You have to pay even if you’ve only *promised* to marry her

Posted: December 7, 2013 in Whore, Wife, Women
Tags: , , ,

broken_engagementSo, this happened:

http://gawker.com/georgia-man-ordered-to-pay-ex-50k-for-breach-of-promi-1478240924

A Georgia man who promised to marry his girlfriend but then didn’t has been ordered to pay $50,000 after the woman sued him for fraud and “breach of promise to marry.” Christopher Ned Kelley and Melissa Cooper had been living together for four years when Kelley proposed to Cooper in 2004, and even bought her an engagement ring valued at $10,000.

The couple continued sharing a household along with their shared child and another child from Cooper’s previous relationship until 2011, when Cooper learned that Kelley had cheated on her for a second time. Cooper, who had quit her job to become a full-time mother based on the assumption that Kelley would become the sole breadwinner after their marriage, was asked by Kelley to move out, and take the children with her.

Cooper responded by filing a lawsuit against Kelley, alleging “breach of promise to marry,” among other claims. She won her suit and was awarded $50,000 by the trial court. Kelley subsequently appealed the ruling, claiming his relationship with Cooper was not unlike prostitution, in that he was merely Cooper’s john.As such, Kelley’s defense claimed, their relationship was illegal, and therefore the promise to marry was unenforceable. For good measure, Kelley also told the court he “never initiated the concept of marriage with her, outside of giving her that ring” and “never said the words ‘will you marry me’ to her.”

Kelley lost again, with Judge Elizabeth Branch deciding [pdf] that the “object” of the promise Kelley made to Cooper was “not illegal or against public policy,” even if the relationship had “the nature of prostitution.” Kelley was again ordered to pay Cooper $50,000.

Be sure to read the comments section below. There is so much fail in this situation it’s hard to articulate it all. It’s at once an admission that marriage is legal prostitution while also suggesting that a man has to pay for a woman’s company, regardless of outcome or even questions of legality. This idiot man also didn’t seem to realize that he ought not play house, live with a woman, and father children by her, and then think he could unceremoniously dump her when he got tired of her.

Because only women have that privilege.

When she gets tired of you, she is free to Eat Pray and Love all she wants to; you eat-pray-love-movieas a male can’t ever do that. Because remember men; the more you try and love her, the sweeter you are, the nicer you are, the more supportive you are, the faster you guarantee that she’ll be done with you in short order.

So what’s the solution? What’s the antidote?

It’s always the same……dominate that bitchspank

Advertisements
Comments
  1. The solution isn’t “dominate that bitch”. That’s just misogyny. The solution is to give feminists exactly what they claim to want regardless of it they actually want it or not. The solution is to expect, no, DEMAND equality. You don’t get to spend your time playing with children because, vagina. You work outside the home or you starve, just like a man. Isn’t equality grand?

    • Bill Soft says:

      Yep that will work out just great. She’ll totally agree to being equal as in you do ALL the man stuff (fix the cars, mow the lawn, repair the house) and out of the kindness of her equal heart you can have your one little “man cave” *lol* room. You know, some place out of the way anyway, like the garage, but by godess you’d better be 50% exact on cleanig toilets, vacuuming, changing diapers, Washing dishes, etc, or she’ll become unhaaaaaapy and head on down to the lawer’s office to fill out her ‘eat, pray, love’ frivorce paperwork. Then a man gets to sit back and witness the “equality” of family court, YAY!

      I’ll take my chances with dominate that bitch

      • If your stupid enough to actually get into a relationship it’s a question of when, not if, WHEN she goes down to the lawer’s office to fill out the divorce forms. If you’ve demanded equality all along then there is no lost earning or lost earning potential for her to claim in the divorce. If you’ve demanded equality all along it will be harder to claim abuse or something. If you try “Dominate that Bitch” then she will have a real claim to lost wages and lower earning potential. It will be very easy to fabricate abuse claims. Since Marriage does end in divorce, it’s just fool hardy to think otherwise, attempting “Dominate that Bitch” will give her all the leverage in the divorce. Enforced excessive ridgid “equality” will put you in a much better position in the divorce. The marriage will end in divorce, it’s just a question of how well prepaired for it your are.

  2. […] man whose name she’s taken, whose children she bore, and whose legal & financial rights she has possessed? ARE MEN JUST […]

  3. […] are without nutting/Gaming up. More men are adopting some level of MGTOW, after seeing the awful deal that is Marriage 2.0. That’s not what I’m talking about right now. What I’m talking about now is, what […]

  4. […] get married, they should take a good look at Ms. Martin’s expressed thoughts. Men have to pay even if there’s just an engagement, and this is what’s waiting for you, you lucky man! I can’t understand why […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s