It doesn't make sense. Some women claim that they have the right to a portion of their ex-husband's money, and they sometimes get it too. You never hear of a man getting any of the sex he was used to getting.
2007-12-11 06:22:31 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
As a woman, even I think that's a good question. If the woman is filing for divorce then why shouldn't the man have the same rights?
2007-12-11 06:25:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, to be quite honest, if there were problems towards the end I find it hard to believe there was sex... So, if there is no sex, why is it he can sue for sex? He could, I guess, be able to sue for what he was getting at the time of the divorce, so therefore there would be no sex... As for money, bills are still getting paid when the fighting is going on and bills are (in most cases) in both names... So, where exactly is this logic of yours? :-P
2007-12-11 06:27:07 · answer #2 · answered by Beatngu 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A very reasonable question. Probably it is a matter of availability. A man can provide his money without any contact. How would the woman provide the other "comodity" with no contact? Perhaps she could take some of that money and purchase it for him. I think it is a good question, though. I can see the headline now:
"Woman must pay ex-husband for hookers"
Got a ring to it...
2007-12-11 06:28:21 · answer #3 · answered by Night Owl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
then your just not listening! And it is not the "money they will be missing", know of what you speak, it is called alimony, look up the reasons behind it, and how hard it is too prove. Besides it is almost non existant today, ecxpept in the lives of the rich and famous. Liz Taylor paid alimony to 2 ex husbands and she was far from the last to pay out.
2007-12-11 06:37:04 · answer #4 · answered by ferochira 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The sex probably wasn't worth suing over in the first place, obviously because they are getting a divorce he probably does not want any of that from her ever again and it would be more of a punishment to him than a reward in the settlement LOL :)
2007-12-11 06:26:24 · answer #5 · answered by ~NIKKI~ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is why I support equality of the sexes. That is why I believe the person who files should only leave with what they brought into the relationship.
Think about it, it becomes a straight forward question. Is leaving worth giving all this up?
2007-12-11 06:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by snack_daddy10 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What happens when the woman doubles the mans salary? And why can't the woman also sue the man for sex, it's pleasure for both silly - not just you males! lol....
2007-12-11 06:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by Betty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alot of women would probably be offended by that question but I see your point. Why can't he sue while he's married? You took a vow to commit only to her so if she withholds sex you have no other option. Is that fair?
2007-12-11 07:59:28 · answer #8 · answered by dreamer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess we know who's ugly on the inside *says me in a sing-song voice* If he had really loved her, he wouldn't have cared. And that kid isn't that bad looking.
2016-05-23 02:08:39 · answer #9 · answered by migdalia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well for some men they get more sex after the divore from the mistress. but if you force sex on your wife i think you can be charged with rape b/c it is not willing sex by your partner. and some men sue for money look at kevin federline
2007-12-11 06:57:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋