Selfish duh on the Moneyist

Duh wants girlfriend to move into his house and pay half the mortgage as rent even after they marry. If duh dies, house/house value goes to his kids and girlfriend gets nada. Girlfriend doesn't feel that paying half a mortgage is a wise decision on her part and would rather invest her money in a house of her own. Duh thinks that is an escape route for her and is ignoring the fact that would be paying more than her fair share towards the mortgage (his escape route).
Even when both people are divorced and have kids, one can be a selfish douche and try to figure out ways to screw the other over financially. I bet this duh wouldn't hesitate for 5 seconds before allowing one of his adult brats to move in with them and likely wouldn't let her consider moving one of her brats into "his" home.

Wondering in our pro-natalism age if this is a common occurrence? A spouse seems to come in way behind any brats for most marriages. No wonder there are so many unhappy marriages.

I think duh is a douche-bag and so does Moneyist:
"If he wants a tenant, he can find one in the local paper. You don't have to sign up for that."

Link: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/my-boyfriend-wants-me-to-pay-half-his-mortgage-as-rent/ar-BBNDJxG?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ientp

Uhhh...that's a pretty raw deal for her. I had a girlfriend once who lived with her boyfriend in a condo somewhere. She was CF, and as far as I knew about him, he was divorced. She had moved in with him, and paid him 'rent', which went towards the mortgage on the condo. She referred to him as her husband, but as far as I know, it was a commonlaw union.

At first, she thought it was a great idea, but years after, she felt nothing but resentful. He always threatened to throw her out of the condo, and because her name wasn't on it, she was scared that he would. She also felt that she was entitled to nothing because of their living arrangement. She secretly loathed him, and wanted to get out of there as soon as possible. Basically, she felt like a prostitute and slave to this guy, paying rent for a place, while he enjoyed the spoils of having a woman look after him and sleep with him - while she paid him money out of her own pocket.

I haven't spoken to her in a few years, but the last time I did, she told me she wanted to get out. I told her that because she'd lived with him for more than two years, she was entitled to half of the condo anyway...whether he called it rent or not, it was going towards the mortgage. I seriously hope she got what she deserved. They were both working professionals, btw.

He also carried a man purse. I made reference to it once. He, my fiance, my girlfriend and I were walking down the street downtown, and we had to go off into pairs because of construction on the sidewalk. I paired up with my husband, and the guy had the NERVE to correct me, telling me that the women always pair with the women, and the men pair together. I said to him, looking at his man purse, "Who the Hell are you? Miss Manners of the sidewalk?" He shut up after that.

I hope she got away from him. He was the epitome of a douchebag.

I think if one person is living in a place owned by another, and finances aren't merged, it is fair to split the routine bills 50-50. I think it would also be okay to pay a nominal sum on a monthly basis, well below rental costs. Neither person should be subsidized, either with a free home or with free equity.

Not that I'd consider something like that to begin with. I agree to people keeping existing assets distinct, but I wouldn't live with someone who wasn't prepared to share, going forward. It would be like being roommates, if you could not trust and rely on each other. Why even ask someone to move in if you are suspicious of them financially?

The rule I made for myself at age 22 "don't ever date a single mother", can be just as easily switched to "don't ever date a single dad".

Hopefully this woman learns her lesson.

It sounds like this duh wants a nanny / housemaid / prostitute, without having to pay for any of these services, which would explain why the baby's momma is no longer in the picture.

And he could, indeed, do just that - if he could afford to. But, with sprogs, it sounds like duping some woman he met online was the more cost effective option.

I'm glad it's failing.

Quote
childfreeadvocate
The rule I made for myself at age 22 "don't ever date a single mother", can be just as easily switched to "don't ever date a single dad".

Hopefully this woman learns her lesson.

It sounds like this duh wants a nanny / housemaid / prostitute, without having to pay for any of these services, which would explain why the baby's momma is no longer in the picture.

And he could, indeed, do just that - if he could afford to. But, with sprogs, it sounds like duping some woman he met online was the more cost effective option.

I'm glad it's failing.

You were a fast learner.
I was a slow learner at age 29 but only made that mistake twice in dating. First time I only heard he had a kid in another state said once. Second started using the kid card to break dates. Better late than married to one!

I've read several arcticles on that site, and I've noticed a common thread. The children of the first marriage have absolutely no respect for the second marriage or their stepparent. It doesn't matter if they're well into middle age and the stepparent has been married to their parent for 30 years. They all want to grab all the assets and kick the stepparent to the curb.

Putting the house into a life trust sounds good on the surface. But what if the surviving spouse can't afford the upkeep, or the neighborhood goes bad, or it's too much house for their needs, or they want to be closer to family. I don't think tethering your spouse to a home is a good idea.

This isn't anything I would sign up for. When DH and I got married we each sold a house and bought one together. We each put half down and we split the mortgage.

Even though I'm not a parent, I don't have a problem with people providing for their kids, but that doesn't mean giving their spouse a raw deal in the process. If this woman is putting money into a mortgage she should get something for it if the marriage goes down. She would be better off buying a house of her own and not marrying this guy.

Just this week a friend of mine found out her mother got re-married some time ago without telling anyone. The mom and her boyfriend are shacked up and are in a LTR. My friend doesn't need anything from her mom but she has several beefs with the situation. The mom makes a lot of money and has a high mortgage payment, and the boyfriend/husband isn't helping at all with living expenses. He's living there rent free. Every now and then he buys groceries even though he's employed. I can understand my friend's disgust--I'm not living with a freeloader, nor would I freeload off someone else. My friend also suspects her mom is deeding her house over to this guy, which is just stupid when he's not paying anything for it. My friend definitely knows that the husband is now the executor on the mom's will and the BENEFICIARY TO HER LIFE INSURANCE, while his kids are the executor on his will. The mom has just put herself in a precarious situation if she divorces or if the guy dies--she'll have to buy out his kids if the house isn't titled properly.

My friend told her mom, don't expect me to pay for your funeral if you die. The mom seems unconcerned about the whole thing. I think this woman is being stupid about her financial reality.

And as an aside, even though DH and I are married, he is going to get just enough to pay off our mortgage should I die, which I think is fair. He and I entered into an obligation together and I made arrangements to fulfill that obligation. The rest of my life insurance is going to animal charities because setting someone up to be UNJUSTLY ENRICHED because of my death is something I'll never do. I don't want to make it financially tempting for someone to knock me off. Cynical yes, but people are people.

Face it, some of these girls are desperate and or baby rabid

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Quote
twocents
Face it, some of these girls are desperate and or baby rabid

Any guy in his early or mid 20s will tell you the girls who are smarter, hotter, higher educated, and more financially stable, are harder to get bed, and usually demand protection.

The less intelligent girls, without educations, from crummy backgrounds, with 3+ siblings, who aren't as visually stimulating, are always ready to go, and say things like "you don't need to wear that condom, I want to feel you!!!"

But what they're really more interested in feeling is the child support checks arriving in the mail.

A woman who has all those things going for her doesn't want her life ruined by a disease or an unplanned pregnancy. A woman's education level and the ability to support herself are inversely related to the number of children she has.

What childfreeadvocate wrote is, in a nutshell, why the average mouth-breathing, Fundamentalist male doesn't want a woman to have access to education, economic opportunities and birth control. Women who aren't dependent on a man tend to demand a higher level of behavior from males in general, and Fundies really HATE that idea. They hate that a woman could be selective and reject THEM for some reason.

Quote
bell_flower
A woman who has all those things going for her doesn't want her life ruined by a disease or an unplanned pregnancy.

A woman's education level and the ability to support herself are inversely related to the number of children she has.

It goes both ways. Good looking, college educated guys, with good paying jobs, are more selective about what girls they sleep with for the exact same reasons. In fact, they SHOULD be 10x more selective than their female counterparts, if they know what's best for themselves, as condoms leak, break, crack, tear, and men don't make the final decision on whether or not a birth takes place (at least not in the USA).

I think any person's education level and ability to support themselves is inversely related to the number of children they have - male or female. The more mini mes you have, the less money and time you get to spend on yourself. It's not gender inclusive.

I also think a child's likelihood of becoming a successful adult is directly tied to how many siblings they have. Generally speaking, only children grow up to be more consistently successful than those with 3-4 or more siblings. Competition can create motivation, no doubt, but if you have 5 siblings, your parents literally can't give you the time or attention hat a parent of an only child can. It's not mathematically possible. You're going to get away with a LOT more. Furthermore, if the oldest child of 3 or 4 or 5 s a complete screw up, drop out, drug dealing, in and out of jail, having their own unplanned pregnanies - some of the younger ones are going to follow the example. That's why there are so many entire families of degenerates around these days.