I've been reading the comments and have one question for the men who posted here. How come when a couple gets divorced and each gets half of everything, the woman somehow made away like a bandit and the man got financially "raped". Should women start charging for womb time, say $10,000 per month? Would that make it fair gentlemen? How about $20K per year for housekeeping and daycare? Would that make it fair? Throttled pigs can't even squeal louder than divorced men when it comes to money.

I think you have to draw a distinction between community property which is accumulated during the marriage and the husband’s income after the divorce.

I’ve been married thirteen years – never divorced – but it seems reasonable to me that each divorcing parent should leave the marriage with what they entered into it with, plus half of the community property.

After the marriage, the husband (if it is a one income household) ought to pay for child support until the kid reaches adulthood, plus some amount of alimony for a very limited amount of time until the ex-wife can get on her feet.

Presumably both parties entered into the marriage in good faith. Things didn’t work out. What obligates the ex-husband to support the ex-wife in perpetuity?

It's a hard motherfucking fact, but you need to face up to it - she is going to divorce your ass. You're going to lose everything you have if you don't take steps to protect your parenting rights and any financial assets you have before she files. Get a lawyer now.

Who has argued that when spouses divorce, that one SHOULD support the other into perpetuity.

The only situation where I would even consider that as an option, is one where a high income earning spouse was able to concentrate on moving up the income ladder BECAUSE the other spouse devoted his or her time to maintaining the home, raising the children, if any, and arranging to entertain the business contacts of the income earner.

In that case, one could reasonably argue that they were business partners, and the at home spouse would be, due to the divorce, unfairly cut off from his/her share of the income from the joint venture.

My brother and his wife have been married for many years. And, when he was medical school, she was the sole income earner. When he was in residency and working lots of call, she took care of the house and raised their two kids--beautifully, I might add. She has always worked hard, but hasn't collected a paycheck since the late 1970's. In the unlikely event of their divorce, it would be utterly inappropriate to argue that she should now live on her own means, when my brother was able to pursue his dream of being a doctor BECAUSE she took care of the details of his home life for decades.

If the roles were reversed, I would argue the same.

One-eyed, I don't entirely disagree with you. The whole idea that marriage alone entitles anyone to half of all property, no matter what, is ridiculous to me. I do think that your example of child support and a little money to get the spouse on their feet could use a little nuance. How long is enough time to "get on your feet". A lot of women (and some men) take a serious hit to their careers to take care of their family. How many years of support will it take to get the spouse back to where they would've been if they hadn't done that? Is it really just spiffy to say to a woman or man that has spent years of their lives raising kids and handling the household that they can just click their ruby slippers and make the sort of income they would have if they'd been able to focus on their careers the way their spouse had? As for the lazy bastards (gender neutral)?? Well, I'm fine with cutting them off. I have a good friend who spent years continuing to support her "actor" husband as he slept around and rarely worked because in the state she lived in, she would've hosed as the primary breadwinner. There were no kids, and he was usually not around to support her in any way, but it would've cost her more to leave him than just put up with the crappy situation as it stood.

As for the LW. It's over. Whether you made up half of it (Changed immediately? Really?) or it is all completely true, I don't see this working out. If you are even going to have a shot, coming 100% clean in therapy is a must, but it sounds like you don't trust her and she doesn't want to fix it.

Should women start charging for womb time, say $10,000 per month? Would that make it fair gentlemen? How about $20K per year for housekeeping and daycare? Would that make it fair?

-- Furby

How 'bout $50K per year for the vast vacuum of logic within the female skull? This should expedite fairness.

As soon as you wrote "I cut back on my drinking," the whole poppy field of red flags was waving. Quit for a year. Investigate AA or some alternative to it. If YOU know that drinking is an issue between you, then it's a LOT bigger issue than you think.

Number next: You can't flip a nice-guy switch and have -- or expect -- everyone around you suddenly swoon and take you back. You've probably been a jerk for a long time, which is why . . .

. . . Number next: she's out doing the horizontal mambo with the boys.

Whatever you've done, revenge affairs are her stuff and her row to hoe, or her ho to roll. And once she's tasted of the waters and seen how easy it is to do and how helpless you are to do anything about it, in your condition, it's not going to quit.

Very sad situation for your kid. I stayed with my chronically, serially cheating wife "for the kids." It was the right thing to do. They're grown up now, well adjusted, successful, sense of both history and humor. Now I live alone, happily. Also the right thing to do.