Live data from Hacker News

China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

nytimes.com

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#91
post #90
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Books, Music, Movies, TV, etc are all treated as fungible commodities due to the wide range of options. In much the same way that Meat and Coal have a wide range of quality and unique traits, but again the market has no problem dealing in bulk purchases. Granted, this often breaks down such as with the last mortgage crash but no abstraction is actually true.

What? No, nobody treats movies or music as fungible. Hence the extreme importance of A&R's, for example. And when you buy beef in bulk, that doesn't mean that they'll send you whatever meat they have on hand, nor is that what 'fungible' even means.

Fungible is not some abstract ideal it's just a reference to how things are being treated.

Electronic money, Stock etc are defined as Fungible because two people can exchange tokens of ownership in the same thing without impacting anything. The same is 'said' about crude oil and other physical thing even though they are not actually identical they are treated as such.

However, the same effect happens when company's own huge set's of IP. That IP is treated as an income stream and money does not care about it's origin. The reverse even happens with money. Coins as collectors items are independent from there nominal value.

For a back and forth example. Two Kids might trade 1's because the Serial Numbers of one of the bills contain 666 which lowers the value to one and increases it to another. Later if the bill is spent it could go though a hundred transactions where nobody cares about the SN.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#92
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that marriages in capitalist societies are inherently unstable. If rights are equal, then women are incentivised to divorce to "cash in" the value of their husband. If the rights are unequal, then men are incentivised to divorce to "trade up" to a more attractive wife. It's only agrarian societies that manage to make husband and wife dependent enough on each other that divorce is a bad option for everybody.

This is where lawyers help! By soaking up all the marital funds in a divorce, lawyers remove the profit incentive of leaving a partner.

That's a pretty dark take on the situation, but knowing a few people who have gone through divorce, pretty accurate.

Didn't stop them in the end though.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

surely the one child policy will give women an upper hand in the coming 20 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/F...

All things being equal, yes women would have the upper hand. But cultural norms warp things a little more. The cultural tendency is for a man to marry down, and a women marry up in social level terms. Which means there's a layer of women near the top who can't find a husband. Particularly in professional careers. And the lowest social rung of men have no women to marry down. This asymmetry means there's a band of pow…

China's "leftover women: [the phrase] is part of an orchestrated state campaign to push “high-quality” women into marriage and having children. The phenomenon of “leftover women” was actually created by the Chinese government through a “very aggressive state media campaign.”

The problem has been named and created, whereas the initial reality was different.

http://xpatnation.com/in-the-new-china-educated-unmarried-le...

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That limits your choices quite a bit. For example there are a large number of attractive women with terrible incomes and/or no savings, for which "scoring a successful man" may be a "valid" mating strategy

If you select someone as your mate who is mostly interested in you for your money, then you should expect that they will take a big chunk of your money if you divorce. I don't mean this in a "you deserve it" kind of way, but in a "this is the relationship you agreed to" way. If your mate is with you for your money and you are with them for their youth and looks, then assuming you stay with them long enough that after…

You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you.

But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not.

And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#95
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you select someone as your mate who is mostly interested in you for your money, then you should expect that they will take a big chunk of your money if you divorce. I don't mean this in a "you deserve it" kind of way, but in a "this is the relationship you agreed to" way. If your mate is with you for your money and you are with them for their youth and looks, then assuming you stay with them long enough that after…

You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you. But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not. And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.

I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex.

This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whine about fairness. This isn't a problem with the courts being "unfair" so much as a problem with people being petty.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#96
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you. But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not. And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.

I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex. This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whin…

I agree.

She doesn't have to be a gold digger to take half your money because the laws still applies regardless of her gold-digging status.

The proper way to handle this is to marry some who makes the same or more than you.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#97
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex. This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whin…

I agree. She doesn't have to be a gold digger to take half your money because the laws still applies regardless of her gold-digging status. The proper way to handle this is to marry some who makes the same or more than you.

Or just accept that in a divorce, things will be split more or less equally in the absence of a prenup.

I make more than my wife. If we got divorced, her getting half the assets would not be the biggest problem.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#98
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. She doesn't have to be a gold digger to take half your money because the laws still applies regardless of her gold-digging status. The proper way to handle this is to marry some who makes the same or more than you.

Or just accept that in a divorce, things will be split more or less equally in the absence of a prenup. I make more than my wife. If we got divorced, her getting half the assets would not be the biggest problem.

It's up to each person to decide what they find acceptable and act accordingly.

Re: China’s Cheating Husbands Fuel an Industry of ‘Mistress Dispellers’

#99
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that only gold diggers will take half your money when they divorce you. But that's not true. Under United States laws, all women will take half your money when they divorce you. Doesn't matter that they're gold diggers or not. And also, most women marries up (marry a guy who makes more than her), not down.

I'm not assuming anything. If you are worried about your spouse taking "your money", then don't marry someone who isn't bringing in a similar amount of money. It's not complex. This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd. Get a prenup or marry someone with as much or more money. If you marry someone with less money (i.e. someone "marrying up") then you are knowingly "marrying down". Don't whin…

> Get a prenup

Always a pleasant conversation to start... ;)

> or marry someone with as much or more money.

This strategy works around an artificial limitation imposed by the law which limits your dating pool quite a bit, and overly penalizes the successful. Of 20-odd women I've dated, exactly one made more money than me.

> This whining about women taking "your money" in a divorce is absurd

In medicine, when we evaluate treatments, we base it on statistical efficacy. In law, when we evaluate guilt, we base it on evidence. When determining safe traffic laws (such as requiring seatbelts, we look at accident statistics. But for some reason, in marriage, a high failure rate is always "someone else's problem with commitment". (Along the same lines, I suppose fatality rates from accidents where seat belts weren't used are "someone else's problem with driving"!) No one stops to think "ok so maybe marriage itself may be the problem that needs some tweaking", and evaluates marriage changes/expectations based on empirical efficacy (lasting marriages). In the meantime, women profit off the pains of sorry men in failed relationships. Why is that?

Post reply on HN