• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

whitevanman

Deluded Old Scrapper Birds On Dating Sites

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, montecristo said:

1. I don't give a shit :)

2. If you sold as soon as she moved out? Firesale, before legal proceedings began.

Dulcolax is what you need for 1.

2. can be done only if assets sold quickly and quietly (e.g. webuyanyhouse.com type company at 20% off fair value) then run away.  So only worth it if you have lots of equity and MrsDosbods is not on the deeds/mortgage.

The only person I know to get away cheaply had his own business that was hard to value accurately. The official value was bugger all but funnily enough, it sold for a few million after the divorce. The ex-wife spent years fighting to get a share but lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Please could you PM me or start a relevantly named thread regarding this?

Would be interested to see a thread on this and other people's opinions.

Lots to consider and no right thing to do.

Get it right and you can help secure your kids future and provide them with a decent platform off which to build. 

Get it wrong and they end up with more than they can handle. Inhibit their ambition, watch them pair with an unsuitable partner and waste the capital.

For me maybe providing an education, a safety net and seed money is a good way to do it. Then watch how he matures.

Maybe he's got a mature head on him and will meet a decent girl early, but I think most aren't like that and need their 20s to learn the hard way.

Heard an anecdotal about a multimillionaire who gave their kid $1M in their 20s and told them to use it to make more ... so there's another way to do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no easy answers when you're in that position unfortunately. Easiest thing is to never put yourself in the position of a slave in the first place. More and more men are learning this IMO. My sons are young men and they know all this and have said they will not marry without massive change. I've been careful to hide my own views as much as possible as I wanted them to make their own minds up but they saw their mother's behaviour when we divorced and they've seen plenty of their friends as well.

The one thing I'm sure of is that if I was in that position again I would not play ball - at all. Men need think ahead and plan, hide assets etc. There's not much a judge can do if you've liquidated everything and hidden it. IMO most women can't be bothered with the hassle of going to court, they make a right pain of themselves to extract as much as possible with threats from their solicitor. If you show them you're not going to co-operate, most will bend and take what they can get for an easy win - unless you married a complete nutcase of course.

Basically, don't marry. You would never sign a business contract where a third party who hated you and thought the sun shone out of your business partners arse had the right to vary the contract at any time and in any way without appeal and with the full force of the law to back it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Napoleon Dynamite said:

Would be interested to see a thread on this and other people's opinions.

Lots to consider and no right thing to do.

Get it right and you can help secure your kids future and provide them with a decent platform off which to build. 

Get it wrong and they end up with more than they can handle. Inhibit their ambition, watch them pair with an unsuitable partner and waste the capital.

For me maybe providing an education, a safety net and seed money is a good way to do it. Then watch how he matures.

Maybe he's got a mature head on him and will meet a decent girl early, but I think most aren't like that and need their 20s to learn the hard way.

Heard an anecdotal about a multimillionaire who gave their kid $1M in their 20s and told them to use it to make more ... so there's another way to do it.

 

New thread started in the Investing and Money area.

 

Edited by VeryMeanReversion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third".

The data suggests you guys are up against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Napoleon Dynamite said:

Would be interested to see a thread on this and other people's opinions.

Lots to consider and no right thing to do.

Get it right and you can help secure your kids future and provide them with a decent platform off which to build. 

Get it wrong and they end up with more than they can handle. Inhibit their ambition, watch them pair with an unsuitable partner and waste the capital.

For me maybe providing an education, a safety net and seed money is a good way to do it. Then watch how he matures.

Maybe he's got a mature head on him and will meet a decent girl early, but I think most aren't like that and need their 20s to learn the hard way.

Heard an anecdotal about a multimillionaire who gave their kid $1M in their 20s and told them to use it to make more ... so there's another way to do it.

 

A similar take on this is ; tell them for every £1 they earn you'll match it with £1 or 50p or £5 whatever is appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

She initially wanted £60K but kept spinning it out so he was ended up paying legal bills for both sides and a flat for her in London as it dragged on. Financially crippling.

Most of his assets were gifts from parents before they were married.

 

 

Insanity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

Dulcolax is what you need for 1.

2. can be done only if assets sold quickly and quietly (e.g. webuyanyhouse.com type company at 20% off fair value) then run away.  So only worth it if you have lots of equity and MrsDosbods is not on the deeds/mortgage.

The only person I know to get away cheaply had his own business that was hard to value accurately. The official value was bugger all but funnily enough, it sold for a few million after the divorce. The ex-wife spent years fighting to get a share but lost.

Think I will remain single.  However, I would happily reduce the house value by 50% and give it to a stranger than to an ex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

She initially wanted £60K but kept spinning it out so he was ended up paying legal bills for both sides and a flat for her in London as it dragged on. Financially crippling.

Most of his assets were gifts from parents before they were married.

 

 

Crap legal advice.

If theres no kids then its pretty easy/standard - half the assets accumulated during the marriage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

This may seem cynical but my cousin has just been stung for £100K+ after a 4-year marriage with no kids, basically the inheritance he had from his Dad has just gone to Miss Floozy.

Optimum strategy may be to appear to have lots of assets and have the benefit of them but not actually own them in any way (including rights to them under trusts - which courts can take into account).

Yup I know someone just lost his £600k house to Miss Floozy after a marriage lasting less than 2 years. His parents put a lot of money into for them kids as well, she contributed fuck all. Not even a month after they split up she was back on the dating apps getting taken on foreign jaunts by thirsty simps.

Her life now: Works part time, lives in a big house in a nice area, back dating Chads and getting taken on foreign holidays by beta herbs.

His life now: Working his ass off to pay for everything. Living in a bedsit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gibbon said:

Yup I know someone just lost his £600k house to Miss Floozy after a marriage lasting less than 2 years. His parents put a lot of money into for them kids as well, she contributed fuck all. Not even a month after they split up she was back on the dating apps getting taken on foreign jaunts by thirsty simps.

Her life now: Works part time, lives in a big house in a nice area, back dating Chads and getting taken on foreign holidays by beta herbs.

His life now: Working his ass off to pay for everything. Living in a bedsit.

It does make you wonder how much further this can all go before men start fighting back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starsend said:

It does make you wonder how much further this can all go before men start fighting back.

The "men" in our generation are fucked, the boomers creation. They are more likely to have a sit down and cry then go watch one of the new Star Wars to perk themselves up, with a nice soy latte of course, than actually fight back. Maybe the men in generation zyklon will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gibbon said:

The "men" in our generation are fucked, the boomers creation. They are more likely to have a sit down and cry then go watch one of the new Star Wars to perk themselves up, with a nice soy latte of course, than actually fight back. Maybe the men in generation zyklon will?

The systematic robbery of home, money and children from men does seem to have been going on for some time now. It's hard to gauge how many men are fully awake to it. Boards like this are obviously not representative of the general population. It does seem though that it is slowly spreading so I have some hope. You look at many of the videos on youtube on this subject and there are thousand and thousands of comments from wide awake men. It doesn't need everybody to be awake, just a significant percentage who refuse to play ball anymore. Not sure what that percentage is but maybe as low as 20%. When 20% of men refuse to marry and participate in family life it leaves women having to fight for the ones who will and Government pissed off at the amount of tax they are losing as a chunk of men no longer have to kill themselves at work.

I think the biggest problem is that of the age old mindset of 'it'll never happen to me.' Men hear the stories and like cancer they assume it only happens to other people. Even when they're told it's 50/50 and it's all around you, they persist in thinking they're somehow special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, gibbon said:

Yup I know someone just lost his £600k house to Miss Floozy after a marriage lasting less than 2 years. His parents put a lot of money into for them kids as well, she contributed fuck all. Not even a month after they split up she was back on the dating apps getting taken on foreign jaunts by thirsty simps.

Her life now: Works part time, lives in a big house in a nice area, back dating Chads and getting taken on foreign holidays by beta herbs.

His life now: Working his ass off to pay for everything. Living in a bedsit.

Where is this?

Asking for a friend.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Starsend said:

The systematic robbery of home, money and children from men does seem to have been going on for some time now. It's hard to gauge how many men are fully awake to it. Boards like this are obviously not representative of the general population. It does seem though that it is slowly spreading so I have some hope. You look at many of the videos on youtube on this subject and there are thousand and thousands of comments from wide awake men. It doesn't need everybody to be awake, just a significant percentage who refuse to play ball anymore. Not sure what that percentage is but maybe as low as 20%. When 20% of men refuse to marry and participate in family life it leaves women having to fight for the ones who will and Government pissed off at the amount of tax they are losing as a chunk of men no longer have to kill themselves at work.

I think the biggest problem is that of the age old mindset of 'it'll never happen to me.' Men hear the stories and like cancer they assume it only happens to other people. Even when they're told it's 50/50 and it's all around you, they persist in thinking they're somehow special.

Wooh there ...

A bit too tin foil hatted MGTOW.

Getting married is not a casual, short term contract, like signing up for mobile phone.

People - men n women - need to grasp that marriage is the pooling of resources.

Its not something you should go into with your eyes closed. Or unprepared.

In most cases, if theres no kids then the marriage can, if the couple had put stuff down on paper, legally, split up seperately, keeping individual assets.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For balance, I know of a made up story of a son-in-law, married to the daughter, of one of three siblings who controlled a large logistics firm. None of them had sons, or if they did, they weren't interested in going into the family business. Anyway, the son-in-law, was chosen to take over but he started to complain about not having any actual stake in the business. He was gradually given more control until they found out he'd been mismanaging the company and spunking company cash on all sorts. He then promptly divorced the daughter and went on his merry way and as he had a large share still post-divorce he forced the company into liquidation to obtain a cash lump sum, leaving hundreds of people without jobs.

Being a selfish greedy cunt is not exclusive to one sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spygirl said:

Wooh there ...

A bit too tin foil hatted MGTOW.

Getting married is not a casual, short term contract, like signing up for mobile phone.

People - men n women - need to grasp that marriage is the pooling of resources.

Its not something you should go into with your eyes closed. Or unprepared.

In most cases, if theres no kids then the marriage can, if the couple had put stuff down on paper, legally, split up seperately, keeping individual assets.

 

 

 

What? How is something that is demonstrably happening up and down the country on a wide scale basis tin foil hatted.

Doesn't matter what you see marriage as. What matters is when it ends. When it ends millions of men are effectively deprived of their children, their home and their money. Which bit is the tin foil bit?

There are kids in most marriages. 

 

 

1 minute ago, SNACR said:

For balance, I know of a made up story of a son-in-law, married to the daughter, of one of three siblings who controlled a large logistics firm. None of them had sons, or if they did, they weren't interested in going into the family business. Anyway, the son-in-law, was chosen to take over but he started to complain about not having any actual stake in the business. He was gradually given more control until they found out he'd been mismanaging the company and spunking company cash on all sorts. He then promptly divorced the daughter and went on his merry way and as he had a large share still post-divorce he forced the company into liquidation to obtain a cash lump sum, leaving hundreds of people without jobs.

Being a selfish greedy cunt is not exclusive to one sex.

This is the typical response you hear from women. Nobody is claiming that all men are angels. The difference is that the laws and Government aren't egging them on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Starsend said:

What? How is something that is demonstrably happening up and down the country on a wide scale basis tin foil hatted.

Doesn't matter what you see marriage as. What matters is when it ends. When it ends millions of men are effectively deprived of their children, their home and their money. Which bit is the tin foil bit?

There are kids in most marriages. 

 

 

This is the typical response you hear from women. Nobody is claiming that all men are angels. The difference is that the laws and Government aren't egging them on. 

Maybe not but they certainly seem to be irrationally surprised women might act in a self-interested way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Starsend said:

What? How is something that is demonstrably happening up and down the country on a wide scale basis tin foil hatted.

Doesn't matter what you see marriage as. What matters is when it ends. When it ends millions of men are effectively deprived of their children, their home and their money. Which bit is the tin foil bit?

There are kids in most marriages. 

 

 

This is the typical response you hear from women. Nobody is claiming that all men are angels. The difference is that the laws and Government aren't egging them on. 

Because its not some random, out of the blue thing.

Nor is marriage, and the pros - and cons - something thats new and not very well understood.

Until recently,  men tended to have the greater income in a relationship.

Thats getting a bit more equal these days.

Again, if theres no kids and the assets being brought into a marriage were legally recorded, then the split is pretty equitable.

If theres kids under ~21 involved then the primary care giver raises its head.

The legal process is to protect all parties.

Going down the road of Me Wage Eaner, You out!

is going down the muzzer sharia route.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SNACR said:

Maybe not but they certainly seem to be irrationally surprised women might act in a self-interested way.

It's not so much that they're acting in a self-interested way, we all do that after all. The problem is that family and children and even live in relationships with women have become potentially extremely dangerous/life ruining for men because of the backing of the state.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is in tin foil hatted. Men and women have always had different natures. Society evolved in the past to handle this for everyone's benefit. This has/is now being removed. Men need to talk about the best way to deal with it and how to make a happy life. I'm not remotely surprised at anything much I read on these boards, known all this stuff for some time. I don't think most of the men posting on this thread are surprised either, more discussing it and possible ways through. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Because its not some random, out of the blue thing.

So what? How does this help anybody? Men still want to have families and children. We know it's not random.

Nor is marriage, and the pros - and cons - something thats new and not very well understood.

Marriage and the law behind it and the way it's implemented have changed vastly in the favour of women.

Until recently,  men tended to have the greater income in a relationship.

Irrelevent

Thats getting a bit more equal these days.

But making no real difference to the disparity in treatment on divorce.

Again, if theres no kids and the assets being brought into a marriage were legally recorded, then the split is pretty equitable.

If you go to court and get a fair judge, 50/50. As stated, most marriages have kids, that's the main reason for getting married.

If theres kids under ~21 involved then the primary care giver raises its head.

Who is almost always the woman whether the man wants it or not. Luckily for the woman she can hide behind the kids and get fed and housed at someone else's expense as well.

The legal process is to protect all parties.

Complete rubbish. Marriage law is written to be gender neutral. It is practised as anything but which is what actually matters.

Going down the road of Me Wage Eaner, You out!

is going down the muzzer sharia route.

As much as I dislike Islam I actually think some aspects of their culture are preferable to where ours is going for men

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Starsend said:

 

BAlls to your last point.

Men dont have children.

Women dont have children.

Men n Women have children.

There might be some bias in the legal process. I expect that to slowly go away.

Most of he problems with divorces tend to be down to poor legal advice. Including the#1 rule of legal processes - only enter legal procedures if youve a lot of money.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spygirl said:

BAlls to your last point.

Men dont have children.

Women dont have children.

Men n Women have children.

Er, your point here? Surely men and women should be treated equally when it comes to custody then.

There might be some bias in the legal process. I expect that to slowly go away.

There might be? xD I daresay in a hundred years time things will be very different in many ways. Doesn't help us all right now though does it.

Most of he problems with divorces tend to be down to poor legal advice. Including the#1 rule of legal processes - only enter legal procedures if youve a lot of money.

I'm sure that women get bad legal advice with the same frequency as men and yet somehow they still seem to come out of divorce quids in. You're missing the point.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starsend said:

 

They are treated equally.

If there are kids under the age o ~21 then the primary care giver is given priority.

Note 'primary care giver'

Not man or woman.

After the youngest leaves FT education then the family home can be sold.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

Now that's what I call brutal honesty.   It's like watching nature in action. Calling Dimbleby.....

Social constraints (mostly religion based) would have previously restricted this outcome.  Individual freedom now results in the responsibility being dumped on the taxpayer and the beta-sucker-to-be-divorced.

What's a responsible young beta to do these days?

My eldest is 16, thinking of setting him up with his own house when he's 21/22 but I cant do it in his name as Miss Floozy can claim half or more at her convenience. I'm investigating workarounds.

This may seem cynical but my cousin has just been stung for £100K+ after a 4-year marriage with no kids, basically the inheritance he had from his Dad has just gone to Miss Floozy.

Optimum strategy may be to appear to have lots of assets and have the benefit of them but not actually own them in any way (including rights to them under trusts - which courts can take into account).

Same as @swiss_democracy_for_all too please!

however I'd have thought that buying it through a family trust would suffice - though granted you'd get stuffed for stamp duty at about 15% - though you'd never have to pay it on that property again (as next time you sell the company that owns it - not the actual property)

Set up shares 51/49 you/him, then he gets it when you die without any death duties either

Happy to be updated on this though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Melchett
      Another thread crosser. I honestly couldn’t decide which of the obvious threads to stick it in - maybe people with more time on their hands can cross post? 
      Anyway, if you care about your health and make sure you aren’t a bloated sack of lard you are apparently benefiting from thin privilege.
      The self delusion levels here are enormous. Let’s flip it. So, do people going into most places to eat (where you are never really sure if you are getting healthy food even if it looks like it might be) benefitting from fat privilege? 
      The gulf between reality and what these morons want to be reality is getting so great you’d need a vessel capable of faster than light travel to cross it.
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d5f083b6-d043-471a-94d0-9c3c5af97689
    • By Carl Fimble
      Write a piece attacking something (dosbods maybe even) in the style of a scummy unscrupulous journalist.
      Try to make it something you like, rather than something you actually want to attack.
      Might be interesting and/or amusing.
    • By Dave Bloke
      The EU has passed a mandatory regulation which gives them the power to take down any website they fancy with no judicial oversight
      https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/government/new-eu-consumer-protection-law-contains-a-vague-website-blocking-clause/
      the law was part of a supposed "consumer protection" law - although it actually waters down consumer protection.
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.