Although it sounds like this latter-day Ned Kelley might have also been able to protect himself with some boilerplate.
Well done. clap
He described it as a “meretricious” relationship, ie, she was a whore and he paid her for sex. Looks like you think the same, you just don’t think he ought to be able to stop b=paying when they stop having sex.
No, it just looks like you have an insanely misogynistic and unrealistic idea of what a relationship is like.
Hint: a long term relationship with the raising of children isn’t predicated on rose petals and violin serenades. It’s also not, as you and Andrea Dworkin so loathsomely suggest, based on long-term prostitution. It’s based on lots of hard work, hopefully held together by romantic and erotic love–but hard work is the defining feature of such a relationship.
She didn’t trade him sex for money. That’s revolting, and you’re revolting for seeing it that way. To the extent that there was a bargain, it was a division of labor: he did the part of the household work that entailed earning money, and she did the part of the household work that entailed raising children and keeping house. Without both types of work the household would not have functioned. When their relationship dissolved, they’re both entitled to a share of the wealth accumulated during their partnership.
You’re the one arguing that the fundaments of a romantic relationship is the provision of money by a man for a woman.
That’s not how I see it. That’s how Mr Meretricious sees it. Thats how the woman whose response to being dumped was to go to court and demand money sees it. Seems like that’s how you see it.
Also, I don’t see anything revolting about prostitution, as long as everyone involved is willing and informed.
So she gets a share of his contribution, the wealth. He gets nothing. She was provided for financially, in return she gave the far lesser contribution of looking after her own child and their joint child when they weren’t in school and he wasn’t around and keeping the house to a basic standard of cleanliness. Now the relationship is over she gets to keep living off his labour, he gets to lose custody of his child. That’s not justice.
No I’m not.
No it’s not.
Unless you’re an insane asshole, no it doesn’t seem like that.
Nor do I.
What makes you say that’s the far lesser contribution?
It was her labor as well. And where’s the evidence that he’s fought for custody of the child?
In case you’re thinking of mocking me for just gainsaying everything you said, I’d like to point out that your post consisted of little but a series of idiotic assertions. There was no evidence to back up anything you said, so there’s nothing to argue against. When come back, bring reason, bring decency, bring facts, bring anything.
Who the fuck is Ned Kelley, and why do we care about his domestic disarrangements?
Just so you know, this is the guy who thinks short men are heavily discriminated, which proves sexism doesn’t exist, because women refuse sex with short men sentencing them to a “lifetime of sadness”. He also likes blatant misogynistic hate websites to prove how horrible men have it from the mean, nasty women.
I really wish I was joking here, but he’s a quasi-rapist who thinks any woman who refuses to have sex with anybody who asks is a bad person. He’s not going to do anything but idiotic assertions, it’s all he can manage in his shriveled, hate-filled brain.
I don’t know about all your claims here, but I’ve definitely encountered this piece of work before and know how his sad little mind works.
Does anyone have a link to the actual decision? The two articles are kind of light on specifics and on what the judge hung their ruling on.
Oh, fuck you and the “fighting ignorance” horse you rode in on! 
There’s a little more detail on the appellate court’s reasoning here, but I’m not finding much about the original case.
That is a much better article than the ones cited in the OP. I’m going to hunt for the case later to see if I can find out more. At least from that article, it seems that they hung their hat on a defense that didn’t really apply.
Yeah, that’s my feeling.
Here is the opinion. (WARNING- PDF) I found it on the Court of Appeals for Georgia website. I haven’t read it yet, but at least we can all argue about what the case was really decided on, as opposed to other things.
Nice one, cheers.
Thanks for the link! I wrote a long bit about the opinion, but it go lost due to a dropped connection. Grr! Some key points:
-The dude bought her a card beginning, “What is a wife?” as one of several indications that he planned to marry her.
-They both represented themselves as married in public.
-She left her job at his urging.
This is one of several important paragraphs:
(I accept Falchion’s apology for his snark at me and the lawyer in advance).
I think there’s grounds for legitimate disagreement over whether Kelley’s actions constituted fraud: he apparently proposed to her while he was conducting an affair, and it’s possible that he’s just a crazy sleazebag who really intended to marry her. But I don’t think there’s reasonable grounds to say that this wasn’t a common-law marriage, if such a statute existed, and I don’t think that it’s reasonable to suggest that, given the facts of the case, it’d be fair to kick Cooper out of the home with none of the wealth the couple worked together to accrue over a decade.
Discriminated against, yes. The statistics are clear, by virtue of being short, short men are more likely to live shorter, poorer, lives.
Well, in that particular instance it was being used to balance complaints about alleged discrimination against fat women. Either fat women and short men are victims of sexism, or both are not victims of sexism. That is the full extent of the claim that website made.
Specifically it was refuting the claims that “This is one of the core fundamental bases of gender inequality in the United States. Women are held to standards of objectified physical appearance that men are not.” and “Weight can have startling consequences for women’s financial well-being, careers, and marriage prospects, according to research that found that women – but not men – suffer economic harm from being overweight.”
Not something I ever said, or particularly agree with.
Firstly, you are referring to one website, not “websites”, and are intentionally lying for rhetorical effect. The website in question being this one, for anyone who would like to look.
Secondly, apart from the position that short men have disadvantages, and that their position is analogous to that of fat women, you never presented a single reason to consider the website in question to be “hate” or “misogynistic”.
Thirdly, the website doesn’t blame women at all. It only even mentions women in relation to being less likely to want to go out with short men, and it’s no more blaming women for that than it is blaming men for not wanting to go out with fat women. I mean that literally, as those two positions are presented as being identical for the purposes of the argument. In any case, the focus of the article was on economic factors.
Fourthly, that website provided actual evidence, studies providing proof of its claims, which you simply dismissed and misrepresented as misogynistic, without bothering to make any factual rebuttal.
Yes, thinking people should gain promotions based on merit, election based on policies and perhaps, in an ideal world, sexual attraction based on being English, physically strong and having a luxuriant head of hair, rather than based on height, height, and height, respectively, makes me a quasi-rapist.
Clarify.
What part of “meretricious” is not clear?
It’s from “meretrix”, a Roman whore.
Unless you have one leg as a result of an unfortunate incident at the RNC involving a dog and an insufficient quantity of lubricant, yes it does seem like that.
Which makes me wonder why you used the word “revolting”, if you don’t think it’s revolting.
I don’t really think it’s a contribution at all.
In terms of housework, I’ve been known to work full time and also clean my house. Perhaps you can research how much money he’s now spending on staff to replace her labour. I would expect the amount to be zero. My mother was a house cleaner for a bit when I was growing up, and the average house employing a cleaner was huge and only hired a cleaner for about four hours a week, at minimum wage. So I think the closest we can come to quantifying her contribution is a few hours a week at minimum wage. However, even that’s generous, as she was living there too. She was cleaning the house, not for money, but for the same reason I clean mine, because I prefer to live in, at worst, only mild filth.
The childcare situation is even more egregious. She is looking after her own children, which most people would consider a privilege rather than an onerous burden. Also, most children spend most of their waking hours at school. And those are work hours, so when they’re home, more often than not their dad will be too, so there’s really no reason to attribute their care to her. Maybe she did most of it, but she didn’t do all of it. And one of those kids is hers, but not his. That’s a contribution, looking after someone else’s kid, unlike looking after your own kid or cleaning your own house.
She’s not a fucking servant, she’s a lady of leisure who wishes to keep being kept even though she’s no longer providing anything in return.
[quote]
It was her labor as well.
[quote]
The labour in question was that which brought cash into their home. She worked for the first two years they lived together, but not the next nine.
As she’s unwilling to work to support her children, or even herself, should she even be allowed custody?
Most of what I was referring to was your position, some of which was quoted and the rest has been the position you have quite openly adopted. You can’t just say something is revolting, then claim you don’t think it’s revolting, unless you want to look like an idiot. I don’t mind you just contradicting me, although it’s not very productive, but contradicting yourself is a different matter.
I suppose I could just post your posts back to you, to show the positions you’re now desperately backpedaling on, but I’m afraid that would lack “decency”.
I’m not backpedaling from anything, halfwit. That “backpedaling” thing is some weaksauce that morons like you trot out when they’re called on their asinine misunderstandings.
Your post is so chockablock with idiocy that it’s not worth my time to go through and correct everything, especially since there’s like a 100% chance you’ll come back and say, “NO, I understood the first time, YOUR LYING!” when I try to clarify with small words for you. But I’ll try one time, just about this one point.
Here’s what I said was revolting:
What’s revolting is your accusation that she traded him sex for money. Not the idea of prostitution, not the idea of marriage, not Gummi Bears dipped in dogshit or whatever fantastically stupid misunderstanding you might come up with next: your accusation that her relationship was one long instance of prostitution was revolting.
Okay, one more correction: I know what a meretricious relationship was. You apparently don’t know how it applies to this instance, which is especially egregious after the actual case has been linked to. Not only does it not specifically apply to prostitution in this case, but the claim itself was rejected by the appeals court, for very sound reasons.
Now. Cue the “BUT YOU DID SAY THAT YOU BACKPEDALING LIAR!” bullshit that is your only recourse left.
I will apologize for the snark. Except that I’m left with this problem: the majority notes (but does not seem to provide any support for the claim) that defendant held them out as married (obviously, they’re supposed to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, so I don’t expect to find much analysis of why that’s true), but the fraud claim is based on the view that he never intended to marry her (which they affirm, and hence the dissent’s discussion of romantic vacations and promises not to further philander). If he never intended to marry her, then they never would have been in a common law marriage (since in Georgia, holding yourself out as married was evidence of actual intent, but actual intent was the thing being proven). So if the woman’s lawyer was right on the merits of the fraud claim, he was wrong on the common law marriage point; and if he was right that this was just a common law marriage, then he should have lost on the fraud claim.