#38 legally speaking her assets are his, and vice versa. Oh, and congrats on getting identity fraud confused with 'stealing'.

Fraud is a specialisation of "Stealing" PS. No, marriage doesn't automatically make everything belong to both parties, good luck finding a woman who will agree with you.

In many locations, community property laws only apply after a predetermined amount of time, if at all. Not all states in the union are community property states, BTW. And even under the legal rules and constraints of marriage, I cannot apply for credit cards, loans, or open accounts in my husband's name without a power of attorney...and I live in a community property state. Nor can I dip into his personal bank account (we have a joint, and each have our own individual accounts too) without express consent and legal documentation from him. Identity theft/fraud do indeed fall under the classification of theft, though identity theft has become so pervasive and prevalent that it is likely to be re-examined in many states, particularly with the advent and explosion of the internet.

"PS. No, marriage doesn't automatically make everything belong to both parties, good luck finding a woman who will agree with you." You're right - the woman thinks everything she owns it all and he owns nothing. That's why they think that they're entitled to everything in a divorce and the man should get nothing. Which is a pretty good reason to never get married on it's own, not to mention that I've yet to meet a sane girl who was actually capable of caring about someone other than herself....

youve probably just had bad luck in meeting ppl

Or you're in denial about how girls truly are. I've dated more girls (of lots of different types) than I can count and I've yet to meet one that actually gives a damn about someone but herself.

My boyfriend's ex-wife opened multiple credit cards in his name as accounts for both of them. It's not that hard when she was getting the mail with the applications in it. He didn't find out about the credit cards till their divorce. The divorce was fairly amicable and they decided each person's debt was their own. Soooo, he got stuck with all the cards. This was all because she stayed at home and he wanted her to feel useful, so she was in charge of the finances, lol. I say, screw that! No one is allowed to be in charge of my money unless I am involved! Right now, most of the finances in our relationship go through me, but that's because I already had the apartment and everything else before he got there. Im not very good not being in charge of my own stuff! lol

Maybe you should stop bitching and generalizing, it's no ones fault but your own that you keep dating bitchy girls.

It's not generalizing. Even the sweetest girl alive is a bitch. Sisters, mothers, and grandmothers included.

No, people just suck in general. Finding guys who aren't complete and utter jackasses is like looking for a specific grain of sand. Maybe you'll find that grain of sand if you're lucky, but it's a one-in-a-googol chance.

Girls only want to date jackasses - THAT's the problem. Guys (normally) look for nice girls to date while girls look for the biggest asshole they can. That's why nice guys always get screwed because girls have no interest in a guy that will actually treat them well. For some messed up reason, girls LIKE to be treated like crap.

You're right, Totenglocke, we're all unsalvageable bitches. This is why you should go out and have hawt, mad sex with a bunch of loving, selfless men. And videotape it.

Sorry, Totenglocke. If you've dated more girls than you can count and all the relationships failed, it's you. Not them.

Yes it is "me" in the sense that I refuse to put up with a girl with a bad attitude who thinks guys exist solely to do girls bidding.

Dude, I already told you how to remedy that. DON'T RUIN THIS FOR ME!

I'm fixing to get married and we've already decided to keep separate bank accounts. Therefore, no matter if married or not, he WOULD indeed be stealing from me if he was to take MY money.

pendantic, if you are in the U.S. look around at the mall: there are women 18, 19, 20 who look 15/16 years old and there are 15/16 year olds who look 18/19/20. As I've said, CP is wrong and hurts innocent children, but states that have a death penalty spend between $1 million and $3 million per accused to make sure all avenues are exhausted: accused sex offenders get a b*ttload less money on making sure they are actually guilty. Being judge and jury just because you are mad (someone hurt you) isn't fair nor right. Do I support pedo's? In NO WAY! I just fear how unfair our judicial system is, especially when it comes to sex-offender convictions. If you accidentally run into a picture or two of what appears to be 16/17 year old CP, they can arrest you, and in most cases convict you, innocent or not. Just that picture showing up on your screen, with no intent, is prison. That's a scary thought - that any infraction, even totally unintentional can be heavily punished. Someone could plant one or two and you are screwed.

Sorry about that xtyna, you were clearly correct that he was into CP and flushing him was the best thing you could do. I didn't say I doubt: just be sure. Those who deserve it (your ex) certainly deserve what they get (and maybe more) but there's so many cases where the courts lean on the side of 'safety' that we have innocent people in the U.S. being punished for being in the wrong place with the wrong person. CP is wrong, no if's ands or buts. I'm just asking that everyone be sure (As sure as you were....) before they ruin another person's life cause "well I thought she was 16....." Like murder, charges for CP are for life, guilty or not. People don't forgive even if the person is acquitted.

#50, I don't think people are doubting per se; if a film actually stars a 15 or 16 year old, it is child pornography. If a film stars an 18 (or older) actresss that looks much younger, and she plays the role of a 15 or 16 year old girl, it is not child pornography. It is an important distinction, and that's what people are trying to say to the OP. Now, that being said, if it is evidently child pornography (i.e., it features very obviously and visibly young children), it needs to be brought to authorities immediately. And while distasteful to many, there is nothing actually illegal about viewing pornography where of-age actresses portray younger girls...hence the myriad spate of people encouraging OP to ensure that it is "actual" child ****.

inadmissible testimony?? not here its not.. if she used his computer (most people have one each) and saw it she can tell who ever she wants. walk into the police station and tell the she found "xyz" and sign a report. job done.

i know of a case where that has happened and destroyed the guys life :( he is in qld and no matter where he goes it will follow him for he rest of his life.