It was meant to be exactly that. I “gift” my spouse a nice life in exchange for nothing. Simply because I love him and wish to do so. When the marriage is over, I no longer wish to provide this lifestyle as a gift and yet, I may be forced to “give” it as an obligation. If I choose to not work hard to provide my spouse these thing during the marriage; if I choose not to bestow these gifts of luxury and security upon the person I love, I will have no obligation after marriage to continue to “give” anything. The irony of this system isn’t lost on me.
This issue is very personal to me and I am trying to accept the system for what it is but my opinion of it remains that it is an outdated unjust practice that sometimes, and I do mean sometimes, penalizes the more ambitious and giving spouse.
Well, if you choose to marry a sex bunny whose only other talent is shopping, don’t be surprised if he/she remains “helpless” when you’re done with him/her.
In Foxy’s defense, I don’t think that describes her relationship at all (as I remember it). She was in a position to provide a comfortable lifestyle and he was free to pursue a promising career in music. Except that he slipped into an unmotivated slump and didn’t pursue that (or any) career. He hasn’t taken steps to change his life. Now, whether or not she should have let it go on as long as it did is neither here nor there at this point. But to say she was in it for the sex or so she could have a trophy husband is unfair.
Thats not the deal. Thats why you go back to court, to have the courts decide if its fair. Nothing is written in stone, and I dont see a big deal with going back and asking the courts to re-evaluate the agreement.
Not on the basis of changing gender, but it does seem like he/she has alot of money around to do something like this.
We don’t even know if he paid for it or not. His partner could have, or he could have saved over time (which isn’t that hard…no harder than paying for a new car over 5 years). Sounds like the ex wants to pick and choose what constitutes “valid” spending. Do you think an ex would be entitled to buy a new car? Would she be entitled to buy a house? Shop for clothes at better stores than WalMart?
I wouldn’t have chosen that word either, but I don’t think they mean exactly the same thing. In her case, she is referring to the very lifestyle she afforded him as opposed to specific, special items. To me, that’s not a gift, but to her, it is.
It’s not different than using “gigantic” when the word “humongous” would have worked too; they’re both words, they’re both correct, and this horse (equine) has been beaten (clubbed) to death (a state of being unliving).
