This is creepy on so many levels. The younger guy may hold the cards in this relationship, but if you do the math on the age difference LW is practically a child predator. I can't help thinking that whatever happens serves her right. Occasionally I've seen you get letters or comments from 40-something men lusting after 20 year olds. They definitely need to see this letter, because it seems like the natural outcome of such an extreme age difference.

'I left a financially and emotionally stable 20-year relationship to be with him, and I haven't regretted a minute of it. '

Good God.......

To fill in some details, he was either 18 or 19 when they moved in together. Which means that they were seeing each other before that, when he was even younger.

I also get the impression that they're not having sex. Otherwise, what does this mean.. "I don't want you feeling guilty about exploring a natural aspect of human behavior,"?

Poor woman.

Delusional.

@"I left a financially and emotionally stable 20-year relationship to be with him, and I haven't regretted a minute of it."
___________

Sounds like her and her young stud is living of her (ex-husband's) nickel. Though it isn't clear from the question, I'd bet a large some of (my own hard earned) money that she's drawing large alimony, and they may even be living in her ex husband's house.

Even if I'm wrong about that, it is still an incentive the family courts provide.

Cough... gasp... choke... I have seen more screwed-up relationships, but just barely. The Oedipal aspects of this whole thing are... no, I'm not going there.

They're both pieces of work if you ask me.

Somebody else who wants it all. How original. LW should write a book, because it never turns out that way in life, or I'd have been a rich astronaut rock star hero king genius with a big harem and lots of stamina.

"I left a financially and emotionally stable 20-year relationship to be with him, and I haven't regretted a minute of it." - is your lack of regret because finance is still not a problem due to the misandric family courts and you don't have to give a single cent to the 25 year old guy even though you yourself are not earning even one cent? If it was financially and emotionally stable and you still left it, there is something seriously wrong with you. I pity your ex. I hope he found someone a lot lot better than you because I think he was the only one providing all the stability in your 20 year relationship while you were busy destabilising it going after guys half your age. And media cribs about men going after women half their age. At least, the men do it with their own money and not the money of their spouses.

He responded that he loved me and couldn't see his life without me.

...or, apparently, those other women he's planning on sleeping with.

I don't have the information to back this up, but I suspect Boyfriend was so upfront about having had sex with and planning on having sex with other women because he knew LW was the kind of woman who wants desperately to not be like those other women who are so provincial about things like sexual needs. Yes, LW, it's perfectly natural for a 25-year-old to want to have sex with women other than his 50-year-old girlfriend. It's also perfectly natural for said girlfriend to dislike it. You don't have to accept his terms because they're logical and you want to seem casual and cosmopolitan about sex for fear of being alone.

Sometimes, I want to say, "This isn't working, and I want to move on." But, that would be far from the truth. I left a financially and emotionally stable 20-year relationship to be with him, and I haven't regretted a minute of it.

Ah. That's it, then. You want your throwing over your previous partner for a younger model to Mean Something. Well, it does. It means that you need to spend some time on your own and not resign yourself to stagnant or emotionally fraught relationships just because you're terrified of being on your own.

I actually conclude from the letter that LW's previous relationship wasn't all hunky-dory until New Guy came along. I suspect it was boring and passionless, but better than nothing, from how she describes it simply as "financially and emotionally stable." The old "any relationship is better than none at all" way of thinking. New Guy then comes along and flirts with her and she's interested but needs to make a fling into a relationship so it's not frivolous and New Guy is just going with the program, until of course he bumps into someone he'd rather sleep with than her.

For all y'all know, she's writing the dreaded check every month. Speculation is for crazy wannabe detectives, so drop it already. This dudeface is way to young to know who he is, and cougar-ella is way to old to be waiting around for him to figure it out. It should have ended long ago with a "hey thanks for fulfilling my Harold and Maude fantasy. don't let the door hit you on your saggy pants on the way out, dude." I was 26 five years ago and that person is unrecognizable to me now. Most young people change A LOT --that's why the may-december thing fails most of the time. For the most part older people have a more stable sense of who they are, what they want, etc. But maybe she likes the excitement of uncertainty, or as I like to call it, the excrement of uncertainty. @ the LW--You need to get over this and you know what will help? find a guy who is at least 39 and tell him exactly what YOU want. Then sit back and watch the magic happen :)

"This dudeface is way to young to know who he is" yeah right. Even 25 is not enough for a person to be an adult and stick to what he/she says. But 18 is old enough to vote and drive and booze and have sex and everything else.....dude, if one is mature enough to do all that at 18, he/she is mature enough to know who or what they are at 25 and face consequences of their past actions instead of falling back on excuses like he/she is too young to know....that is the kind of excuse that should be given for something done at the age of 6, not at age 25.

'I suspect it was boring and passionless' - is that an excuse to break it? Why can't every damn guy use the same excuse and why does everyone pounce and rip apart every guy(like lions ripping apart a buffalo or deer) who does that? For all you know, Tiger Woods was just having a boring and passionless life with Elin, so he was just searching around for the passion, right.....you go Tiger. Sounds great dosen't it, just like "you go girl"

@NumberSix: "I suspect it was boring and passionless"
____________

I suspect it was boring and passionless for her ex, and probably burdensome too. But society would feel the need to force him to remain committed, even if just financially. But when a woman is bored and lacking passion, we never tell her to try harder, we just tell her she deserves better and "you go girl!" (and take the house and cash with you).

What's with all the speculation about her ex/why she left/if he's paying alimony/what the divorce settlement was/where she and Barely Legal are living/whether she's earning 'one cent'? We don't know any of that, and it's not really relevant. For all we know, she was with a wealthy 80-year-old. It doesn't sound like there were kids involved, either (I mean, other than the one she left her partner/husband/whatever for).

Sure, she sounds like a twerp - a sad, misguided, short-sighted twerp - but she's reaping the rewards of leaving her marriage (assuming it was a marriage - from the way it's worded, we don't even know whether it was a marriage or not) for the kid.

"This dudeface is way to young (25) to know who he is"

Speak for yourself. At 25, I knew many people with a great deal of responsibility and the self-awareness that should come with it.

I suggested taking a break from the relationship. He responded that he loved me and couldn't see his life without me.

Sometimes, I want to say, "This isn't working, and I want to move on."

Sounds like you don't have much choice LW. I personally don't have any problem with the decisions you've made - you want to live with a younger guy, good luck to you. But he's made his position very clear, and however reluctantly you've consented. You've got two choices:

1. Live with it. But you've said that you can't stomach that.

2. Leave him. Whether he loves you or can imagine life without you is immaterial. He's made his choice, now you get to make yours.

And these are the only two options going I'm afraid. The mythical one where he sees the error of his ways doesn't sound like it's on the cards.

Actually, there is option 3, which is what's good for the goose is good for the gander (other way round in this case I suppose!), but I doubt you want that either. And it would turn your relationship into a sort of competitive "who got more this week" which is a bit ugly.

I haven't regretted a minute of it.

In fact, I understand this. I blew away an 8 year, fairly good relationship to chase someone else. It turned out she wasn't interested at all (oops), and my attempt at a pass destroyed our friendship into the bargain. But I still made the right call and my ex agrees - if I were interested in someone else it wasn't right to stay with her.

LW, you can leave and still not regret it. Go while you can still call it a fond memory rather than a bitter ending. Yeah, it hurts. A lot.

Dudeface? I couldn't pay attention to anything else that you said after coming across that word. Seriously?

"I haven't regretted a minute of it."

By all means then—continue exactly what you're doing honey, you deserve it.

I agree it's unfair to speculate about her marriage, divorce, and finacial situation. For all we know, she was the breadwinner. None of it is relevant to the fact that she is too old for this guy. She should've realized this, but if it was an older guy who'd left his wife of 20 years for some hot, young thing, because his marriage lacked passion, there'd be a lot more sympathy for him...and much more blame placed on the wife for "letting herself go" or not keeping him happy....and then, how dare she get any alimony when she "never earned a dime" (like holding down the fort and being a supportive wife/mother isn't also contributing)?

"there'd be a lot more sympathy for him"

I don't think so. There doesn't seem to be a lot of sympathy for chickenhawks of either sex on this site. But I agree about the speculation, it's largely irrelevant. I think that what's prompting people to speculate though is her multiple references to money and the clinical way that she's referring to her relationships. She seems like a woman who views her relationships as transactions. But this kind of language is also typical of the sort of pretentious babble that boomers are prone to. So it's hard to tell whether she's a self absorbed poser, or simply a typical baby boomer.

@What's with all the speculation about her ex/why she left/if he's paying alimony/what the divorce settlement was/where she and Barely Legal are living/whether she's earning 'one cent'?

I know, right? Apparently there are some very bitter men who think this happens to all men all the time. The poor wittle guys....women are always shitting on them and taking all their money.
Bull! I haven't seen it EVEN ONCE in my life except for maybe on TV and with celebrities. Not sure what world you are living in. Most women I know work and if/when they got divorced they either gave the husband the house because they couldn't afford it by themselves or they sold the house because NEITHER of them could afford it. There isn't much "I'm taking the house and all your money" in middle class America. No one has any money to TAKE!

"Apparently there are some very bitter men who think this happens to all men all the time. The poor wittle guys....women are always shitting on them and taking all their money.
Bull! I haven't seen it EVEN ONCE in my life except for maybe on TV and with celebrities."

It is a feature of life more among upper-middle class/professional and income strata above that level. It is also somewhat generational, typically occuring for people 40+, where the wife (or in very rare instances, husband) was a SAHM since forever.

For most people, however, it doesn't much come into play. Child support is the larger issue.

I haven't seen it EVEN ONCE in my life except for maybe on TV and with celebrities. Not sure what world you are living in. Most women I know work and if/when they got divorced they either gave the husband the house because they couldn't afford it by themselves or they sold the house because NEITHER of them could afford it.

So you know a lot of poor people. Congratulations. But it is a legitimate problem for people who have assets and a decent income.

I love this letter. Evidently, when she was 44 the LW shacked up with a guy who was 19. Maybe she was doing him when he was 18! Or maybe earlier...she only refers to the live-in stage of the relationship.
Well, I hope it works out. Most likely, he is spreading his wings, as he should. She needs to find someone, oh, in his 30s.

For most people, however, it doesn't much come into play. Child support is the larger issue.

I agree. Other than in a very few cases, alimony doesn't come into play. Child support does, though, and really should. Is it really fair to say, "hey, we both had this kid, but only one of you has to take care of it/pay for it for the rest of his/her life?"

Not really. And there, often it's the custodial parent who gets screwed by the non-custodial parent refusing to pay what he/she owes. Not always, but often.

I agree, and admitted, to speculating about her former relationship. Relevant point about it being that, even if it isn't a factor in her case, current family law creates incentives for situations exactly like this one.

In case you're also wondering, I've got nothing to be bitter about... I'm still married to my first and only wife with two beautiful children, my only children. I've never been burned by family law.

@lia: "Is it really fair to say, "hey, we both had this kid, but only one of you has to take care of it/pay for it for the rest of his/her life?""
_________________

Of course not. But, on that same line, is it really fair the other way? You know, where women file for 75% of divorces, yet almost automatically get the house, the kids, alimony, and child support? Is it really fair for a father, who didn't want the divorce or for his family to be severed, to not only be separated from his kids, but to have to pay excessive amounts of money to his wife while another man (maybe her affair) lives (has sex) with her in his house and his kids?

Please look at at as more than just "responsibility" or "not fair for pme to pay for everything" or "best for the kids." No one argues against those points. Please consider how women would feel if we had a society where men filed 75% of divorces, automatically got the house, kids and alimony (even if he cheated and moved the babysitter in). I guarantee you would feel totally different about the situation.

I could sort of understand the 'need to be with other girls at his age' - but, TWO girls!?

"Bull! I haven't seen it EVEN ONCE in my life except for maybe on TV and with celebrities. Not sure what world you are living in"

I've never seen China, I guess it does not exist except on TV. I've never seen someone die of HIV, I guess it doesn't exist. I've never seen someone get raped, I guess it does not happen except on TV. Etc. etc. If only there was some way to determine more accurately what is valid than personal anecdotes.

Trust and Redrajesh: my comment about why LW left her previous relationship has nothing to do with whether I think it was right or not. There was certainly no "you go, girl" in there. I know nothing of that relationship other than it was "financially and emotionally stable," so I have no idea whether she should have left or not. Maybe everything was fine until the 18-year-old entered the picture, or maybe things were never fine and they were both just resigned to their partnership. Or anything in between.

I was merely speculating on her reasons. Since she left a twenty-year relationship for someone much younger and is now trying like hell to hold onto the new guy, I think my reasoning is sound. LW seems the kind of woman who feels a relationship needs to be long-term to make it worthwhile. Even when having a fling with a much younger guy, she turned it into a long-term thing and is willing to overlook her boyfriend's sleeping with other women to hang onto him. Even when she's trying to be cool and casual about sex as biology and not morality, she's a doormat if it'll make the payoff worth the risk to her.

"Please consider how women would feel if we had a society where men filed 75% of divorces, automatically got the house, kids and alimony (even if he cheated and moved the babysitter in). I guarantee you would feel totally different about the situation."

I'm completely with Trust. It would be nice if the person who pulled the trigger on a divorce bore the cost of that divorce. It would be horrible policy and would trap people in abusive and unhealthy relationships, but it would be nice if we could figure out a way to do it while getting around the negative side effects. Somewhere in between prowling P.I.s and no-fault.

By the way, I don't think there is anything wrong with wild speculation in this case. There is plenty to suggest this woman is an unhinged wreck that is divorced from reality. Gossiping about the bat shit crazy mistakes people make is fun. If it weren't, advice columns wouldn't be such a great guilty pleasure.

@Spartee It takes all kinds. Some people are constantly evolving and growing, and to others that might seem a bit unstable. In the words of the late Poly Styrene: "Identity IS the crisis!" Punk rock wisdom...Check er out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGcWtPOL6aQ

@whistleDick Good point about speculation, but I know many older women who are writing that dreaded check and I didn't even think to go there. Meanwhile, everyone on here with a swinging dick between his legs may as well be chanting Shallowgolddiggerfuckinbitchslut! The overwhelming outcry just seemed a little over the top to me... Can anyone say Jealousofthewomanwhobehavedlikeaman?

@Renee Can't you just picture him all young, inexperienced, stupid looking and, well, dudeface? I have a rich inner world,and I make up words to describe what's happening in there. Maybe if you were creative you would too. You stopped reading after I wrote dudeface, right? So that shouldn't offend you.

Meanwhile, everyone on here with a swinging dick between his legs may as well be chanting Shallowgolddiggerfuckinbitchslut!

I'll quote myself Gspotted:

I personally don't have any problem with the decisions you've made - you want to live with a younger guy, good luck to you.

All I did was point out that her guy has openly stated he wants to sleep with other women, and that that doesn't leave her many options. As a guy who is quite happy to chase women 15 years younger or older than myself, I'm hardly in a position to be critical. But the fact is she hates it, and as NumberSix pointed out, she's turning herself into a doormat to keep him.

I guess she's saving the regret she didn't have for dropping the ex for now when Chicken Little is messing in the hen house.

CC: A woman can take the house, get the alimony, get the child support and STILL get screwed over by life. Half an income is still half an income and she (generally) has the kids to support.

IIRC, there were stats that a divorced woman with kids drops significantly in her standard of living and the unencumbered man actually gains! But I that is something I heard and it may have been debunked.

lovelysoul: I get that a housewife makes a contribution. And if my wife left me because she couldn't stand me, that's fine. If she decides that she'd rather have someone else and wants to support him on my nickle (the nickle that's supposed to go to my kids and not a vacation to the Bahamas), I got a problem with that! This is a general thing and not specific to the letter writer.

The LW doesn't indicate if her 20 year "emotionally and fiscally stable" relationship had kids involved. It would be ironic justice if her Boytoy sees how hot grandma was when he meets her daughter...

@Lia "And there, often it's the custodial parent who gets screwed by the non-custodial parent refusing to pay what he/she owes" - I guess all the non custodial parents you are referring to are women since they are the ones who do not pay the miniscule child support that is expected of them while men mostly pay the exorbitant child support expected of them and still the men do not get to see the kids while the women who do not pay the money just kidnap the kids and move across the country and ruin the kids lives by denying them access to the responsible father.

@@Lia "And there, often it's the custodial parent who gets screwed by the non-custodial parent refusing to pay what he/she owes"
_______

They'll send people with guns to collect from men, so "refusing to pay" isn't an option.

"Of course not. But, on that same line, is it really fair the other way? You know, where women file for 75% of divorces, yet almost automatically get the house, the kids, alimony, and child support?"

The reason most women keep the house is because it's where the kids live. It's your kid's home. How is it fair that the kid should be ripped from his/her home in the midst of the already traumatic family breakup?

And, here in FL, alimony really only comes into play in very long marriages (I believe 15-18 yrs or more), and only when the wife has mainly been a SAHM. I only have one friend who has received lifetime alimony, and that was because she was married to a doctor for 18+ years and had 3 kids, one of whom is still under the age of 10.

She actually regrets choosing alimony over a settlement because now she can't get remarried without losing her financial stability.

And yes, like many women, SHE filed the divorce, but only after catching him screwing his assistant. The fact that many wives file doesn't tell the full story, as obviously, there is a financial incentive for most men NOT to file for divorce. Most would rather the wife stay and accept them fooling around or being abusive. Unless a guy wants to marry his mistress, he rarely files.

So you can't assess blame for the failure of a marriage based on who files. It would be a mess if we started trying to be punitive to whoever "caused" the divorce, as that is endlessly complicated.

I'm much less interested in her past relationship than I am in the fact that this woman was banging a high schooler at some point.

She's a forty-someodd woman and she finds a HIGH SCHOOL BOY to be the love of her life? Sounds like someone wanted to be able to have a relationship in which she got to be "the boss" and kinda mold her partner, instead of a real relationship where there's fair give and take.

It seriously creeps me out when older men and women go after people in their teens and early twenties. It seems to indicate a mountain of control issues and insecurities.

LS,

"So you can't assess blame for the failure of a marriage based on who files. It would be a mess if we started trying to be punitive to whoever "caused" the divorce, as that is endlessly complicated"

Of course, you're totally correct and I couldn't agree more. Though, it's nice to imagine a divorce Utopia where justice in such sticky matters just happens.

"The reason most women keep the house is because it's where the kids live."

You may have hit on the biggest complaint that we men have over divorce issues. Why is that just assumed? Men are dismissed as people who play a minimal role in child rearing. We get a bad name from a lot of men out there. There's no question about that. But there are many "unique" cases. Ones that the current divorce laws just don't account for. Unique is in quotes because I suspect that it's actually quite common, but under-reported.

"The fact that many wives file doesn't tell the full story, as obviously, there is a financial incentive for most men NOT to file for divorce."

Again, very well said and true in many, many cases.

However, consider that there are other than financial incentives for men not to file -- and it is a very big one. The fact that the children whom an involved father loves more than anything else on Earth will be taken away from him and his contact with them will be subject to the whims of an unstable and unpredictable person that just happens to hate him.

I'm not speaking from a place of bitterness here. I can't tell you how much I appreciate and love my ex-wife for the undying support she has given to my very healthy relationship with my children. We haven't had one single argument about anything, much less access to children, since divorcing. She's the best ex-wife a guy ever had.

That said, I suffered through nearly ten years (the first seven years of the marriage was great) of complete and total misery by not leaving her because of my very real and rational fear of losing my children. I never did leave solely because of this. As it turns out, thank God, she left me. Because of my exceptionally good luck and her deep love for our children, she became rational after the divorce. But, it could've gone either way. The law bestowed on her the exclusive power to easily ruin all of that.

Men get trapped in marriages also, and it may not often be for financial reasons.

"The fact that many wives file doesn't tell the full story, as obviously, there is a financial incentive for most men NOT to file for divorce."

I just want to revisit this again real quick. Which is a more compelling reason to put up with a bad situation? Some measure of money; or continued involvement your children's lives?

If we're accepting the 75% figure, which sounds about right to me, this is why women file for divorce at a higher rate.

Whistledick, I agree that it is a disincentive for men, and I, too, wish there was a divorce utopia where the best parent always got custody and everyone could get along for the sake of the kids, as you and your ex wife do. I so respect both of you for putting your kid's needs first.

The friend I wrote about above had a terribly contentious divorce. Her ex was the real bitter one, even though he cheated, which brought about the marriage's demise. He resented her keeping the house, kids, etc, though she never prevented him from seeing them any time he (or they) wanted, and he was still quite well-off after the divorce. Yet, he was the type who called DCF whenever one of the kids had a bruise or skint knee, just to harass her, and he refused to be civil or even speak with her directly most of the time.

Well, this past Jan, their 17 yr old took his own life, and she has said that this has "deeply humbled" her ex...that he now realizes that she was right when she begged him to put animosity aside and be a supportive co-parent. He has been offering her emotional support as they grieve together, but what a horrible way to learn that lesson!

Divorced parents must remember that this is about the kids. In general, courts try to keep those children's lives as stable as possible, and child support and physical custody is supposed to be about that. If dad worked and mom stayed home and tended to the kids most of the time, the court is not going to undo that lifestyle just because dad feels it's unfair and suddenly wants to be a more hands on parent.

Of course, some dads are the primary caregivers, and, in those cases, when this is proven, dads are given physical custody. It's true that this isn't the norm, but that's because it's less the norm for dads to be primary caregivers.

As more dads fill that role, the courts have gradually been adjusting and becoming less biased towards moms, but I think there will likely always be a default mom bias.

Men are dismissed as people who play a minimal role in child rearing.

That's because for a long time, and in more traditional relationships even now, this is/was the case. If a father works 10 hours a day outside the house, a SAHM is the primary caregiver. That's not a statement about who cares more or loves the child more. It's a statement about the child's day-to-day reality. This is changing now, and divorce laws are changing too, although perhaps too slowly for a lot of people.

But that's another matter.

As for this woman, I don't really have a problem with legal adults being in a relationship together, whatever the age difference. Depending on where they live, he may have been legal as young as 16. Doesn't float my boat, but whatever. The problem is that he's obviously not sexually satisfied being in a monogamous relationship with her, which is going to tank them.

LovelySoul,

Oh my God, that's a tragic story. What a horrible way for anyone to learn the simple lesson that bitterness is destructive. Holy shit. I couldn't imagine.

I definitely understand that there are many men out there that are giving us a bad name and that courts also undervalue what it costs for a single mother to raise a child. There's a fella at my work (I won't call him a man, or even afford him a 'w' at the end of fellow) who was bitching just the other day about the demands his ex-wife was making on him beyond the whopping $225 he was sending her a month for his court ordered child support.

This isn't a guy who isn't doing well for himself. He's a government contractor working tax-free overseas in a lucrative and very skilled profession. As a military public servant, I don't make the kind of money he does, but hell, I took a crap this morning that was worth more than $225.

In a separate and unrelated conversation, he revealed that he was happy to pay over $750 a month for a brand new Shelby Mustang. It's really fast, apparently. That $750 doesn't include a ton of insurance either.

So, clearly, you're right that a lot of guys make out financially. I don't know how they look themselves in the mirror, but there you go.

"Of course, some dads are the primary caregivers, and, in those cases, when this is proven, dads are given physical custody."

"When this is proven" articulates a lot of the problems created by the assumptions that the courts make. Again, I'm not talking about my own family here.

In order for a man to properly father his kids in the wake of a contentious divorce, he has to prove complete and total incompetence of the mother. How healthy can that be for the children involved?

It's a really high bar of incompetence on the mother's part that a father has to prove to "win" any involvement in his own natural children's lives. A truly caring father would rather put up with being trapped in misery than being put in the predicament to legally and officially prove that his children's mother is a bonafide piece of shit.

And, more than likely, she isn't a bonafide piece of shit. Then what do you do? Make up shit?

You don't have to have been the primary caregiver to love your children and want to be part of their lives. I don't know how all these many men that get subjected to this handle it.

Yeah, whistledick, every case is so different. Some make out, while others get shafted. I know many mothers who have struggled to raise kids with barely any financial help from fathers who make great incomes but are able to hide it, but then, there also fathers out there paying excessive child support based on past income that they can't get lowered, even when their circumstances change.

"It's a really high bar of incompetence on the mother's part that a father has to prove to "win" any involvement in his own natural children's lives."

Well, "any involvement" is a bit extreme. Maybe to win primary physical custody, but, these days, most custody arrangements are pretty even, if not completely joint, and courts frown on any parent creating parental alienation.

Like Monica said, just because the court may award primary custody to the mother isn't about whether one parent loves the child more. It's about what that child's normal day-to-day reality and routine was prior to the divorce, and of course, the court can't make it purely the same. It can't force mom and dad to still share the same house.

But if dad was typically working longer hours and mom was the parent primarily picking the kids up from school, making them snacks, dinner, running them to ball practice, etc, the court is going to recognize that the child was ALREADY spending more physical time with mom. The court is not going to turn that on its head just to have things be perfectly equal between the parents. That's not the court's job. Its objective is to keep the child's life as close to what it was as possible, and it will base that on the presumption that what the couple was doing prior to divorce is what was agreed upon between them to be in the child's best interest.

Revisionist tactics don't usually work. For a dad to come into court and suggest that, although prior to the divorce, it was fine for mom to be spending more time with the child than he was, now he doesn't think she's fit to be the primary caregiver seems suspicious.

@lovelysoul: "She actually regrets choosing alimony over a settlement because now she can't get remarried without losing her financial stability."
____________

It's a sad reflection of someone's values when they think they should get support from one man while married to another.

She did the right thing by kicking to the curb for cheating (if she cheated, she'd still get alimony, but that's another story).

lovelysoul says:

“For a dad to come into court and suggest that, although prior to the divorce, it was fine for mom to be spending more time with the child than he was, now he doesn't think she's fit to be the primary caregiver seems suspicious.”

This sort of “logic” never appealed to me. I also don’t find it terribly convincing.

There are MANY things that take place within the context of a marriage that stop the moment a divorce takes place.

To suggest that a category of activities must remain exactly the same after a divorce as it was prior to the divorce sound far more suspicious to me than to recognize that the dynamics of the family have changed sufficiently after a divorce to revisit all aspects of the way the family functioned previously.

The best way to maintain harmony for the children is to adapt in a positive way to the new situation, not to pretend like nothing has changed when it comes to certain aspects (i.e. dad keeps working long hours) but to make dramatic changes in other areas (i.e. dad moves out of the house).

The reason this is problematic is that during the marriage that long working father would come home and perhaps have dinner with his kids, maybe tuck them in to bed or read them a story or watch some television with them. Why aren’t these activities considered worth preserving?… Why isn’t it “suspicious” that these activities are eliminated during a divorce, but the fathers work load needs to remain constant and unchanged?

Perhaps after a divorce the father might come to realize that his time with his children is important to him and he will want to put more effort into maintaining those bonds in a situation where they are under threat of being diminished by virtue of him living somewhere else.

As I said, the sort of “logic” involved in the above statement doesn’t really seem all that caring or family oriented to me.

In Ohio, if you stay for more then 10 years (and that was also the cut off for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's marriage) you get SOME alimony.

Now, it's there for as long as the court decides the woman will take to 'spool up' her career options and IIRC, will cut off if she starts shacking up with a boytoy for 6 months or so.

lovelysoul: I can be sympathetic about the woman wanting to be in another relationship while at the same time think that, however bad their prior relationship was, the man shouldn't have to pay for the woman's screwing. (Note, AFAIK, the only money she would lose would be alimony, not child support) If she wants a man, she needs to get a job, or find another man to support her in the manner she is accustomed. In her forties, that isn't always easy...though the LW hasn't seemed to have a problem.

On a personal note, if I were divorced, I wouldn't pay for my wife's boyfriend either. She can date outside the home. I wouldn't ask her to be a nun. But in the kid's home? NFW! They've had enough drama and trauma.

"It's a sad reflection of someone's values when they think they should get support from one man while married to another."

She doesn't think that. But she chose lifetime alimony over a large lump-sum settlement, which she was certainly entitled to. She's 50 yrs old and has been out of the workforce for 20+ years, raising kids and supporting her husband's medical career. Employers aren't likely to rush to hire her. Plus, she has the expense of the home - where her kids have grown up and still live. Even if she met the greatest guy in the world, the alimony money would be tough to give up.

All I was saying is that she regrets her choice. Essentially, she took deferred, conditional payments of what she was entitled to under law. A flat settlement would've been smarter, especially for an attractive woman with hopes of remarriage.

"Perhaps after a divorce the father might come to realize that his time with his children is important to him and he will want to put more effort into maintaining those bonds in a situation where they are under threat of being diminished by virtue of him living somewhere else."

No doubt that IS what happens, but does that mean the child should be pulled back and forth like some possession to be shared absolutely equally? A father will still get time with his kids in which to bond. Yes, it's unfortunate that this won’t be nightly, as it was before, but what is the court supposed to do about that - make the poor child schlep over in his PJs to dad's every night?

I have a girlfriend who had the choice of primary custody, but she chose to take weekend visitation instead. Her reasoning was that she and her son would have more fun and better bonding time when she wasn't working and stressed out. So, each weekend, she plans events and little trips for them. She has a very nice co-parenting relationship with her ex, so if she wanted some time during the week, she could also take it. But what she understands is that the AMOUNT of time isn't necessarily what bonds parent and child.

You can zone out in front of TV with your kid for 4 hrs or go get an ice cream and have a great talk in 30 minutes. Today, with cell phones, Facebook, e-mail, and all the other forms of communication, it's much easier for parents and kids to stay in touch.

All too often non-primary parents who complain are not really looking for greater bonding opportunities but trying to assert control/punishment over an ex. The child is the one that ends up paying for this.

@ovelysoul: “For a dad to come into court and suggest that, although prior to the divorce, it was fine for mom to be spending more time with the child than he was, now he doesn't think she's fit to be the primary caregiver seems suspicious.”

@Reality: "This sort of “logic” never appealed to me. I also don’t find it terribly convincing."
_________

I'm with reality. That logic really isn't logical.

My wife is a SAHM, and I work full time. Kids need taken care of, bills need paid, teamwork. But I see my little girls EVERY morning. I come home to my family EVERY night. I'm with my little girls EVERY weekend. Leaving for work is far different than being forced to move out, and worse, forced to send money to a woman that tore my children and I from each others daily lives, especially to pay for the pool boy to live (sleep) with her and live with my kids. I'm guessing if it were reversed, most wives wouldn't appreciate paying for me to live (sleep) with the babysitter and use the logic "well, you didn't seem them as much as him because you went to work everyday."

Look, nobody likes divorce, or the thought that someone they once loved might shack up with someone else, but IT ISN'T ABOUT YOU. Or how slighted or resentful you feel. It's about the kids!

The smart parents are like whistledick..and me. We don't keep score. We don't tally hours spent with one parent or another. If my ex wants to take them to a movie..or on a vacation to Spain...he's more than welcome. He even comes over for dinner at times. Likewise, he doesn't piss and moan beause they live primarily with me (or didn't before my son moved out).

Grown ups do it like that. If you get all bent out of shape because your ex has a lover and you have to pay child support, you're looking at it wrong.

Of course it isn't about me. I'm married with kids, no exes, no child support, no alimony. I don't feel slighted or resentful... i have no reason to.

But I'm simply not blind to the fact of how state meddling has damaged the family, and "It's about the kids" is the mantra under which so many kids have been damaged by a system that pays one of their parents to tear them from the other. If you think the system is okay, then your looking at it all wrong... and you're not looking at it the way you would if the incentives current given to women were given to men instead (under the banner of "its about the kids")

Lovelysoul says:

"No doubt that IS what happens, but does that mean the child should be pulled back and forth like some possession to be shared absolutely equally? A father will still get time with his kids in which to bond. Yes, it's unfortunate that this won’t be nightly, as it was before, but what is the court supposed to do about that - make the poor child schlep over in his PJs to dad's every night?"

The point is that a mothers relationship with her children and a fathers relationship with his children should not be predicated upon the continued marital relationship between the parents. The child-parent relationship is independent of the husband-wife relationship and as such it should be treated that way.

In fact I would argue that the dissolution of the husband-wife relationship makes it all the more important for the children to feel absolutely secure in their independent relationships with both of their parents. The children especially should never fear that either parent is being pushed out of their lives by virtue of that the court feels their “roles” were prior to divorce.

Divorce is by definition a change in family dynamics. Those dynamics should change in such a way as to be positive for the children which can include an overworking parent cutting back in order to have more time for their kids.

Just to provide a more tangible example of what I am talking about here, let me provide a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario we will have a working parent who puts in 70 hours per week at the office, we will also have a stay at home parent who puts in an equivalent amount of time at home taking care of things like laundry, cleaning, meal preparation, shopping, and child care.

When a court rules in a divorce that the parent who works out of the home must essentially maintain the exact same work hours, wouldn’t it also stand to reason that the stay at home parent would have to be required to continue to do their laundry, clean their new home, prepare meals for them, shop for them… etc?

Why is only the parent who works out of the home required to continue with their job as if nothing happened while the stay at home parent sees an immediate reduction in work related responsibilities that used to be associated with the working parent?

That time has to come from somewhere which means that in addition to the 70 hour work week, the non-custodial parent then must also pick up all of the slack that was handled by their spouse during the marriage, so essentially their work week grows while the stay at home parents work week diminishes. That lost time will ultimately come out of quality time with the kids unless the working parent also cuts back on their work hours.

This is just common sense to me, I don’t see how this sort of thing gets overlooked. I also don’t see divorcing stay at home parents rushing to suggest that they will continue to do their ex’s laundry and drop off groceries while they demand that their ex’s maintain the same working hours to bring in wages that are no different than what was brought in during the marriage.

When a divorce occurs it simply makes sense for people to reshuffle things and the courts should find such arguments both reasonable and compelling.

Here's another dynamic that changes in 99% of stay-at-home mothers divorcing. She can't afford to stay at home anymore -- time to get a job. Probably a crappy one because she has nothing recent to put on her resumé. She'll have to work a lot of overtime to make ends meet even with a healthy alimony and child support arrangement. You just can't double the number of financial responsibilities of a family (Dad's new rent and all that goes with it) and expect the same standard of living.

That doesn't really fit into the logic that the stay-at-home mother spent more time with the children so she should continue to do so. She won't be continuing to do so.

The resentment here is based on a fallacy about SAHMs, sitting around eating bons bons and soaps all day, while the poor ex slaves away to pay for it.

I don't know anybody like that, and I live in an upper class area. The SAHMs where I live are running around all day, and often up with sick kids at night, and those without partners have it much harder.

Child support is based on a set percentage of income, and if there's enough income within that percentage available so that the mom can still be there for the child after school, as she was all his/her little life before, the court will want that to happen...and most caring parents will still want that to happen.

The court is not taking poor, struggling couples, and telling the mom she can stay home because nobody can stay home on $250 of child support. The court is simply setting the child support, based on a percentage of income, and some divorced moms, who are primary caregivers, are able to still remain home.

Almost no one gets alimony anymore, except in really long marriages with a lot of assets. Some rehabilitative alimony may be offered so that mom can go back to school, but that usually ends after a short period.

If the income available is sufficient, the court is not going to demand that a 50 yr old SAHM, with young kids at home, move out of her nice house and into a tiny apt, while dad takes them to his mansion and frolics on his yacht.

That may seem like a fair idea to you, and provide "interesting opportunities" for the kids, but the court's view is that maintaining the status quo is much less risky and likely to result in harm to the kids.

Lovelysoul says:

"The resentment here is based on a fallacy about SAHMs, sitting around eating bons bons and soaps all day, while the poor ex slaves away to pay for it."

Um... what are you talking about?

Didn't I specifically offer an example of a stay at home parent putting in just as much work/effort as the parent who worked outside of the home?

In fact, I will quote the relevant portion again for you:

“In this scenario we will have a working parent who puts in 70 hours per week at the office, we will also have a stay at home parent who puts in an equivalent amount of time at home taking care of things like laundry, cleaning, meal preparation, shopping, and child care.”

That is hardly an argument based upon “resentment” or suggestions that stay at home mothers (keep in mind I even went so far as to generalize to stay at home parents… I was avoiding conversations about the gender of who was doing what) sit around doing nothing all day.

In fact I was being extremely generous to both parents in my scenario giving each of them a 70 hour work week.

Please address the content of my posts and do not establish straw men that have nothing to do with the arguments I have actually presented.

“Child support is based on a set percentage of income, and if there's enough income within that percentage available so that the mom can still be there for the child after school, as she was all his/her little life before, the court will want that to happen...and most caring parents will still want that to happen.”

My point is that there is zero justification for the family dynamics during the marriage to be preserved after divorce. The very act of divorce can and should serve as a catalyst for both parents to reevaluate their roles in their child’s lives. Courts should both encourage and support this reevaluation instead of enforcing some archaic and useless notion that the roles prior to divorce need to somehow be maintained.

Requiring a working parent to not alter their work hours or change jobs to a more flexible environment is draconian and irrational. It is just as unreasonable as the courts requiring that a stay at home parent not seek any employment outside of the home at all, essentially locking them into the life they chose when they were married that may no longer be reasonable.

It is also just as unreasonable as a court requiring that a stay at home parent continuing to do laundry, dishes, cook meals, clean the home of etc.. the former ex just because that is what they used to do while they were married.

The dissolution of a marriage carries logical implications for how each party will spend their time in the future and the courts have no business micromanaging the details just so the stay at home parent doesn’t have to feel inconvenienced.

Your argument appears to be less and less about what is best for the children and more and more about what the stay at home parent might prefer. As you said just a short time ago… it isn’t about them.

Children do not care about how long mom or dad work outside of the home. Children care about how much time they get to spend with their parents, they care about how available their parents are for them. The decision of a working parent to cut back their work hours in light of a divorce so they are more available for their children is no more suspicious than a person diagnosed with diabetes cutting back on the sugar.

To even suggest that there is anything “suspicious” about such a rational and reasonable decision suggests an a priori bias against the genuine love and care that a working parent has for their children.

I mean look at what you say here:

“Some rehabilitative alimony may be offered so that mom can go back to school, but that usually ends after a short period.”

So after a divorce the mother can and should be able to choose to work more so she can provide more money for the kids, but the father should not be able to choose to work less so he can provide more time for the kids?

What sort of logic is this? It certainly doesn't appear to be motivated by a desire to benefit the children. It seems far more in line with the perspective that the custodial parent should get to do whatever they want while the non-custodial parent should get to do whatever the custodial parent wants.

Being a good parent isn't about being an indentured servant to ones former spouse. It is about fostering a positive relationship with the children.

"The dissolution of a marriage carries logical implications for how each party will spend their time in the future and the courts have no business micromanaging the details just so the stay at home parent doesn’t have to feel inconvenienced."

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument, but you're misunderstanding mine. The courts AREN'T micromanaging the details. The court is simply setting the child support or settlement amount, based on child support tables and equitable distribution. That's all.

There's nothing to stop a SAHM from working or a working parent to stop working, or working less, except to the extent those changes drastically impact the lives of those children.

If a sudden drop in hours is going to precipitate the children having to leave their childhood home - where their friends live nearby and they have a sense of security - it's not good for them. I don't know how you can suggest otherwise. Children crave routine and structure. Disrupting their lives with major changes is traumatic, especially when the divorce alone is disruptive enough.

In many cases, there is no way to avoid that sudden drop in standard of living, but, let's say, in a case where the working parent is a doctor, there's simply no justification for this! There's more than enough income to assure that the child's life and day-to-day reality is not any more disrupted than necessary.

The child support is what it is, based on the tables and percentage of income. If a primary custodial parent can keep a roof over their children's head, and food in the bellies, for that amount, then they're free to do so.

I know a mom who gets around $1200 in child support for 2 kids. Now, I couldn't live off that and still stay home, but she does. She's a masseuse, and gives massages in her home to make extra spending money, clips coupons, and lives frugally, but she's managed for years to still be home for her kids. Her ex lives in a much nicer house and drives a much nicer car. All he has to do is write the check. She's had all the hard work of childrearing, and he gets all the fun time. Now that they are about to turn 18 and go to college, he's refused to pay for any of it, so she will have to find a way.

So, it's not always the case that the primary parent gets such a sweet deal, though it may look that way from the outside (I'm sure her ex bitches that he's "paying for her to stay home").

"The resentment here is based on a fallacy about SAHMs, sitting around eating bons bons and soaps all day, while the poor ex slaves away to pay for it. I don't know anybody like that, and I live in an upper class area. The SAHMs where I live are running around all day, and often up with sick kids at night, and those without partners have it much harder."

I carry no "resentments" as I say this, so please, no strawman characterizations. This is simply what I have seen, in contrast to your experiences:

I know businessmen and professionals still paying alimony to 60+ year old stay at home "moms", two decades after a divorce, and whose children left the home 25 years ago. Put simply, those women are close to 40 years past the point where they actually had pre-kindergarten kids, but yet those few years of mothering small children, almost half a century ago, justify ongoing payments to them, at least in their minds.

The now-elderly SAHMs invariably claim that in their 40s, when the divorce happened, and beyond there was simply no hope for them to find remunerative work. They had simply worked too much in the home to be employable. /hand across forehead

That was a lie they told themselves, of course. The work was there for them, it was just work those SAHMs considered beneath them. They would not stoop, in their minds, to low-paying service sector jobs, like retail sales. So rather than work at the Gap or waitress, those stay at home moms simply preferred their quiet, comfy lives of shopping, mornings at home, lunches with friends, time-filling "community volunteer" work (really just dillettantism--they did no real work worthy of the name) and hobbies pretending to be businesses (residential real estate, rag doll making, etc.).

Occasionally, you would encounter a fired-up SAHM who marched back into college, declaring that *now* she would finish up that degree she gave up on "for the children", so many years ago. A semester later, however, well, the story was she would take a little time off from school for now...and then never went back. I am just "too busy", she would say. Yet, no job. No kids at home. Busy doing what, exactly? It was always unclear.

In sum, what I found was, so long as the money was available, those women did not do a damn thing to actually develop their own money-generating capabilities. They simply expected another person's labor to provide them what they wantee.

You do encounter, occasional, a SAHM whose husband takes ill/dies or one where the ex-husband's business gets blown apart during or after divorce. Interesetingly, the women seem to not much grasp that once the income-generating asset is gone, so is the income. At first, they hire some lawyer to demand (stamp foot), the ex-husband keep paying. ("He is lying!", they holler.) When it becomes clear the business is really dead. There is a stunned pause.

The resulting impoverishment rarely seems to create a newfound industry in the woman, though. Instead, she typically tries to land a rich man, if she still has her looks. At least in my experience.

If she doesn't still have her looks, things get grim. Fast. When you see some 50+ year old gal, who has no marketable skills to match her upper middle class (or more) lifestyle preferences, her life gets somewhat tragic if her income dries up.

I sternly encourage every younger gal I encounter in my family to always, always, always make sure they can earn a living with real work and skills that people will pay for. Put simply, don't be a SAHM for long, and never slide into dilettantism after they start school. Go back to work.

"She's had all the hard work of childrearing, and he gets all the fun time. Now that they are about to turn 18 and go to college,...

Um, wait a minute. It sounds like that woman is unemployed.

But those kids have been in school from 9 am until 3 pm for 13 years, unless she is home-schooling them.

What is the "hard work" filling her time from 9 am to 3 pm?

Do you guys realize that you've had the exact same argument on this site about two dozen times. Why don't you just go back to one of your old arguments and continue there rather than taking over every new post that shows up?

This is getting off topic, but only because speculation was being made about this LW living off her ex while she shacked up with her young lover.

I have no doubt there are some women abusing the system, particularly when lifetime alimony was more prevalent. But for every woman like that there is also one who is struggling to make ends meet because her ex won't pay what he owes, abusing the system by hiding his assets and income, filing bankcrupcy, etc.

My BIL is a divorce attorney and he has a special program or database that searches up anyone's assets. He encounters a lot of husbands who try to get out of paying the proper amount child support, even at the detriment of their kids. I'd hazard a guess that he sees this far more often than the wealthy SAHM who gets lifetime alimony. At least in our state, that just isn't awarded much any more.

but the court's view is that maintaining the status quo is much less risky and likely to result in harm to the kids.

Posted by: lovelysoul

Yeah, but alot more SAHD lose custody then SAHM.

Look someone somewhere is getting screwed by their ex. They system is beyond broke and allows for abuses by both sides

Yeah, but alot more SAHD lose custody then SAHM.

Got stats on that or just angry guys on the Internet?

Look someone somewhere is getting screwed by their ex. They system is beyond broke and allows for abuses by both sides

But your point is valid: People on both sides are getting screwed. Not more than the kids of these divorces, though. We'll adjust the rules as we go, but it's unreasonable to expect our legal system, which is designed by people who can't possibly be expected to understand people's lives down the the molecular level, to fix something the people in question screwed up themselves.

Whomever is the primary financial contributor to a marriage is likely to be the one most burdened by the settlement of a divorce. Being that men are typically the party in that role, they're the ones who tend to be injured.

A friend of mine is a financial adviser and jokes that marriage should be off the table for anyone with an income between $100 and $700K. He makes a pretty good argument, though he's not entirely serious about the proposition. Basically the risk of divorce and accompanying financial damage can never adequately be recovered by people in that income range. When you look at the probability of divorce, marriage is far too risky for them if you look at it as an investment.

Maybe this is why the divorce horror stories that you see on the internet frequently involve a similar cohort of men. It's usually guys who had good incomes, but weren't wealthy, and are now stuck having to sustain a similar lifestyle for a separate household of dependents. That really can be a burden for someone who's trying to get their life back on track. And not to trade in stereotypes, but it may be that these men are also more likely to marry women who expect a certain lifestyle and so are more aggressive about getting everything that they can out of the ex.

Pre-nup, anyone?

Um... Spartee... i challenge you to try to find a job in the retail sector where you can set your own hours, i mean, really. While there is perhaps one employer that readily jumps to mind with the claim that you can set your own work hours, i have never seen it play out that way, where a 40-something lady can walk in an employer's door and demand to work from ONLY 9am to 3pm, and never on weekends.

That workplace that claims you can set your own hours pays only minimum wage, and it would be way too little to support yourself on, therefore, you'd be forced to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, and there goes your 9 to 3 fantasy.

I know a woman who works as a grocery store cashier, she has for over 20 years, and at the same store. She is a senior employee there. She has no option but to work all long weekends, and she oftentimes works 10 days in a row without any time off. She knows that if she complains, she'll get kicked to the curb; she's seen it happen to colleagues. This is the state of our "retail" workforce.

With all due respect, please get a slice of reality.

Post Script to my previous comment: i am no longer in my 40s but i have a pre-teen and a teen at home who need every minute of my time. My teen is a special needs child.

In the recession we are weathering, i lost my (full-time) office job and have yet to find another. The recession is not loosening its grip either, at least, not in this region.

The opinion that anyone can get a job is the viewpoint of someone who has not experienced a recession on the other side of 50. I hope you never have to.

I agree Bluejean Baby, jobs like that are rare. Retail is certainly not suitable. Part-time office work can be. I once had an admin assistant (I'm an engineer and was drowning under a sea of paperwork on a major project, so the project manager got me some help) and she worked 5 hours 3 days a week. Before having her kids she had worked in executive roles, so she was a godsend and did an excellent job, and as long as things got done it didn't matter to me if she wanted to swap Thursday for Friday, none of it was *that* time-critical. But you couldn't live on that.

The only articles I ever see written on women successfully getting a well-paying job with flexible hours so they can manage it around their kids seem to be journalists - writing about how they work from home and set their own hours.

Also, good luck with the job hunting.

I just got remarried, and I am the one with the major assets. We signed a prenup, so my children's interests will be protected, but I have also known my husband over 3 yrs, and see how fair he is in every situation, including the breakup of a previous relationship. So, I have faith that he would be fair to me. It really helps to avoid a lot of these situations if you know who you are marrying.

That said, I also believe that contributions within a marriage are not all monetary. For instance, I just bought us a house. It was all my money used for the purchase, but I put it in both our names because he will be the one helping to pay the expenses, handling the repairs and landscaping for many years to come.

It's a risk. He can walk right now and screw me out of a substantial amount of money, but you've got to go into marriage with a 50/50, shared mindset, even when you're the one with the most to lose. Perhaps especially so. I was on the other side the equation, married to someone who thought everything was "his"...no matter how long we'd been together or how many financial decisions I'd been a part of. Trust me, that is a relationship killer.

I don't have a problem with may / december romances, but draw the line when teenagers are involved. This woman is a pervert and probably a little crazy. She'd better hope that this kid doesn't wise up and have her prosecuted for statutory rape. That's what happened to a guy that I used to work with. He seduced some young girl and they lived together for several years. But once she was old enough to recognize what he'd done, and who he was, she turned on him and had him arrested.

She'd better hope that this kid doesn't wise up and have her prosecuted for statutory rape. That's what happened to a guy

Yeah, that could really happen to the LW. In some alternate universe where sex offenses are dealt with in a neutral manner, at least.

Age of consent is 16 in many states, is it not? 25 - 6 = 19 - that gives at least a full year even if he is in a state where it's 18. The guy was likely old enough to be of sound, adult mind, so I'm not inclined to impose judgment on the age issue like others here - once you're 18, you are considered an adult responsible for your decisions.

I will impose judgment on her apparent stupidity in her decision making about her life, on the other hand :/ Left a great 20-yr relationship for this? Letting him fool around with TWO women? LW I don't know what you're doing but it's not rational and isn't likely to lead to happiness and fulfillment.

I am told to get a clue about reality? Not that it makes what I say more valid, but I note that I have worked for decades, since I was 13, and I have done jobs ranging from paperboy, to factory line worker, to toilet cleaner to Fortune 500 professional employee. I still speak daily to people who employ many employees as business owners and managers. I have worked for others and I have worked for myself.

After that, I don't know everything, but I have some familiarity with finding and keeping a job. I also have some familiarity with how employers think about employees.

And here is something I believe, based on my prior experience: when people hire you, don't expect them to tailor the position to your needs, not even to the extent required by various government regulations if you are a protected class. Good employers want employees who can and will do the job as described, not the job as desired by the candidate. Employees who fail to understand that simple dynamic usually lose their job, and cannot even understand why.

If the jobs you can do (i.e., jobs for which people would hire you, not necessarily the ones you desire), won't give you the hours or the pay you want, you probably need make your own work, because you are a mismatch with employers' perceived needs. In short, you are valuing your own lifestyle/pay preferences higher than an employer's wants/needs. Fine. But again, that is on you, not the employers who avoid you; employers are not obligated to tailor positions to suit your needs.

So, buy a lawn mower, print come flyers, and start your lawn cutting service. Walk dogs. Offer your service to other service providers who have too much work and need your skills temporarily. Or do any number of things I have done, or seen plenty of people do in order to get back on their feet after their skills became obsolete or their business collapsed.

But if you complain that employers won't hire people for enough pay, or that employers will not accomodate people's idiosyncratic schedules, well, the problem is not the employers. The problem is those people haven't got skills employers will pay them for in high wages or flexible schedules.

That circumstance, where the prospective employee is a price-taker in wages and schedule, is largely the result of the mix of talent and human capital the employee brings to a given labor market. That is not the employers' fault.

If someone didn't spend a better part of their adult life assiduously developing workplace skills and competencies, they should not be surprised at all to find their workplace skills are not valued or sought after beyond a commodity-level pricing band.

What makes it more difficult still is that older people tend to not be able to develop the necessary skills to create, own and operate their own business. They either developed that skill in their 20s and 30s, or not. (The way it is developed, paradoxically, is usually working for someone else and watching them do it. SAHMs miss that training too.)

That is a tough lesson to learn in your 40s, which is why I explain it to younger people when I get the chance, and warn them about the pernicious effects of dropping out to care for kids for a decade or so: increasingly economic dependency on the working spouse each year.

"She's 50 yrs old and has been out of the workforce for 20+ years, raising kids and supporting her husband's medical career."

If a woman's assistance to her husband's medical career was THAT substantial, she would be able to put it on her resume and it would be a marketable skillset. If it's not, then either it can't have been THAT hard a job, or we're mainly talking about domestic 'mom' work.

It's up to each individual to make sure they keep their skills sharp enough for the market. Ironically, a mom who does this works twice as hard as one who only does the 'mom' job, and yet she is the one that then gets doubly shafted when the court says 'well you have work skills, so you aren't entitled to much'. The one who only does the mom work gets a double benefit .. first they have an easier life than the mom who also kept their skills sharp, and then a second time when they tell the court 'well I have no skills' and the court says 'shame, here, have your ex-husband's money'. My mom worked on and developed all sorts of skills throughout her life.

"But if dad was typically working longer hours and mom was the parent primarily picking the kids up from school, making them snacks, dinner, running them to ball practice"

Oh please. Both my parents worked. We were taught from literally as soon as we were physically capable, to make our own snacks for school (or given a bit of cash to buy snacks, and anyway schools serve food), and we were very capable to either walk or ride our bicycles to school. I actually remember my parents many times making it clear and stating outright that 'they aren't our personal lift service'. Where there's a will there's a way, we got where we wanted and needed to be. And not only did this teach us to be more independent and hardworking, but it also allowed them to save enough to send us to university. Parents aren't "required" to make parenting as hard a job as most parents deliberately make it, though I understand there is social pressure to do so, peer pressure is supposed to be something teens succumb to not adults. You don't have to be "super-mom". I will make sure my wife is looked after and that there is a plan for her to be OK if we split or something happens to me, but I will do it on my terms.

"and we were very capable to either walk or ride our bicycles to school."

And oh yes, we had lift clubs. Don't people do that anymore? We were not from a wealthy neighborhood as kids and many others 'lift pooled' but our parents built wealth over their lifetime through hard work and frugality.

"But if dad was typically working longer hours and mom was the parent primarily picking the kids up from school, making them snacks, dinner, running them to ball practice"

We also had to help make dinner to help my mom cope. Four kids - so from early, we each had to learn to make at least one dish, and then took turns making dinner each night, one night a week. So by the time we were all teenagers my mom only cooked two or three nights a week. Kids have hands too, why should mom do everything. Not once did we feel sorry for ourselves, this was just normal to us. My point is, I don't agree with moms who turn themselves into martyrs by trying to be super-moms doing everything for their kids and then using that as an argument for why they didn't develop marketable skills. If my mom could raise four kids and have a job and still keep and develop marketable skills ... well I don't know, maybe she was a 'supermom' and I just don't know it.

Note that LW says she left a "20 year relationship", not a 20 year marriage, and my guess from the word choice is that she was never married in the first place. So the speculation as to whether or not she's living off her husband's alimony may be a moot point.

Shannon,

I think you are being far too literal here. I agree that it is possible that the "20 year relationship" was not a marriage, but think about the other details, shall we?

This woman is "almost 50"... so let's guess that she is 48 for the sake of this argument. She has been in the relationship with the 25 year old for 6 years which means it started when she was around 42. She left a 20 year relationship to be with him which means the previous relationship started around age 22 in the year 1963.

I would argue that the vast majority of "relationships" that women got involved in for the long term at age 22 back in 1963 were marriages.

As such I think it is a completely reasonable interpretation to suggest that she was previously married to the guy in the 20 year relationship. It could certainly be wrong, but I think you're interpretation is less likely given what else we know.

If the LW had been talking about a 20 year relationship that started at age 42 in the year 1985 I would find your interpretation to be more compelling.

Correction... this is why I don't do math this early in the morning... the long term marriage started in 1985 when she was 22.

It's too bad that I didn't look at these comments earlier. I doubt if any of you arguing my marital/financial status will return here to read what I am going to reveal for you. When I met my current boyfriend he was 20 and I was 39. We moved in together after only 6 months of dating. As for my previous relationship, yes, I was married for 16 years and dated the same man 4 years before that. I supported my husband for the first 10 years of our marriage while he completed both a Ph.D. and an M.D. and a post-doc. I bought our first home which was a single wide trailer and paid the bills by bar tending. We lived in that trailer for ten years before upgrading to a larger trailer for which I paid half. When we divorced, my husband INSISTED on paying alimony for 8 years, or half the years we were married. I only accepted the minimum of the range he offered. The mediator thought I was nuts for accepting as little as I did since my husband earns a generous salary($250,000/yr) and she urged me to seek separate counsel. I refused because I believed that he did not owe me anything because we had a pretty even partnership. Even though I paid most of the bills at the beginning of our relationship, my husband was very generous to me in other ways. When he finally was able to support me, he did. I don't blame those of you who think I am crazy for staying with my current boyfriend, but I don't feel ready to leave just yet. I'm a pretty independent person who is not afraid of being alone. Leaving will happen. Just not now.

BTW. I do have marketable skills. While working as a bartender I earned both bachelor's and master's degrees.