Quote:"The legislation describes a de facto relationship as an opposite-sex or same-sex couple living together on a "genuine domestic basis".... Yet it also stipulates a de facto alliance can exist even if one of the partners is legally married to somebody else or in another de facto relationship."

Wait....I'm confused....please explain to me how a person could be "living together on a genuine domestic basis" while at the same time living with another on a "genuine domestic basis"????

In Tasmania, if a woman is a tenant renting a room in a house that is owned by a man who lives there and they 'have words' she can have him thrown out, jailed without bail (automatic here) for domestic violence (asking for rent is 'economic violence') and live rent free.

CJ, do you have a link?

Quote from julie

CJ, do you have a link?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...96-661,00.html

the lunatic chop logic of the feminit take-over is insanity on the hoof

sane men should not try to give it logical dimensions or try to make sense of it

or else they will end up gibbering in the gynocratic snake pit themselves

the best policy is to let the insane rant and rave

This is insanity.

And notice how a guy that has to pay for a mistress with alimony.

Guess what?

This means that there will be less money in his marital home and for his children.

I'm also sure that this will increase the chances of a divorce, and that the man will have the book thrown at him.

Now...what if a high flying woman like Madonna has her steady diet of boytoys. Is she responsible for paying for them like men may have to pay alimony to mistresses?

Quote from Stan

This is insanity.

And notice how a guy that has to pay for a mistress with alimony.

Guess what?

This means that there will be less money in his marital home and for his children.

I'm also sure that this will increase the chances of a divorce, and that the man will have the book thrown at him.

Now...what if a high flying woman like Madonna has her steady diet of boytoys. Is she responsible for paying for them like men may have to pay alimony to mistresses?

Yep, just as alimony is starting to hit the privileged princesses so will this bite them in the arse..

I love equal opportunity..

Quote from christianj

Yep, just as alimony is starting to hit the privileged princesses so will this bite them in the arse..

I love equal opportunity..

By the way...in many areas things like alimony and child support are based on the gross amount you earn. Think about what that means...if a guy is paying his mistress alimony...it won't reduce what he pays in normal alimony and child support. What about food for the guy?

Even without this new outrage, it is not rare to find men that pay out nearly everything they make. They have literally almost nothing to live on and must see their kids (if that occurs) in a lessened state.

Cheaters paying for affairs of the heart
By Matthew Fynes-Clinton
November 12, 2008 12:00am

PHILANDERING husbands could soon be forced by the courts to keep paying for their mistresses after the affairs end.

The scenario is one of a raft of controversial - and unintended - outcomes that may arise from new laws on broken de facto relationships that will take effect from early next year.

Lawyers are bracing themselves for a rush of couples who live together seeking to draw up cohabitation agreements to protect money and assets due to radical reforms to the Family Law Act.

A partner's superannuation will also be up for grabs.

Under the reforms, de facto partners together for two years, including same sex couples, will be given the same rights as married couples to seek "spousal maintenance" in the Family Court.

Currently in NSW there is no general right to such maintenance, while disputes over property are sorted out in the state courts.

Maintenance, as distinct from child support, may be ordered to be paid by an ex-partner when the other party is "unable to support herself or himself adequately".

Legal experts warn that the amended Act - passed in the Senate on Monday - opens the definition of a de facto couple to wide interpretation.

It stipulates that a de facto relationship can exist even if one partner is married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.

Family lawyer Paul Hopgood said the door was ajar for jilted lovers from extra-marital affairs to seek maintenance orders.

"I get high-profile people from around town saying, 'I'm having an (affair) with so and so. I wine and dine her and take her on holidays. I look after her and it's been going on for five years. But I'm safe - she hasn't got the key to my house'," he said.

"You don't have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto. A lot of people are living in de facto relationships and don't think they are."

Sydney family law expert Mark Dalyell said the laws would not stop people living together but might make them think more about drawing up a binding financial agreement.

"A lot of people shy away from it because it is confronting, but it would certainly stop a lot of arguments," Mr Dalyell said.

A spokesman for Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said there were stringent tests in the new law to determine a de facto relationship. They included living together, the length of the relationship and the commitment to a shared life.

===


Poll: Should mistresses be entitled to maintenance?

The Daily Telegraph | Breaking News from Sydney, NSW and Australia | The Daily Telegraph

Australians should protest against this otherwise such laws will doom Australian society with the loss of family life due to hostile anti-male laws such as that one after they made marriage unappealing to men. This goes to show of feminism is self-destructive.

There are a number of places around the world where this occurs. The courts have noticed that men have become hesitant to marry and so rushed to devise new protections from the man for the woman.

There comes a time when we (as a movement) have to realize that women are takers.

Time and time again they have shown us that they want EVERYTHING and they care nothing about fairness yet we just continue to believe that it isn't really the base nature of women.

and that men in power, who could use it to protect both sexes, behave in just a selfish manner as the women who push for such inequalities.


ps - merged two identical topics - duplicate information is frowned upon by search engines

Quote from Marx

and that men in power, who could use it to protect both sexes, behave in just a selfish manner as the women who push for such inequalities.


ps - merged two identical topics - duplicate information is frowned upon by search engines

Yes, they shoot themselves in the foot. It is the women who benefit (ie, the takers).

I still have not found the article for Tera...but this thread talks about the same thing. Alimony for girl friends. In some areas this has been made the law. And since there is no time frame noted in that instance...that is where the one-date-then-alimony thing comes from. Understand that the law can do that as written...but it is up to someone to try for it..I don't think it has actually occurred. Fortunately most women have no idea it could be THAT favorable.

However if it ever does take place...a guy dates a girl and then owes alimony (we already know that child support could ensue) then what is next?

Alimony if you look at a girl?

Why delay things...lets' just give all our money to the government so they could give it to the women, lol.