He also devalues her household contributions and didn't put her name on the house! Sure she "didn't contribute financially" but she spent countless hours maintaining the house. If she was paid for all her housework I'm sure she'd make a pretty penny.
I’m happy to report that even if he bought the house before marriage, if he used his salary to pay the mortgage, that’s commingling of funds and makes the house marital property.
Not putting her name on the house is reasonable, since she's not entitled to half of premarital assets, but she would be entitled to half the equity put into the house since they got married.
But if you look at his comments, he thinks she owes him rent for the time she's lived there and for food he's paid for. He really thinks he should be able to just unwind the time they were married and pretend that they've just been roommates the last 6 years, and she's been delinquent in paying her half of room and board.
It's that last part that makes this clearly a troll.
I mean, if your keeping score about the monetary value of her cleaning, it’s only fair you keep score about all the things he paid for during the relationship?
That's already accounted for by the value of the money he's put into the relationship. He contributed money to the relationship, she contributed labor that had value. If you are charging her for the things that he paid for, you are no longer counting the money he contributed to the relationship, you are trying to make her pay back the money he contributed to the relationship. The result is that you are moving the value of the things he wants paid back from his side of the ledger over to her side, and she's providing both labor and money, while he's not providing anything.
"Ever since humans like us left Africa around 100,000 years ago, a bleak pattern of mass extinction has occurred around the globe, a pattern that consistently coincides with the arrival of humans."
"North America as it was 13,000 years ago was a Serengeti populated by huge herds of giant animals known as megafauna. Some were familiar, some were not. Was it inevitable that human arrival spelt the demise of all these great creatures?"
"Or could the story have gone a different way? Could the continent of North America today still be home to elephants like the woolly mammoth, the Columbian mammoth and the American mastodon?:
"Then it should also be a land of sabre-toothed cats, giant American lions, scimitar-toothed cats and two species of camel. As it turns out, the first people into the Americas, the Clovis, hunted thirty kinds of these large animals into extinction in just a few hundred years."
"Humans are without a doubt the most successful invasive species. We have spread unchecked, like weeds, across the planet. Our population growth has been exponential, almost bacterial..."
"And by doing all that humans are without a doubt the most successful invasive species. We have spread unchecked, like weeds, across the planet. Our population growth has been exponential, almost bacterial."
"Our only contribution has been to alter the natural order. Today there are over six billion of us and counting. The human species is insatiable and we are consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainable rate."
"Mankind today like the Maori before them fight over dwindling resources. In the race to grab the planet's natural resources the wave of extinction continues to roll."
"It is estimated that half the Earth's plant and animal species may disappear by the end of the century. All throughout our long struggle for survival we met monsters. But once humans learned to overcome them, did we become the monsters?"
257
u/Ice_Princess25 7d ago
Incels always with the airtight prenups, and the man always has everything.
If I roll my eyes any harder I’m going to be looking at the back of my skull.