Co-habitation rights


——————————————————————————–

26 September 2006

Should unmarried couples have any rights?

In the United States they call it palimony. In England there is no name for it because it doesn’t exist . . . in Scotland, New Zealand, most of Australia and in assorted countries besides they have palimony already. The Law Commission favours its introduction in England and Wales and we have until Saturday to tell it whether we want the right to claim against or be sued by our former partners, even when not married. On Sunday the consultation phase ends and the Law Commission will then decide on its final recommendations to Parliament.

Women will be in favour, men won’t. Except for men who work in the divorce industry. Simple as that. It’ll go through and it’ll be a goldigger’s free-for-all…until us men stop co-habiting as well as marrying.

Marriage rates have fallen sharply and now more than two million unmarried couples cohabit with well over a million children dependent upon them.

Care to guess why anyone? Surely nothing to do with the divorce laws! Politicians, lawyers and women try as hard as possible to avoid that conclusion.

Here are a few of the headline proposals: first, it is an opt-out scheme, meaning that rights and obligations will be imposed automatically on cohabiting couples and, if they don’t want this, both partners must sign an opt-out document — one signature won’t count.

Don’t fall for this men. A woman will probably say she’ll agree to sign up to opt-out and then, when you’ve moved in together, she’ll refuse to sign. “Whassamatta? Don’t you trust me? Don’t you love me? Are you afraid of commitment? Fuck you Mister, get out of my house!” And you’re fucked.

Fortunately, if your partner is reluctant you will be able to unilaterally opt out by dumping him or her before the proposals hit the statute books. In New Zealand, as the February 2002 date for the palimony law grew ever-closer, many relationships were ended by the richer party to prevent future claims. This has already started in England and Wales and the scheme hasn’t even got to Parliament yet.

Bwhahaha! Us men aren’t as stupid as you think motherfuckers. Most guys saw this coming a mile off and are taking steps to prevent it. “Get out of my house woman! Shoo! Gertcha!”

Secondly, and crucially, it will not work like divorce. Divorcing spouses have an automatic right to claim and can expect to share equally everything built up over the marriage.

Bollocks. Women get, on average, 80% of the assets in a marriage, even though men usually contribute towards the majority of them. And 90% of the time that includes the entire house and full custody of the kids.

Childless couples will be entitled to claim only if they have cohabited and if the relationship has affected them economically; for example, by one partner giving up a career to support the other career…

Ah yes, the old claim women love to make (for make no mistake, it will be women claiming in these cases) that they “give up” their career to “support the other”, even though most women eagerly quit jobs they hated as soon as they’ve got a sucker and he has to support her whilst she becomes a lady of leisure.

This is all bollocks. Forget this rubbish about them wanting “public feedback.” The divorce lawyers are realising they’ll be out of business and women seeing they’ll be out of early-retirement options as the marriage rate plummets and, knowing damn well us men are on a marriage strike to avoid divorce laws, they’re going to shove through these co-habitation laws. I’ve even heard a woman at work who co-habits saying that, if these laws go ahead, she ‘ll stop pestering her boyfriend to propose because “I’ll have similar rights as if I was married if we split anyway.” In other words, like many women, she doesn’t want marriage for “romance”, it’s solely so she can take the guy for all he’s worth if (or, more likely, when) she splits with him.

Gentlemen; Avoid marriage and co-habitation.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:57 PM
——————————————————————————–

At 8:56 PM, phoenix said…

And when couples stop cohabiting, women will push for sexual rights, and of course, it’ll be the same circus as rape where women will swear up and down that there is a sexual relationship with men, with probably a one night stand from 5 years ago counting. The government and women will still refuse to admit the problem, and will continue using shaming language on men. Eventually men will stop having sex with women, and laws will be passed simply assigning a male slave to his female master at the age of 18, upon which age he will be put to work for her. This is what happens when you refuse to get at the root of the problem.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:02 AM, Anonymous said…

I love my girlfriend very very much, but i’m going to have to stop cohabiting with her as soon as I start earning some money. Right now i’m not, but the lure of easy living is so tasty.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:43 AM, darkbhudda said…

In Oz, the co-habitation benefits to women kick in at 6 months. It’s been that way for many years.

I know guys who have will only date for 4 months maximum.

That’s date, not move in together. They know it’s not long now until merely dating a woman incurs the same penalties as divorce.

They’ll justify it the same way, by saying she contributed to his success or that being in an exclusive relationship is just as much work as living together, if not more.

Before anyone claims that will never happen, you said the same thing about co-habitation.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:49 AM, mfsob said…

Shakespeare had it right, lo those many hundreds of years ago – The first thing let’s do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

On a more realistic note (I mean, there are just too MANY lawyers to bump ’em all off), I agree that women will keep playing the system so they have to do as little as possible to get as much as possible. Palimony is not really that big an issue in the US except among the insanely rich and those who inhabit Hollyweird, and all of those wackos deserve every shafting they get.

But I can see cohabitation laws looming on the horizon, as the divorce lawyers and family court judges realize that their gravy train is starting to dry up because men are refusing to play. It’s going to make 1984 look like a picnic, gentlemen.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:39 AM, Trescius said…

Don’t fall for this men. A woman will probably say she’ll agree to sign up to opt-out and then, when you’ve moved in together, she’ll refuse to sign. “Whassamatta? Don’t you trust me? Don’t you love me? Are you afraid of commitment? Fuck you Mister, get out of my house!” And you’re fucked.

And that is the perfect reason to have the document signed before she moves in.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:18 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

What is it with women? They spout about equality and then insist that their partners must earn more than they do and that the woman should get a pay-off if the relationship breaks down. Of course, none of these benefits are available for men. You never hear of a man getting a share of a wealthy woman’s fortune do you. It seems that women still have the old fashioned idea that they’re entitled to payment for sex even when it’s within a relationship. There’s a word for this.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:44 PM, nevo said…

There are some other aspects to this situation.
When men become so easily dispossessed of their property and belongings by the law of the land, they’ll also lose their incentive to create wealth for themselves and their progeny.
I’ll assume that role will be taken over by females with all it’s dire consecuences.
Hene, it’s reasonable to think that by the later part of this century there will be a maculinist ideology.
Will men be fighting for equality then?
Definitely.
Nevo

——————————————————————————–

At 1:04 PM, byrdeye said…

This is BS. Why should co-habitators DEFAULT to “common-law marriage?”

Listen up MATRIARX – if people wanted to get married, they would DO SO. That is HUGE step and should be a voluntary, conscious CHOICE.

So, why not make them both sign a form saying that they WANTED to be “married,” instead of one saying that they DON’T?

F THIS BS! They think this will lead to more marriages…when in fact it will just lead to less co-habitation and less marriages.

Krist MEN, we better start mobilizing and speaking out against all this feminist BS! Time to FIGHT BACK, already!

——————————————————————————–

At 2:24 PM, inkraven said…

@phoenix

Have you read The Handmaid’s Tale? Substitute men for women and government for religion and you’ve laid it out spot on.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:36 PM, ChicagoMan said…

Well the current laws destroyed marriage, so people are just co-habiting.

Instead of using common sense and fixing those laws they will now attack co-habiting like they did marriage.

So now people won’t co-habit anymore, new home prices will plummet, apartment rentals will be up.

Then what? Will they pass laws arranging a marriage for us?

I can’t believe how stupid these people really are.

——————————————————————————–

At 4:38 PM, Christopher in oregon said…

Every state in the U.S. has some variations on this matter, and, quite frankly, I’m not sure how the law reads in Oregon. I can only assume the worst, since this state is notorious for handing a man his ass when he gets divorced.

Men need to realize that even spending the night with a woman in your home, or anywhere else for that matter, can have some serious consequences.

Check out Bill 117 that they were trying to pass in Canada. I don’t know the status of the bill, but it would have horrific results for any man even dating. His home could be given to any woman he was dating over charges of domestic abuse.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:12 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

Here’s a link to Bill 117 as mentioned by Christopher;

http://tinyurl.com/kvuge

Sounds bad! Even a woman you’re dating – not even living with – can accuse you of domestic violence (which can even just include “observing” a woman!) and you can be totally fucked over, even forced to pay compensation or attend counselling (i.e. brainwashing.)

I’ll see if I can find out if that Bill was passed. It wouldn’t surprise me if it did.

Women are in for a real shock. They think it’s bad now trying to find a man willing to marry them! Wait until more men wake up to these laws; women will find it hard to find a man who’ll bother to make eye-contact with her.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:28 PM, Anonymous said…

Isaiah 4

1:AND IN that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and provide our own apparel; only let us be called by your name to take away our reproach [of being unmarried].

Hehe. God seemed to know about this one as well.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:48 PM, ChicagoMan said…

I couldn’t agree more Duncan.

Even though women always forcefully say that they don’t need a man, it is they that are always bitching about being lonely.

WAKE UP LADIES

Contrary to what feminism has told you,

MEN DONT NEED WOMEN like you need men

Want to push men farther away, make upmore bullshit rules like this

These laws aer pushed by Manginas that think they will get laid by looking noble and like a gentleman when they pass this shit.

Truth be told manginas, this is ANTI_CHALLENGE and will never get you laid.

To the Manginas:

Want to get laid, accept the fact that women are women and men are men.

I get alot of respect because I put my foot down.

The best aphrodisiac for a woman is telling her “NO” and that she is not getting her way.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:51 PM, byrdeye said…

Well the current laws destroyed marriage, so people are just co-habiting.

Instead of using common sense and fixing those laws they will now attack co-habiting like they did marriage.

That’s exactly it – they keep trying to rope men into marriage, whilst making its terms more and more detrimental to us.

Funny how they are working so hard to fight GAY marriage, yet will do anything in the book to sucker men into str8 marriage, by any loopholes necessary…

F marriage! JUST SAY NO, FELLAS!

——————————————————————————–

At 7:38 PM, Anonymous said…

“Even a woman you’re dating – not even living with – can accuse you of domestic violence […] and you can be totally fucked over, even forced to pay compensation or attend counselling (i.e. brainwashing.)”

Worse:

“An intervention order may contain […]
Restraining the respondent [=accused] from attending at or near, or entering, any place that is attended regularly by the applicant, a relative of the applicant, any child or any other specified person, including a residence, property, business, school or place of employment.”

No mentioning of losing your property if you’re the sole owner, though.

The intention of this law is good, but it can be so easily abused, by men and women alike. If they would provide penalties against false accusations or frivolous use, then it wouldn’t be so toxic.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:39 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

These warnings ring all too horribly true. It’s the Law Society that is pushing these proposals. No prizes for guessing why.

Note that there will be no opt-out of the proposed new rules; only if BOTH partners agree. This is laying a trap in the sight of the intended prey: any man is a complete idiot if he cannot see this for what it is – a blatant handing of power over the relationship into the exclusive hands of the woman. She simply has to refuse to sign the opt-out, and she has the man skinned, stuffed and ready for the oven.

So the only answer will be to get her to sign the opt-out before the relationship gets under way. Oh, and be sure to get lots of copies and give them to your lawyer, family, friends, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. One copy will easily get lost, especially when she changes her mind and decides it’s fleecing time.

Alternatively, follow Duncan’s advice and don’t even bother co-habiting. What an enticing prospect. Just how far will these b******s go to ruin relationships for their own gain?

——————————————————————————–

At 8:47 PM, nevo said…

I just read the law and it refers to persons. Therefore, I assume it applies equally to men and women. It makes no reference to any specific persons other than when it refers to same sex civil partnership (whatever that means).
So, on this front at least, it appears that men are equal in front of the law.

NEVO

——————————————————————————–

At 12:24 AM, phoenix said…

Hey Duncan, I have a sort of unrelated article for you, it’s more business and nanny state related. I think you might want to go through this article and give your comments.

I guess Britain has a rival! Norway is looking to feminize itself out of existence before you guys.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:33 AM, mfsob said…

Christ on a crutch, Nevo! If you believe that … I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:30 AM, HAWKEYE said…

that canadian act is scary,i particularly like section 16/1,total freedom to accuse without fear of any comeback to the accuser

——————————————————————————–

At 6:33 AM, Anonymous said…

Eternal bachelor,

I told you a while back bro’. Come to America. Turn your back on the Union Jack. If about 10 million young British men do this…………………………………………..Britain will not be able to afford to lose them. The prime movers in her economy, her future. There are plenty of girls over here who dont hate men and dont want to fuck them over for money. Leave the ruined, brainwashed British girls alone in England and watch England implode from across the sea.

Feminist nations can be punished in this way. It could start in England and move to Sweeden (the next worst Feminist superstate). The new Muslim overlords, when they get the demographic majority, will reverse these laws anyway. Then the cunts that passed them will watch their daughters (probably nieces as these kinda women so rarely have kids) have to wear burkhas and they can think about how they RAN off all the decent men to America to marry Asian and Hispanic girls (who are still nice). Fuck em’ man. Make’em’ pay

——————————————————————————–

At 2:51 PM, ChicagoMan said…

The law may be written to fair to the sexes, but everyone knows that in front of a judge and jury the woman always portrays some kind of emotional trauma and is a victim of something.

This pushes the law far away from the realm of equality.

Remember most of the people that are judges now grew up in a time when men and women were treated with respect, hence they always believe the women and don’t think about them pulling a fast one.

Juries of peers: 50% male 50% female.

ALL the females will be on the woman’s side no matter what.

Half the men will be Manginas thinking of nothing but pussy instead of using their head.

So I don’t see how the man would EVER even come out equal from this.

The legal system is screwed up and a good percentage of men are Manginas, until these things change, we’re screwed.

——————————————————————————–

At 3:05 PM, Anonymous said…

BILL 117

An Act to better protect
victims of domestic violence

How much better can it get?

It should be called the ROOM 101 BILL out of 1984. What’s in that room? Every mans worst fear.

Check this out.

8. Granting the applicant exclusive possession of the residence shared by the applicant and the respondent, regardless of ownership.

REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP.

I can see the lawyers and their so called victims lining up already.

ROOM 101…AAAAAAAAH.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:51 PM, Fem hater said…

Face it ,women don`t want to be independent, it is natural instict to make a man supply all their needs, this so called equality bullshit was just an excuse to get more out of a relationship, even the most fanatical feminist wants to get freebies from their husbands, they believe it is their birthright and seem to think that men should get nothing out of the relationship. Muhahaha see you ladys in your 40`s when you having a mid life crisis when you realize the only thing men wanted from you ,you no longer have that they will end been lonely for the rest of your life .

——————————————————————————–

At 9:27 PM, Anonymous said…

@ Anonymous 6:33am
“I told you a while back bro’. Come to America. Turn your back on the Union Jack.”

We’re trying, ‘dude’. Your immigration laws make it all but impossible for immigrants from developed countries. …unless of course we marry one of your feral American females, which kinda defeats the object.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:12 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

“Feral American females”?

Whaaaaaaat?! You don’t think highly of our virginal ladies on this side of the pond? Shame on you. Why, I have known many women who claimed to be virgins. Pure as the driven snow…….

Shame on you. British men are soooo damnably negative.

Christopher

——————————————————————————–

At 11:19 PM, Playboy said…

California has ‘common-law marriage’ and palimony but the State I live in has neither.

However, there is a little know exception: if you live together co-mingling asests and then break-up – everything purchased during the relationship must be divided.

That means, when some architect or dentist lets his girlfriend (who works a part-time job at the pet shelter) move in with him and then he buys the dream boat he has wanted all his life, a motorcycle,
and a collection of rare Samarai swords… she actually owns half.

——————————————————————————–

At 11:48 PM, phoenix said…

Why would you want to come here? We’re maybe a half step behind you and Canada in terms of feminization. I don’t know where you’d go, but I’d suggest a non “developed” country would be the best bet. Maybe China or Korea could work.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:52 AM, Anonymous said…

Well the current laws destroyed marriage, so people are just co-habiting.

Instead of using common sense and fixing those laws they will now attack co-habiting like they did marriage.

There’s nothing to fix. It’s all going according to plan.

The folks that Run The World ($$$$) view themselves as gods (through the invention of fiat currency and hyper-liquid financial streams they can create and destroy at will so they do indeed have some god-like powers). These folks thinks there are too many unwashed here on Earth. They’ve been doing everything in their power (short of Armageddon -> too dangerous + can’t do anything too extreme for it would wake people up -> the frog is best boiled slow) for the last 50 years to drive population down.

Think about it:

– mass abortion
– promotion of homosexuality
– environmental movement (less living area then lower population + less pollution the gods have to breathe)
– careerism, rather than motherhood, for women (career + highly educated women don’t create big families, because they spend their most fertile years in college and on-the-job)
– promotion of pets as substitutes for children
– promotion of hobbies and recreation in lieu of spending time with families
– promotion of Social Security and other social welfare schemes to de-legitimize the traditional importance of families in these areas
– encourage migration of “backward” (i.e., pro-family, traditional) cultures to “developed” (i.e., socially transformed to anti-family model) societies with promise of jobs and open borders to reverse-poison those developing cultures (i.e., male + female workers adopt mores of cultures work-in and bring back ‘home’)
– promotion of celebrities that have few or no children
– wars with mega deaths
– explosion of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease
– make women so toxic that marriage becomes lethal proposition for men (NOTE: yes, a marriage strike by men aides this goal. The unknown is how women will react. If they continue to act like the short-sighted creatures they are then no problem. If women start freaking out this whole thing could backfire and revolution against the anti-family cultural elite might start. AND BE LED BY WOMEN. The way to incite this outcome would be to make the marriage strike and accompanying ostracism by men toward women VERY uncomfortable for women. This could shock women out of the freefall they’re leading the culture to. It’s an asymetric wild card that can have a probability assigned to it in their social control mathematical model, but not a certainty)
– pushing to make mating or having any relationship (where children might be produced) equally as dangerous

Other than that it’s all going according to plan…

——————————————————————————–

At 7:45 AM, Anonymous said…

It appears that Bill 117 became law in Canada on 21 December 2000. Check Google.com for links to Canadian legal websites. Bill 117 is also known as the Domestic Violence Prevention Act of 2000.

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: