Tag Archives: law

Living as a Chattel

Freedom not ownership

The other day I realised that living as a Chattel gave me certain freedoms, ironically as a Chattel by definition is being someone’s property/slave. 

Let’s be clear I do not want to be a Chattel and hate this Victorian law that labels me as my ex husbands property until I remarry, he settles or either of us die (although he can do what he likes).

However there are certain perks, the primary one is I don’t have to be anyone else’s chattel, I can not make the same mistake again. No rushing into marriage or co-habitation for me. My codependent and romantic nature cries out to be some bodies ‘the one’, but my chattel status removes my ability to form a committed relationship, so I don’t have to commit, or worry if I’m sure or doing the right thing and neither does a lover. The stakes are so high I can live in a permanent state of never having to risk being owned by anyone else.

I could remarry and lose the stake in a business I helped set up but I’m not going to give away what’s rightfully mine for a marriage that despite my commitment could be thrown away by someone else’s wandering cock, like last time. I don’t have young children and won’t have more, so the need for marriage isn’t there. I admit my conditioned nature of social norms sometimes dreams of marriage and happy ever after but my chattel status squashes that down to an uncomfortable niggle. People change and I’m not sure if I want to or need to take that risk again. My chattel status gives me (and any lover I have) the perfect excuse to never address the future, to live in the moment. 

When your options are reduced life becomes simpler, freedom? Why would I want that? 

marriage with a narcissist

Cohabitation and marriage with a narcissist.

One legal definition of cohabitation is living together as man and wife. So after 25 years of marriage I should be well qualified on what that feels like?

So to me that means a sexless relationship, possibly once or twice a year.

A relationship where I am scared and dominated and kept in my place, a doormat.

It means my cohabitee does whatever he likes, goes away for weeks at a time on ‘boys trips’ that end up in a brothel. Arrives home in the early hours and if I dare to question I’m in the wrong and if I ask again he will be unfaithful as that’s what I deserve for being suspicious.

It means his car is an Aston Martin and top of the range land rover, my car he lends to me is a Clio.

It means he rarely interacts with the children and does not think about their needs.

He doesn’t have any child care responsibilities.

He gets very drunk every Friday night and Saturday night and is too hungover to participate in any weekend family time. If he’s even about.

It means he’s too busy to take phone calls from me or the kids.

It means I am a housekeeper.

A place where I have no financial control.

I was never more alone than when I was married.


So no I do not want to marry or cohabit, I never want to be that person again.

Would you marry again? It’s a feminist issue

Against human rightsWould you marry again? It’s a feminist issue.

I married too young, with no consciousness of the legal contract I was entering. In my simple almost childish romantic youth I thought it was about love, that we were declaring a commitment of love to each other.

I didn’t want the obey words in but had no idea that in the eye of the law what I said was irrelevant. I did not realise I was selling myself as a chattel to this man. Chattel derives from the word cattle, need I say more? I was a moveable possession in law that he took responsibility for. It makes me curious how same sex partnerships will cope with divorce? Will chattel and owner be defined by earning capacity? Or do civil partnerships not have this antiquated law defining them in divorce. If so why can we not have hetro civil partnerships?

Why does it matter? Well apart from human ownership being slavery, it matters in divorce. My ex was given a choice. A final settlement, finishing things nice and cleanly and enabling us both to move on with our lives. Or maintenance payments – effectively an interest free loan with the side effect of him owning me in that should I co habit or remarry he never has to pay the money he owes from the life and business we built together. Guess which my narcisist ex chose?

I don’t believe I had a choice, I could leave with nothing from 25 years of building a life and business together except half the value of our marital home or receive maintenance payments for life that meant I did not have to work on minimum wage. A clean break would have given me the capital to make my own business work for me. Maintenance means a subsistence life, plus what I can earn. I’m in no doubt he could afford the clean break but he wouldn’t give me a clean break. I live in paranoia, it’s in his interest that I die or marry.

I don’t want to be a chattel

David Cameron is going to pay war widows and widowers their pension even if they remarry or cohabit as its ‘just wrong’ not to. I totally agree.

I really hope this changes the law for divorce, that we will no longer be chattels of the highest earner. No more alimony or maintenance where if you remarry you lose the money you were once entitled to.

My ex is very wealthy, and in finance his leaving was planned and the money well hidden. He sees maintenance as an interest free loan that might just disappear and I believe loves the narcissistic control that I can not afford to remarry while he is free to do as he likes.

If marriage was a business contract, I would be entitled to a percentage of the business we built together over 25 years, as he has rights to see the children he once ignored. And I’d be happy to have my share as shares or staged payments without the forbidding of any permanent relationship. ! my human rights and freedom curtailed. In business there is often an exclusion clause forbidding you to set up in business for a certain time and radius after a partnership is ended but in our case he ended the contract, his choice yet I have the exclusion contract.

I do hope in these times of same sex unions and the prime minister seeing sense for pensions in the forces it will be evident as the inevitable divorces happen that this idea of a chattel in divorce, is seen as unfair to human rights.

Chattel definition
Personal property is generally considered property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate.

I would also like to see the law changed that no person can be the chattel of another, do we really want this in marriage today?

beware divorce statistics

Beware of statistics

I was told that
More women initiate divorce than men
80% of children live with mums mostly or exclusively

More women initiate divorce, well on paper maybe – I still thinking sticking your cock in a woman who’s not your wife is initiation of divorce! 

I’m not sure why I initiated the legal divorce and not him, it seemed logical, he had left, he had a new woman and I was just a loose end, I was living on handouts from him with no legal enforcement. He told me it was over, so why would I want to stay married? Maybe there was an element of politeness? He didn’t want to publicly dump me? Or maybe he felt if he initiated the kids would see his guilt? I wonder that I conceded to unreasonable behaviour and not adultery when that’s what he was doing, but I figured adultery was pretty unreasonable behaviour.

Why would I want to be the wife of someone who was fucking someone else, of course I wanted a divorce.

Perhaps it’s more interesting to ask why men don’t initiate divorce more? Because they can appear generous with handouts as it’s not legally binding ( just don’t give her enough to hire a lawyer), because they know that they might get bored of the mistress and the wife is still waiting. Because they really don’t care? So they don’t look guilty of adultery? Because the law is there to protect and they don’t think they are doing any harm? Because they feel above the law? Because they never saw the marriage as a legally binding contract. Because having two women makes them feel like a man?

 

Why do 80% of kids live with mums? Because most dads want it this way! Few men contest (though they moan over a pint) because if they had kids at home they wouldn’t be able to go out for a pint, hold down a full time job, work late, go to the pub after work, play or watch sports at the weekend, get promoted, earn a living wage.

 

Please don’t take statistics at face value, they need to be questioned and the questions need to be questioned. 

post divorce or marriage finance and law

Post marriage/divorce law

Two stories

Story 1
My friend is a 40ish young widow. 5 years on she has found love and would like to marry, she’s religious and it matters to her to say her vows in front of god. However if she marries she becomes her new man’s chattel and as such will lose her widows pension. She can’t afford to marry him, if the marriage failed she would have nothing.

Story 2
My friend is a 40ish divorcee. She married young and she and her husband built a business together, when children came along she was less involved in the business and brought the children up and worked part-time. He left, his choice not hers, breaking their contract. 

In divorce she can not make him sell the business and give her a percentage, what would be the point, so he agreed to pay her each month a fixed figure. He claimed he couldn’t afford a final settlement, it’s his nature to live on loans. But this is classed as spousal maintenance, so she can never remarry or co-habit, while he can, while the business grows from the seeds they set up together she is on a fixed income. Again although divorced she is his chattel until another bloke takes her on.

Law for women stinks, the poorer spouse can not afford to challenge the law, the richer spouse has the law in their favour so they are not going to alter it.