Common Law Assets
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
Given the outcome of the recent 2 cases sited at the start of this thread, I highly doubt that "these bad laws" are going to be repealed any time soon. In fact, I would wager that they are going to become even more unfavourable to the party with the money upon disolution of the common law relationship.
It would seem that the courts are even more cry-babyish than they were before.
I personally used to believe that there was no use in getting married unless you wanted to have children (and even then many would argue that there is no use.) There are simply too many economic pitfalls to justify it. You would think that in this day and age of equality in the workplace that the courts would just say - "you're on your own", however, that simply is not the case.
Living together is still a better arrangement as it's still easier and cheaper to get out of, however, it would appear that the courts are moving to narrow the distinction between a legal marriage and common law shacking up.
No, only those who are married are doomed. But they've known that for a long, long time.
I'm surprised too. Especially when you consider more women are going to school than men, more women are employed than men currently, etc.
I suspect we'll see change when large amounts of women are forced to pay alimony in the future. It is sad.
This aspect of marriage law is all about the contract between the partners. That's partly unwritten—as in every contract there ever was—may have a written component as well, and is partly dictated for the parties by the law of the land. Even FWBs have a contract, more so if they're roomies, and even more so if they're going about in the world 'as a couple'.
As with all contracts, there's no problem, until there is. Smart people get it done w/o courts, but greed and selfishness beat brains everytime.
Last edited:
Surely (don't call me Shirley), you are kidding about non-roomie, non-couple FWB's. If true, then Captain James T. Kirk who has conservatively bedded over 100 civies might as well never leave the Starship Enterprise and never return to planet Earth. Surely, Earthly laws don't apply to outer space.
I've seen these online before, but I've never actually made someone sign one.
I. Terms of Agreement
a. This agreement is defined as a physical and emotional arrangement to engage freely in uncommitted casual sex from time to time between the aforementioned parties who know each other, care about each other, and can trust each other. The intent of this agreement is to relieve sexual frustrations through an alternative to masturbation, and is not intended as a prelude to a romantic relationship in any way. Both parties agree to remain free to date and/or engage in casual sex with other parties during the duration of this agreement pursuant to Article IV.
II. Acceptable Bedroom Activities (heretofore: “benefits”)
a. The activities that will be deemed acceptable under this arrangement will be discussed openly between the aforementioned parties upon commencement of this agreement. The acceptable activities may not necessarily be limited to those that are initially set forth but will always require that both parties are in agreement before said new activity is added.
III. Acceptable Outside the Bedroom Activities
a. Upon entering into this agreement, neither party is obligated or expected to increase the frequency or duration of their outside activities with each other. Pressure by either party to do so may constitute a breach of this agreement (see Article V).
IV. Regarding Third Parties
a. Both parties will be permitted, encouraged, and never frowned upon for dating and/or engaging in casual sex with a party other than the aforementioned parties during the duration of this agreement.
b. If either of the aforementioned parties invokes their Third Party right, the invoking party will be honest and forthcoming with the other party as to the nature and identity of said third party.
c. Upon one of the aforementioned parties invoking their Third Party right, both parties will open a dialogue and determine whether or not to continue honoring this agreement pursuant to Article VI.
V. Breach of Agreement
a. If either of the aforementioned parties fails to comply with any or all of the Articles set forth in this agreement, a dialogue will be opened and an appropriate punishment will be determined and agreed on that could result in but is not limited to the Termination of this agreement pursuant to Article VI.
VI. Termination of Agreement
a. Either of the aforementioned parties has the right to terminate this agreement for any reason they deem worthy. Prior to the termination of this agreement, a dialogue will be opened and the reasons for termination will be discussed freely, openly, and honestly.
b. Once a termination dialogue has been completed, the aforementioned parties will end their friendship with benefits arrangement and revert back to the friendship arrangement they had prior to entering into this agreement.
c. The aforementioned parties reserve the right to enter back into this agreement at any time provided that both parties are in agreement to the same conditions set forth in this and all other Articles contained within.
This is just too funny. What in blazes is an "appropriate punishment"? What if the two parties can't agree on an appropriate punishment, do they hire a lawyer and go in front of family court?
When an earthly court tells me they don't, then they don't. Until then, as in marriage law or common-law disputes, it's all up for grabs.
Well, if we are going to play that game. Starfleet must be one strange military organization as it seems to have no fraternization component to the Starfleet version of “Rocks and Shoals.”
