The power of a divorce!

After being married for 44 years, I took a careful look at my wife one day and said 'Honey, 44 years ago we had a cheap apartment, a cheap car, slept on a sofa bed and watch a 10-inch black and white tv, but I got to sleep every night with a hot 25 year old gal.'

Now i have a $500,000.00 home, a $45,000.00 car, a nice big bed and a plasma screen tv, but I'm sleeping with a 65 year old woman. It seems to me that you're not holding up your side of things!'

My wife is a very 'reasonable' woman. She told me to go out and find a hot 25 year old gal, and she would make sure that I would once again be living in a cheap apartment, driving a cheap car, sleeping on a sofa bed and watching a 10-inch black and white tv.


Divorce? An expensive transaction no doubt. Look at the extent people will go through to avoid their assets being ripped off from them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=386557&in_page_id=1773&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=News&ct=5

Even if he did mean to divorce her, the 200 million pound fine would definitely make poor Paul McCartney think twice about dumping the gold digger.

My question is: 'Why is it in this day and age, women still benefit from divorces?'

In a time when most middle management is monopolised by women. A time where most women have careers and are rapidly climbing up the cooperate ladder, men still lose their property, money and assets when getting a divorce. Isn't this a bit of cave man thinking? Or perhaps I should say cave woman thinking since it benefits WOMEN.

Women are probably doing better in most cases then men are when it comes to making money, and yet the law slaps these 'fines' on MEN! Whats the deal man? Women aren't the weak, soft knee'd creatures of the past, they are the fearsome predators of today.

Marriage is a big deal thing indeed. If you're rich and pick the wrong chick to play hide the salami with for life, you in deep shit. Kiss good bye half of your lifetimes hard work, blood and sweat. It's ridiculous isn't it?

Unless there are children involved. Then I can understand. Assuming the children go with the mother as is the traditional case. Nature dictates that children are instinctively closer to their mother than their father. Under the normal circumstances of course. There are definitely exceptions to this case.

But like I said, unless there are children involved, I truely do not see the point of halving a man's assets to a woman he no longer loves. Or a woman who no longer loves him.

Living in sin. Or put in simple English being together without getting married seems a viable option to me. Though your children will be bastards. But the stigma in most countries isn't a bad as it used to be. Life partners is what they call themselves. Some eventually get married when they feel commited enough to do so. Others live happilly together in the comfort of each others love without having to subject themselves to a formal holistic wedding. Think out of the box. Marriage is the box. In more than one cases.

Studies have shown however, couples that co habit, have like a 400% additional risk of getting divorced than couples who did not cohabit before marriage. Interesting fact. I would have thought that it would be the opposite. Married people get into marriage not knowing what they're getting into fully, since they don't know the 'darkside' of their partners. Come on. WE ALL have our darksides, and we hide them well. When you live with some one, you can't hide your bad habits forever.

Instead, those who cohabit, tend to take things for granted when their married, report a loss in respect for their spouse, lack commitment in the marriage and even report the 'stuck' feeling. They are also more likely to cheat on their partners than those who did not cohabit. Sex is something that is taken lightly apparently.

I do not know how accurate the studies are. But thats what they show.

Perhaps the answer is NOT to get married. And to just cohabitate instead since marriage brings so much additional pressure and financial risks! Life partners can be just as commited to each other when compared with marriage spouses. It just lacks the legality.

In Malaysia however, marriage is a must for several different reasons. Firstly, if you are Malay, and caught living alone with a member of the opposite sex, you can be brought to a religious court for 'khalwat'. So living together is a dangerous option for Malays.

Secondly, the reputation of the woman is at stake. She'd be a social 'pariah' at social functions. Looked upon as a loose woman with no morals. Having sex before marriage. What a joke... after all we ALL know that a huge percentage of women lose their virginity BEFORE marriage and/or have had multiple partners.

Children from such relationship suffer having to answer questions like 'How come your parents aren't married?' 'Don't your parents love each other enough to be married?' Quite scarring for the kids.

But how much more scaring is a divorce? A divorce can change a childs life. Arguably, when life partners separate, their children are scarred as well. However, they do not have to go through the legal battles for custody that married couples some times indulge themselves in.

Such a hypocritcal society. It makes me sad.

Virgins are hailed for their self control. Ever think about the fact they could have done EVERYTHING BUT SEX itself. Does that make them innocent? Does that make them pure? Hell no. A woman who has given 1000 blow jobs is deemed more pure than a woman who has had sex with her first love once. How ironic. How stupid.

I'm not saying virginity is over rated. But the definition of virginity itself needs to be reevaluated. Virginity should not merely compose of the act of sex itself, rather any sexual activities in general. Doesn't that make 99% of the population non virgins? You go figure.