It’s refreshing to hear Charlotte Ross’s perspective on this. I ran into a problem like that, but with an interesting twist. I’m an army officer, and I moved to a new duty location to be with my fiancée. In the Army, it's very difficult to match yourselves up career-wise, and usually to do so puts one of the service member's career on ice. It worked out that I was able to make the move so we could be together, get married, and then start a family. She was in her dream job, so I took the dive to take on the costs of moving our relationship forward and moved to where she was. She said that she wanted her career, a baby, and to be married – but I missed out on the lack of the qualifier “specifically with you” on the last two goals. We got pregnant early in our relationship by what I thought was an "oops" but she miscarried - yes, she said she was protected and I believed her - but as I was in the preparation for me moving to be with her, she announced that she was getting artificially inseminated without my acquiescence because we weren’t having a baby fast enough (we had been together for a little over a year). Yikes! This action an engagement does not make, so I tried to hit the brakes - but the orders were already cut, so I had to move to her. She didn't end up going through with the artificial insemination, but the relationship was pretty well wrecked after that. I’ve had to stay on the same base just a couple of buildings away from her for the past two years – pretty tough. Unsurprisingly, she got pregnant out of wedlock by another officer that she works with within months of our break-up – which definitely clarified what happened with us. While Charlotte Ross seems to have a great attitude on sharing the financial burdens of a relationship, in my case, I had to shoulder most of them. My former was so angry with me for not getting her pregnant again that I had to take her to court to force her to return the engagement ring (even though she was pregnant with the other guy’s kid) that was valued at over $10k. Total cost to me for the move and everything associated with it was over $60k, of which my former has (of course) never helped out with a bit. How does one protect oneself against rapacious women that just look at men as accoutrements for their career? The funny thing is she teaches a “Marriage and the Family” course! When you have women that view men as simply means to the end of getting pregnant or to get married so they don't have the social approbation of being the "mid-30s" woman that can't get a guy to marry her, that is tough to defend against. Is it unreasonable to expect that if one partner puts out a disproportionate amount of time/money/etc. to make a relationship work, that there is some moral obligation on the part of the other partner to a) not take advantage of that and b) show some responsibility toward the efforts of the partner doing the giving? When there is such a failure to care and there is no legal recourse, then what? Accept the life lesson and go from there?

I agree that spouse should be getting something -- but the claim that you can't live on $10 million cash just disgusts me.

Do you know how many people would sacrifice their left "body part" to have $10M free & clear sitting in a bank?

I can see both sides of the coin on this issue. If you acted as staff support/home support and gave up jobs to move with your spouse, then there should be some compensation (within reason)if the relationship ends (some kind of lost wages compensation based on the career path you were on when you got married).

Having been-there, done-that, I got about $20K in retirement funds and declined anything further even though it was offered. I didn't see the sense in continuing to be financially tethered to someone that I wanted out of my life even though I was starting out in a new career path at a much lower salary for the third time since I'd given up positions as we moved for his job.

From what I've seen, my attitude is kind of rare though.

Ingrid Myerson married into money. She wasn't around when Ecclestone was doing the hard work of rescuing a moribund F1 team and then organizing the team owners back in the '70s. I don't have a lot of respect for Bernie these days, but back in the day he did a lot to get F1 to where it is now. And Myerson didn't have a thing to do with any of that.

I can assure you that in order for one partner to have amassed a huge pile of money over a long career, the other will have had to make a lot of personal and emotional sacrifices. Fortunes are not made from working 9-5,

This woman is describing high earning salaried professions. The path to making 'huge piles' of money may or may not entail working 60-80 hour weeks over years and years. Often it requires a spurt of extraordinary work over several years, and then a relatively normal work schedule afterwords - or even a opportunity to cash out. This is more typical of people who start their own businesses and are capable to scaling them effectively, become acquired or are bought-out. Certainly many business owners work excessive hours, but those that are capable to leveraging their businesses for 'huge piles' are typically capable of managing them in a manner that makes such long-term sacrifices unnecessary.

I've always thought of myself the way I think men do -- that I need to take care of myself, that I am my own responsibility, financially and in every other way.

It's easier for me because I don't want children. You have a duty to children, to form a partnership with a stable person and to maintain an intact family, and to provide for them and have no more than you can provide for. And you have to make sure your partner can provide for the children, and that you can, too.

Back to my personal standard, I have freedom to have real love because I live according to my means...in a house I pay for, driving a car I bought, etc.

I'm only with Gregg because he's Gregg -- not because my standard of living would decline if I weren't with Gregg.

Women who aren't independent have to pick the first asshole in a BMW they can rope into marriage. Ick.

Was alimony ever meant to support gold diggers? A woman who married a rich guy so she could be "kept" is not the same as a woman who was a homemaker for years who's husband became successful.

I don't see any issue with being either a stay-a-home mom or even just a wife who doesn't work, if that's what works for the couple. A wife can be incredibly helpful to her husband's career. It sounds silly to some, but sometimes entertaining and networking ARE jobs. And we're not even talking about the mommying part of it all...

Then there are the Heather Mills' of the world... married someone who was already rich and successful, and expect to be kept as a lap dog, and want to continue to be kept after the divorce. I don't think they deserve anything. I think think that being "kept" in that matter is contingent upon staying in a relationship. Once that relationship ends, so does the lifestyle. If the woman didn't contribute any effort to aquire the fortune, she's not entitled to it.

I agree, Amy, Ick. With an capital I. Be with a man because you want to be not, to paraphrase Elton John, because you're matching them up with a hook and an eye.

The commenter may have some small point if the marriage lasted 20 years and he only amassed his fortune because you stayed home with the kids thus enabling him to but it seems like this awards are coming out of short term relationships, kids or no kids. If he's wealthy and you're not, I can see having him pay for the kids' college and health insurance as well as the usual child support but not your lavish lifestyle.

Want a mansion and chauffeur, get it for yourself. Marrying for money is nothing more than the oldest profession. And if you let yourself get bought, what's the complaint when he treats you like the possession you are?

"Word to the wise: Guys, sometimes, paying for sex is a hell of a lot cheaper."

This (gay) guy I volunteered with at Habitat for Humanity once told me that, "Those who refuse to pay, pay the most." He may have been on to something there.

"cheap lovers make expensive wives..."

My lawyer told me point blank that if I ever marry again, I shouldn't allow her to stay home, no matter what. The issue with all of this isn't HOW MUCH. It doesn't matter if you are rich. The issue is something that no court can measure. Did you both have a partnership marriage? There's the rub. Court can't tell if both people were pulling the wagon of the partnership.

Sure, if the person staying home does the job of making that home work and the person who works for money does the job of making that money, this is a good partnership, but how can you tell that? If they both work, it's a bit more straightforward.

And that is rub number 2. If you both work you split down the middle and you're done. If one worked and the other stayed home? The presumption is that you owe her for as many years as you were married. Doesn't matter if she was a homemaker, or a couch queen eating bon-bons and complaining that the bathrooms need cleaning, the presumption is the same. She gets the house, the alimony, and the child support, regardless of your ability to pay it. If you are luck it won't financially ruin you. [It did me]

The worst problem is that only conscientious people get nailed in this. I have friends whose ex's jackrabbited with the next big thang, and left them with a pile o' bills and young children, with no way to find or make them pay. I also know people who stick and try their best and are raked over the coals for everything they ever had because that's what the lawyers say is to be expected.

My ex always says, if you don't like it, take me to court. As if I could afford the lawyer.

"If the marriage was long term and the couple started with very little, I can assure you that in order for one partner to have amassed a huge pile of money over a long career, the other will have had to make a lot of personal and emotional sacrifices."

Factually corect and completely irrelvant to this particular discussion. Too bad your commenter grew up without a mother to teach her that it's bad manners to change the subject in the midle of a discussion.

"Marrying for money is nothing more than the oldest profession."

Well said.

I agree with both points and they really aren't talking about the same thing. If you are not rich and marry rich, you aren't entitled to everything. A smart girl-or guy-would get a prenump spelling what she gets.

On the other hand, SAHMs who tie in early do enable the man to make the money. My mom married my dad when she was 18. They had 10 years of college/vietnam/law school poverty where she worked to pay the bills. 30 years later, she's watched the kids and made the home and enabled him to work enough hours as a lawyer to be worth millions. She damn well did deserve half. Anyone who thinks different is advocating all children be in daycare, and that's just not what's best for the kids. Not to mention no woman or man would stay home with the kids if it meant they were homeless and pennyless when their spouse decided to trade them in for a newer model.

Izzy,,

what you must realize is that in the scenario you describe, the husband has made sacrifices too - he has been a wallet for his kids (and his wife) but not been allowed the opportunity to be a primary caregiver, i.e. has not derived as much pleasure seeing his kids grow up as the mother has had (partly because he did not have the time and/or energy, due to work, and partly because it is almost always the case that no matter how much women say they want their husbands to be more involved in the child-rearing, the fact is that whenever the husband tries to do a task such as diaper changing, the woman inevitably criticizes the way the man is going about it, and grabs the kid saying, "oh, here - I'll do it myself!")

Both husband AND wife make sacrifices during a marriage. It is not something like "oh the man is having a really good time going out and working while I am at home slaving with the kids". Why should the man not be compensated in some way for his sacrifice? - as opposed to being denied most or all access to his kids after a divorce, yet still being asked to pay "child support" (which usually turns out to be "wife support", as the awards are often exhorbitant, and very lucrative for the mother), and that on top of alimony; all this while the mother gets to avoid even part-time work of any nature because, as she is college-educated but has "sacrificed her career", she will not stoop to working in the library three days a week to help support herself and the kid?

I would go as far as to say, that if alimony is paid in the interest of compensating for the career sacrifices the mother has made, then it should also be the case that the father get primary custody of the kids - i.e. greater than one half, as he must be compensated for being denied the opportunity to help raise them (and yes, it IS an opportunity, coferring a tremendous amount of power over someone's life, and all manner of incidental benefits such as the ability to pretty much set your own schedule).

Jim,

I don't know that the comment was factually correct either. First of all it is not as if the husband sat around while piles of cash were distributed to his desktop; and secondly, which partner do you think it was that had primary control over the spending of this money, and who spent the greater portion as well?

"Both husband AND wife make sacrifices during a marriage. It is not something like "oh the man is having a really good time going out and working while I am at home slaving with the kids".

I imagine most men, and women, would be out slaving, married or no, kids or no. So I don't really think you get to blame having to work on the family. I, however, would not be sitting out on my career without kids, so saying tough titty, you got the cuddles so now you're homeless cause I now like my secretary's ass better is pretty unfuckingrealistic.

How about BOTH have perks? The working spouse gets lunches out, private time, social talk with coworkers, a sense of worth in the adult world, etc etc.

Some men on here have been racked through the coals, evidently, and that sucks. I think staying single would be best from here on out. Bitterness does not need to remarry.

I've alway wondered, if a man is responsible for providing for his ex finacially, why isnt she responsible for continuing to do housework for him?

luljp: That's a good argument. Let the cost of housekeeping be deducted from the alimony.

MomOf3 most of the divorces that I've witnessed through my social circle, and professional acquaintances, have been between 30 somethings. And they're not precipitated by men running off with their secretaries. Typically they're initiated by wives for various subjective reasons. The marriages of the older couples that I know seem to be very stable.

The 'equity' perspective that you seem to be endorsing just doesn't hold for these younger couples. The wives haven't been out of the workforce for that long, and they're still rather young. And their husbands haven't reached the stage of their careers that they're just laying back, lolling around, and taking lunches.

But the divorced wives are basically set-up for as long as they'd like. They get the home and half of the assets, along with generous child support arrangements. Many of them seem to make a career of milking their ex-husbands to support the 'lifestyle they've become accustomed to'.

And truthfully, knowing what they had done professionally before they were married, they'd have never been able to achieve such affluence otherwise.

"The working spouse gets lunches out, private time, social talk with coworkers, a sense of worth in the adult world, etc etc."

What company are you talking about? Are they currently accepting employment applications?

I know from corresponding with fathers of college-age girls, that many of them (i.e. not only the daughters, but their student friends) plan to work for a few years after they graduate, then retire and have a kid or two before their "biological clock" ticks out. In other words, whilst still in college they admit having absolutely no intention of work as a career, but instead the main goal of an education is so they can place themselves in a milieu of high-status men via job so that they can select a well-to-do mate.

So using "I sacrificed my career" during a divorce is often a bogus claim. Not only have these women not sacrificed anything, they have gone according to plan and are taking maximum advantage of the system as they go - with the desired end result to be living off alimony from one or two rich ex's whilst shacking up with their 20's gigolo boyfriend in the Caribbean.

WOEman..Hah!! Hilarious!! "Woe is me..I have to rinse my own swimsuit."

Momof3, NormanL is absolutely right about the lunch thing: If it ever existed, it's a thing of the past. The long, leisurely restraunt lunch with co-workers and cocktails just doesn't happen. Lunch is something you go get out of the fridge (soup/salad only please; anything else is too many calories when your job prevents you from getting any exercise), and eat while you listen to a telecon. We have meetings and telecons with people in all different time zones, and there's no way to coordinate lunch hours, and anyway, no one's got an hour to spare.

As for privacy, there's not much in a cube farm. And as for conversations with co-workers, you've got to be really careful what you say in the office these days, lest someone be able to construe it as sexual harassment. Most companies discourage all non-work-related conversations and activities at the office.

I've worked for quite a few high-stress companies in NYC and in the DC area, and not one has discouraged friendly conversation or eliminated the lunch break. Are there any stats on how "most" companies are doing this?

Right now, I'm trying to make the decision whether to be a SAHM or work out of the home (someday, as my BF and I are planning the future), and I have to say that my office job seems far more appealing. Taking even a few years off from my career would severely damage my earning potential, as my friends who took off for the toddler years are finding out now that they are trying to re-enter the workforce.

What might sway me toward being a SAHM is that my BF's job is even more high-pressure than mine, and, while he wants children, he will not have the time to take an equal part in child care, so one of us will have to do that. He actually wants me to stay home so he can spend 12-14 hours a day working. He loves his job. I don't really know any men who want the opportunity to do MORE of the diaper changing and vomit cleanup.

We all seem to be making some pretty big assumptions about people's motivations, which is why I think slamming women who ask for a share of their husbands' earnings is pointless, since each situation is different. I prefer to criticize on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not slamming women Monica, I'm trying to counter the idea that divorced wives are necessarily long-suffering ex Fortune 100 executives that have been conscripted into the service of their husband's career - as he takes his martini lunches and chases skirt at the office.

There are some women who've found themselves in this situation, but for most the lifestyle they accomplish through marriage exceeds what they'd have accomplished on their own. This is true for many men as well. But I think that it's fair to say that a man who has always been single is probably going to be better of than one who's been divorced. The same doesn't seem to be true of women who've never married.

"So using "I sacrificed my career" during a divorce is often a bogus claim. "

So, Norman, because a few snotty, entitled little brats have a life plan to earn her Mrs. Degree then be supported by a man you know about everyone my age? Maybe your friend raised his daughter to be a jerk - did he buy her a car, does he give her a clothing allowance? Take a look at her hand bag and sunglasses...what brand are they, and did she pay for them? When you're used to being catered-to by mommy and daddy the thought of having to support yourself on an entry-level salary and not getting those goodies is FAR from appealing. The pride and freedom of being truly independent isn't as appealing as a BMW 3 series convertible.

I grew up in a rich town south of Boston and went to Bentley College (now University). A quarter of my classes were full of, what I call, Oil Kids. Children of rich Middle Eastern families who drove Porsches (no joke) and wore Rolexes. I know brats all too well.

That said, I hardly think your sample is unbiased enough, and large enough, to accurately predict an entire population of 20-something females. I say this because out of say, 20 of my closest 19-26 year old female friends, none of them has ever said being a SAHM is her goal. They want husbands. They want kids. All enjoy working. My sample is just a imperfect as yours. I'm just asking you, please, don't throw around the dreams of these brats like it's an actual stat! It's inaccurate and akin to "all young people these days have STDs and do drugs". We don't!

I think that most people get married with the expectation or, at least, hope that the marriage will last forever. The problems come when the marriage breaks up and there is a dispute about how the assets and ongoing income for the couple are to be divided.

I would like to see prenups made manditory. Assets coming into the marriage would be listed. If the couple agreed that one would stay at home, either forever or until the children were in school, the compensation in the event of a breakup could be a percentage of the higher earning spouse's income. Same thing if one was going to work at a job (as opposed to a career) to put the other through grad school.

I'm not sure how this would work for a couple that was living together. Possibly the union would not be recognized at all unless there was a prenup.

At the very least, it would get couples talking about their expectations before marriage.

"I imagine most men, and women, would be out slaving, married or no, kids or no. So I don't really think you get to blame having to work on the family."

The issue is not having to work or not, but how much one has to work. A family needs much more of a house than a single person does., for instance. And then if you are trying to buy enough shoes for a woman.......... (just kidding)

"I've alway wondered, if a man is responsible for providing for his ex finacially, why isnt she responsible for continuing to do housework for him?"

Looje, why stop at housework? Certainly that's not all there is to mariage. The divorced man probably won't be interested in ses with his ex, but there will probably be some kind of after market for it.

" He actually wants me to stay home so he can spend 12-14 hours a day working. He loves his job. I don't really know any men who want the opportunity to do MORE of the diaper changing and vomit cleanup. "

"I prefer to criticize on a case-by-case basis."

Monica, that last bit is good advice; now apply it to that first bit. There really are lots of men that prefer cleaning up vomit to dealing with their bosses or working with public. Which would you prefer, cleaning up babies' vomit or adults'?

"

Great points, Norman, Mack and lujlp!

Although, Mack, I have to say I'd be better off if I had remained single, even if I had had a child -- something I doubt I would have unmarried. That however is an extreme case (long story short: one that involved taking my daughter to another state to protect her from her father who was 10 years down finally brought down for abusing children) and an exception to the rule. I am a secretary and have been in the clerical field for 35 years (everything from clerk to administrative assistant), unless I had been prompted to go back to school or actually sold some of my fiction (also doubtful, not motivated enough; I prefer freedom to cash), I would never have had executive money. Not that I married one either. Thank God you're only young and stupid once. Naive is often replaced by jaded and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'd like to add also that the man who has extra mouths to feed, clothe, roof, and provide heat and hot water and health care for, is certainly motivated to work longer hours. Heck with earning more. If he stayed single, he could have opted for a lesser position and more free time. Having the extra burden of family deprives him of that option every bit as much as the housewife's career is interrupted.

Jim, you are correct: There are probably many men who would prefer to clean up baby vomit than deal with their bosses. I just don't know any.

"The pride and freedom of being truly independent isn't as appealing as a BMW 3 series convertible. "

Jeez, does EVERYBODY here know my ex?

"I've worked for quite a few high-stress companies in NYC and in the DC area, and not one has discouraged friendly conversation or eliminated the lunch break. Are there any stats on how "most" companies are doing this?

Were you a net revenue generator (i.e., *you* had to bring in cash receipts from your efforts, not simply being third person down in the org chart, reporting to someone who did have a quarterly target) or were you support/overhead?

Second, how experienced were you? If you were in your twenties in such places, you may well have been less valuable to the place than some long-time secretaries, no matter what title you held, degrees you carry, or what they paid you. Impossible to believe for most twenty-somethings with that shiny advanced professional degree, I know. Often true, however.

Re the ability of divorced spouses to get after-marriage income transfers, I propose that be something on the marriage license that needs to be affirmatively checked off by each spouse and signed. That way the two people have to evidence their prior consent to what is now a default arrangement under law. No signature by the $ spouse (and witnessed by the attending official), then no continuing income transfers at divorce. (Child support will be handled differently.)

Imagine the conversations as one spouse says, "Um, no, I don't want to sign that...." while the other demands it be signed...after the marriage is effective. lol You would find out real quick if someone married you for love or money, I think.

Spartee, I'll be happy to go over my relative value to my company, but it doesn't matter in this case. The original comments were about lunches and casual conversation being a thing of the past at most companies. They may have gone the way of the dinosaurs at some businesses, but every company I've ever worked for has recognized the value of having people take a break during the day, and not one has put a lockdown on personal conversation. Maybe I'm just lucky and other people really don't get lunch anymore. This is off on a tangent, though, so I'll stop there.

"They want husbands. They want kids. All enjoy working."

So do the ones in my sample.

"I've worked for quite a few high-stress companies in NYC and in the DC area, and not one has discouraged friendly conversation or eliminated the lunch break."

So? There are at least 4 or 5 stay-at-home moms on my block, and no-one has barred them from chatting with neighbors between snacks(I work at home so I see the goings-on in my neighborhood).

"There are probably many men who would prefer to clean up baby vomit than deal with their bosses. I just don't know any."

Have you asked any of them?

Alright. Enough. Let's end this back-and-forth, this charade: everbody and his brother, and sister, and all his other relatives, knows good and f**king well that it is harder to slave away with your nose to the grindstone 8-10 consecutive hours per day, with some idiot looking over your shoulder, than it is to clean spilt milk and vacuum!!

Studies have shown stay-at-home women tend to re-do the same tasks several times per day, even when not necessary - such as vacuum again and again over the same spots. Hah!! As Dr. Peter has said, "work expands to fill the available time."

All this about making women appear to be workhorses while mean lead lives of privilege and luxury, is completely bogus!! It all boils down to this: we "big up" women, and "do down" men..simple as that. It's now a known scientific fact - so there's no longer any point in being in denial about it!

Also to how ever said men would be slavong away even without a wife and kids - studies show yjat such men choose lower paying jobs with more flexable hours

"everbody and his brother, and sister, and all his other relatives, knows good and f**king well that it is harder to slave away with your nose to the grindstone 8-10 consecutive hours per day, with some idiot looking over your shoulder, than it is to clean spilt milk and vacuum!!"

On that one, I don't know. Not so much, Norman.

My old, tired, broken-down, in-poor-health-and-counting-days-to-retirement current self would tend to agree. Even though I hope to hell (and am stubborn cuss enough) to last out my remaining four years to a straight pension and avoid disability headaches.

But when I was young, no way. I thought men were the ones had it easy. Easy to go out and make a living and leave it all behind you at 5:00. Of course, as I've said, I've never had the ambition to work a 60 or 70 hour week. Value my free time more than the money it would bring in.

On that note, I do have to reiterate -- as lujlp also adds stats show -- that a man without the wife and kids can make a similar choice to mine.

I had to fire the loser house spouse I was stupid and inexperienced enough to choose. (To this day, I maintain there are men who do the job and do it well; just don't trust my judgment to tell the bad from the good after that fiasco and don't think I'm alone on that, male or female.) Fortunately, sexism worked in my favor for once, at that time. He was able-bodied and couldn't get alimony and I had full custody so he was ordered to pay token (by token, I mean joke) child support even though I had sent his ass back to work before the kid was a year old.

But why this attitude like women get to have all the choice in the matter?

And why gloss over the fact that a married man is not free to choose to work a lower position and choose free time over money if that's his preference?

Had I made a better choice in househusbands, it very well could have prompted me to take my career more seriously. I'm sure it would have. Necessity and all that. Divorced, not so much an option, as I had to work within day care hours. (Didn't make enough to pay a nanny and didn't have extended family who could babysit outside day care hours.)

Back to the topic...divorce as a career choice is not only for the rich. Here in Canada my hubby's ex HAD to work full-time while they were married, as did he. Since separating, for the last 8 years, she has only worked part-time. You see, we pay single moms NOT to work in the country. It goes like this: make 23,000, no more. Get maximum gov't benefits of appox. $10,000(tax free) for the kids (& for poor single moms). Then get about 4000+ back for tax breaks (for the kids). Then get 10,000 or so (tax free) in the form of child support (for the kids). Then get your ex hubby to pay medical/dental/other expenses for the kids, such as daycare and university (you'll pay a % based on your income, but because you only make 20,000 or so, it'll be around 20%). So now you're at an income of $47,000 (after tax!) Not bad, you have a job making 23K and your take home money is like a 60K job! To make things even better, marry yourself a nice guy (make sure he DOESN'T pay child support etc). and don't tell the gov't you are married (or common-law, whatever)!
BINGO. You just won the "divorce as a career" lottery curtesy of the Canadian government.(US not so very different).

I'm currently single and focusing on my business for the first time in, well, basically the first time ever, and somewhat to my surprise, I'm more productive and focused than I've ever been during any of my relationships! Frankly, dealing with a woman's nonsense and the time/burden of maintaining a relationship just drag you down, not build you up as Izzy suggests. Actually, I'm starting to think I might just stay single permanently (unless I meet someone really special) ... I'll make a load of money and enjoy it myself without some entitled person trying to steal half of it while whining in my ear about the 'sacrifices she made', when I know it is me who has made incredible sacrifices and worked incredibly hard at my business.

"The pride and freedom of being truly independent isn't as appealing as a BMW 3 series convertible."

Personally, I would rather live in a cupboard and eat dead rats than live in a beautiful seaside mansion with servants and a Porsche paid for by money I didn't earn. No exaggeration. A person cannot be whole if they accept handouts.