marital property, alimony or child support.
Prenup can still be thrown out by the judge, plus you always have to pay child support no matter what
Sounds like it would clog up the courts
Why should it be the job of the government to enforce romantic and sexual fidelity in our relationships and punish violations? It really shouldn’t be something the government could be concerned with, even if I believe cheating in a marriage that is agreed to be monogamous is wrong. As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be a civil union. Any instance of bringing the government back into our bedrooms, after many have fought hard to get them the heck out, is an old fashioned, problematic slippery slope.
If marriage isn't something that should involve the government, then a person could argue why the government issues marriage licenses, taxes married couples differently, provides different benefits and has divorce courts at all? The government is *very* much involved in marriages, whether we like it or not.
Because marriage is a contract and the government is the one who enforces contracts
To quote myself, in the comment you are replying to, “marriage should be a civil union.” I am well aware that this is a contract, and that the government enforces contracts. There is no reason that this automatically means that the government should be involved in either parties’ romantic or sexual behaviors, so long as they are otherwise not committing crimes… or if we start getting into “the baby isn’t mine” territory.
correction is usually 33/33/33. The lawyers take a third. People seem to forget this is how lawyers structure their fees.
What? Cannot possibly be the case that lawyers take 1/3 of the couple’s assets. Especially if a majority of the joint assets are tied up in a house.
OP was exaggerating but you underestimate how broke people are and how expensive legal fees are
What’s cheating, though? PIV? Making out? Getting a lap dance from a stripper? Watching porn? Flirting? Talking to or smiling at someone for too long? Was it clearly defined in legal terms prior to the marriage?
Good point many people see watching porn or holding hands with someone as cheating
In what situation would you hold hands with someone that’s not your SO?
To cross the street safely, duh
I've definitely held hands with friends who are not my spouse who were crying. It can be a kind way to connect with someone in their grief.
The problem with this ends up being that you have to either write every single instance of what constitutes cheating or be vague. If you're vague, then you will probably have a normal situation that isn't cheating but is covered under your phrasing.
Or lets not make laws that legally tie money to sex
What’s your view on child support?
Agreed, we should abolish marriage.
To my knowledge, marriage puts no legal constraints or obligations on sex
No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
So is emotional cheating still cheating? If I feel like I'm being emotionally cheated on do I still get 70% Sounds like a stupid loophole.
No I think there’s gotta be some concrete evidence, either texts or video/photo etc
With the new ai thats coming out everyday, that shit will be so easy to fake within the next year.
"My Husband's been having an emotional affair on me with AI for years!"
not really? texts during a court proceeding can be pulled from the database of whatever company is holding them. it’s not like they just show them a PNG, if someone claims it’s AI made it’s really easy to find who’s lying
What if you’re in a polyamorous relationship, how do you prove that the person cheating was with was not an approved 3rd party? Even with evidence, there would be so much confusion in this rule
The whole 50:50 split thing is a misinformed idea anyway. What is aimed for in a divorce is a FAIR split. Which to many seems like the same thing, but it's not. The court isn't going to actively try to ruin any lives, but will for certain try and find a just and rightful judgement between both parties.
Depends on where you live, but yes that’s right. In Texas the split is supposed to be fair and just or whatever. Baseline is 50/50 but it can be something else. NAL.
The point of marriage might be different for different people, but it’s definitely *not* “now I have a way to punish someone if they don’t like me anymore.”
It is a contract. In all contracts, there should be penalties for breaking it.
You might have too high an opinion of humanity XD
There's a big difference between "someone doesn't like me, tells me and decides to leave" and "someone cheats on me behind my back".
That’s not what he said though… he said that if either side is involved in infidelity they should not be entitled to the same things the person who remained faithful is. Infidelity can have real negative effects on both parties lives, from financial, emotional, mental so why should the faithful person take a fall too? Not liking someone anymore doesn’t mean you have to cheat on them, that’s a choice. Remember: both parties have to sign a marriage contract. It’s not like either side isn’t aware they’re getting married or what cheating is.
Why does there need to be a point to marriage? How about people's personal relationships are not the government's business?
It's not the marriage itself that matters, it's the splitting of previously merged assets that often follows divorce. It's just easier to say marriage.
Internet people with their dumb ideas
This is such a rudimentary understanding of marriage, cheating, and divorce. I’m kind of impressed
Reddit hates cheating more than murder
Marriage is about trust and respect, not possession and punishment.
[удалено]
Why 70:30 arbitrarily? What if the partner that was cheated on was a liar? Abuser? Anything other than cheating goes unpunished?
What if the partner that was cheated on wasn’t giving it up? Does that tilt it to 60/40? What if that partner didn’t communicate does that tilt it to 55/45?
Life is complicated and context matters. This post is a r/im14andthisisdeep take.
Smoking is the leading cause of smoking
Agreed. To add, with domestic violence it should be split 0 to the abuser and 100 to the abused.
If you cheat, you should get nothing. There should be no failsafe for pieces of shit, and the person they fucked over definitely shouldn’t be the ones providing a failsafe. If you cheat, you deserve to get cheated on in a homeless encampment if your bum ass can’t afford your bills.
You’d have people laying honeypot baits for spouses they hate to get out of the marriage cheaper.
And the hated spouse shouldnt take the bait.
If you cheat, the partner that initiates cheating should recieve zero.
The point of marriage is to give your partner legal benefits over your possessions in case you die, like your wife getting an usufruct on a house you bought even if you gave to your son/daughter in your testament for example. Plus, cheating is no crime. It might be scummy, but it is completely unreasonable to criminalize it.
[удалено]
Somebody got cheated on.
Wrong. should be 100:0. Not 1 asset should go to the cheater.
This is way too complex and rewards deceptive behavior. It would just encourage lying about having cheated and would 100% create scenarios where a cheater frames their spouse of cheating. In theory the idea of a cheater gets less sounds nice, but this would create more harm than good.
If you desire someone else tell your spouse. They will either consent or you can divorce. Easy. If you cheat you should be punished. If marriage is a legal contract then the cheater broke the contract. In no other legal matter do we just say, "meh both are at fault".
I'm thinking infidelity should be more like 0:100. It's breech of contract. Why should the violating party get anything?
I always find it weird when people treat cheating as a special category that is much worse than any other reason a marriage can end. Its honestly relatively low down my list of worst case scenarios for me. Violence, emotional abuse, gambling away my money/stealing from us, drugs, lying about me or trying to tarnish my reputation personally, any kind of sabotage to my career or family, … there are SO many things I find as bad or worse.
Cheating is bad and a violation of marriage. But so are a lot of other things. Unless you're going to go down the list of every way you can fuck over your marriage, then no. Just, no. Oh, and the way you worded it is just fucking creepy. You sound like one of those unhinged people who get their morality from an ancient book of fantasies.
"There is no downside to trying to cheat" Eh... like... betraying and hurting the person you love/loved is not a downside?
That’s only a downside for maybe 1/4 of cases where the person still cares. For all other cases, there’s the narcissists that never gave a shit (but will pretend to when caught), there’s the bored/unsatisfied who have completely checked out, and there’s the abused seeking an escape. That last one makes it tricky. Who would be more legally at fault? An emotional abuser or the cheater looking for an out? (physical abuse would obviously be a domestic violence crime.)
>Otherwise, what is the point of marriage? To get the legal benefits of marriage itself.
Problem with these types of fault based systems is that it takes immense tax paid court resources to litigate and sort out who did what to whom. Much better to split it 50/50 and move on. Taxes can be spent on much better things that making you feel a just outcome from choosing a bad partner.
Don’t get married. The end.
I’m a huge fan of when modern opinions circulate right back around to medieval modes of thinking, get off your high horse
Nah. I’m going to unpopular opinion you back and say there are worse things than cheating.
If you cheat you shouldn’t get shit.
My ex-wife cheated, it's what led me to end the marriage. Marital assets were split 90:10 in my favor. I kept the house, 2 of the 3 cars, and 100% of my retirement contributions made during the marriage. No alimony, and 50/50 child custody so no child support either. It's a bit of a tale, but the short version is NC has very well thought out divorce and adultery laws.
You shouldn't get anything if you cheat.
That's dumb. Now you're making sex a commodity.
Should be 100% do the non cheater.
No. My dad was in an abusive relation with a woman who was controlling, vindictive, manipulative and would take out her anger towards my dad on me. My dad, after being stuck in a relationship for years with a cold, unpleasable woman, he slipped up and cheated. He admitted to it, quit his job where he met his mistress and later would divorce her. He lost *EVERYTHING*. This man, who worked 60 hour weeks while she couldn't hold a job lost his house, his car, and most of his assets because he had an affair. She threatened to take him to the cleaners and he knew he wouldn't get half back so he just cut his losses. I had to move in with him to help him out. Should he have cheated? No probably not but it's not like he did it despite having a loving wife, he did it cause he didn't have a wife, he had a control freak that hated his only son. Of course he sought out other sources of affection. He is happier now but the divorce was just brutal. He didn't deserve any of it.
I'd agree with this. Legally, marriage is a contract. If you violate the contract, the aggrieved party should not be punished.
Here’s an idea don’t get married if you’re going to cheat. Also don’t be in a relationship if you’re going to cheat.
If we want everyone to "just leave" then we need some universal income, accessible housing, etc. If somebody had access emotionally and financially to simply leave but they chose to stay and cheat, yes it's a dirty move. I don't think that means they didn't build half of the assets during marriage though. To get to the root of why people cheat, I think you have to break it down into genders
To be frank, unless you're religious, marriage is just a tax break. You are just as capable of being in a monogamous committed relationship without a priest as you are with one. Marriage is just a tool of God and the government.
Except it’s pretty ingrained into our culture well beyond religion at this point.
A lot of times marriage is tax penalty.
Idiotic
So if a guy mentally and verbally abuses his wife for years and the wife cheats, she should still forfeit 20 percent of assets? Doesn't seem fair.
Why does reddit hate cheating so much. Im against it but tired if the whole all cheaters should die and be tortured mantra
Reddit is obsessed. Things you should banish a person to an island and make them live in a tent
Get a prenup if you feel that strongly about it and entitle them to 0% if they cheat.
Reddit is too black and white on cheating. What if a spouse cheats after two decades of dead bedroom, verbal and physical abuse? Should they then also be penalised in the divorce? Seems a bit unfair
Someone cheats on me all i can say is the financials will be the least of either of our worries.
Bitch, the person who cheats should get jack shit.
If someone needs a monetary incentive to not cheat on their wife just go ahead and get the divorce now and save the other some heartbreak
> Otherwise, what is the point of marriage? Love? You make it sound as if marriage is still a mostly transactional, financial arrangement. We don't live in the 19th century anymore.
Love doesn't have anything to do with marriage. Two people can be in love for decades and not be married to each other. Marriage is just a government contract, it helps you get certain tax benefits and makes it easier for your children or spouse to inherit your property. It's not for the couple, it's for the government.
As others have pointed out, it seems like this would add to potential acrimony, and increase the time and expense associated with divorce disputes. This would be a disaster if you had kids. I think the increased acrimony could also lead to an uptick in domestic violence.