So she’s a trainsexual
@Coozination, I award you with today’s terrible but great pun trophy, enjoy
@Coozination, shes white people.
@Coozination, or Floridian, but probably both.
@Coozination, yeah she's trains
@Coozination, a product of social engineering
@Coozination, booooo! ...Have an upvote
Did she have mental sex with it in front of everyone? Who officiated this wedding? She waited 36 years to marry a train station? Did the train station propose to her? Can she get pregnant from the train station and give birth to a caboose? I have so many questions and don't want any of the answers
@George manBush, I think you know the answer to at least a few of those
@George manBush, I'm just glad you're asking the right questions
@George manBush, fun fact a lady married the berlin wall
@eleven, and the Eiffel Tower
@sgtpepper47, at least that one is still standing
@eleven, Fully erect you might say
Looking like that, mental sex is all she's gonna get.
She took it up the caboose
If she gets a divorce, does she get half?
@riidii, *marries a guy, divorces him, takes half his body*
@I Are Lebo, No. No. she gets half of the people in the train station.
@I Are Lebo, This is similar to a discussion I was having with a priest about the Catholic Church considering letting priests be married. Since the church provides room, board, and income for the priests, the question was how would divorces be settled? Most of what a priest has belongs to the church. But any line could easily be blurred. All seriousness aside, that’s what I found funny about this situation; what exactly would be her half in a divorce?
@riidii, what bothers me the most is the assumption that in a divorce, the wife is entitled to compensation. That’s what just really twists me up. There’s a blanket assumption still being made that a wife is subsisting on her husband’s income to make ends meet.
Nowadays this is mostly just entitlement.
@I Are Lebo, I think we are still transitioning from recent history (just this last century) when women didn't have rights and were still effectively, if not literally, considered property. There is still to this day a burden placed on society when a guy divorces his wife leaving her with seven children (a slight exaggeration, but not unrealistic, to illustrate my point) with the responsibilities of both financial and physical care. Even leaving any type of socialism out of the picture, the burden is still transferred to society via any group of people so desperate for survival will resort to extreme measures, such as crime. In both cases, we end up with the state having to look out for the welfare of the family, either through social programs or prison. I don't want to pay for that guy to just go around making babies without responsibility. None of this applies to gold digger scenarios.
@riidii, I don’t think that’s a realistic view of history. Women didn’t just recently gain rights, they’ve had most of the same rights (and few of the same responsibilities) as men for over a century. There is a LOT of misinformation about this going around.
In Canada and the USA, women have had the right to own land for over a century, they’ve had the right to vote since 1920. Women were NOT considered property legally, not in the west. You only have to look at laws regarding spousal abuse. In the 1800s, the penalty for a husband found to be abusing his wife was public flogging, while the punishment for a wife abusing her husband was for the HUSBAND to be publicly humiliated.
This is a serious problem where people just assume victim hood to women without understanding history. There are countless cases of men being unable to support themselves because of crippling child support payments, and yet even in cases where the woman was well off before they got married, they are the only
party whose quality of life is considered by the courts.
Then there’s the fact that even still today, women can opt out of parenthood and relinquish all responsibility to their offspring, yet men do not have that right. Even if a man signs away all parental responsibility, they can still be successfully sued for child support payments, while being allowed no visitation rights or other privileges in response to the responsibility.
The system is broken. The trend is very clear over the last century of women fighting for rights while abandoning responsibility. It even extends to the draft. The right to vote was for centuries tied to the responsibility for fire and military service, yet the women’s suffrage act was completely opposed to any women serving as either militia, military, or fire service, all the while claiming victimhood in the face of a) being treated with leniency from judicial processing, b) being the primary source of alimony pay, and c) being exempt from army service.
@I Are Lebo, I certainly could be wrong and claim no expertise. Still, even the idea many have of the woman taking the man’s last name is arguably a form of dominance if not a remnant of ownership. I would still rather have the primary income provider pay to support the separated family than have society shoulder that burden. I’m pretty sure the primary income provider is still often the man, but each case must be considered independently and not based on statistical averages.
@riidii, taking your husbands name is optional, and absolutely does not constitutive ownership. That’s a ridiculous claim.
It’s not about society taking a burden. If you are in a relationship with someone, you share the lifestyle burden. If you are no longer in a relationship with someone, you should no longer care about their lifestyle. I understand that with children it’s complicated, but my blood boils with the situations where a woman marries a wealthy man, leaves him, and then is somehow entitled to keep living the high life on his dime. It makes no goddamn sense.
She gets a train run on her
That's because the station couldn't say no..
You can’t marry something that doesn’t consent to being married and inanimate objects can’t give consent.
What about Netflix’s The King tho👀