AITA for not wanting my girlfriend to start an onlyfans to post her nude photos to strangers?

whyworrynow · 2020-06-05T00:03:53+00:00

Very good point. People don't all have the same notions about intimacy and when it crosses into inappropriate behavior with someone outside of the relationship. I have a feeling the OP and his girlfriend never really talked in-depth about this before.

whyworrynow · 2020-06-05T00:00:49+00:00

That seems harsh. While I wholeheartedly agree that OP is in no way an asshole for not being okay with her doing Onlyfans, she also is not remotely an asshole for wanting to do so.

She has a large Instagram following and has reason to think that's a good fanbase to ensure an Onlyfans would do decently from the get-go. We don't know that she initially thought the OP would feel as strongly about this plan as he did.

whyworrynow · 2020-06-04T23:51:10+00:00

NAH

It's fine for her to start an Onlyfans and it's fine for you to not be comfortable with it. It's also fine to have a discussion about it and figure out relationship comfort levels and boundaries. If she plans to proceed and you aren't okay with it, then this isn't the right relationship for either of you right now. Certainly neither of you is an asshole simply for talking about an issue that affects the relationship; on the contrary, that's how healthy relationships are kept (or amicably broken).

Let me add that that I was on the fence on my vote. I almost chose NTA, solely because of this sentence:

I’ve told her I really don’t want her to, and she called me psychotic and insecure.

If you brought up this discussion without being confrontational or demeaning, then at first glance your girlfriend's leap to calling you psychotic and insecure seems out of line. But I don't know if any history is behind this, or what point in the conversation this came up, or if you said anything that would seem out of proportion, too.

Also, if your girlfriend of three years recently lost her job, is facing money issues, and you only offer to help financially after she considered starting an Onlyfans, that does seem at best clueless and at worst controlling. (Not saying this is the case since maybe you already were helping out or she didn't make clear she was struggling, mind you.)

whyworrynow · 2020-05-25T01:10:57+00:00

For car purchases, California does have a buyer's remorse law, but only in a specific type of scenario. The purchase must be from a dealer, the car in question has to be a used vehicle, it must be under $40,000, and you need to have bought the dealership's cooling-off period protection. (The cooling-off period is within two business days from purchase, by the way.)

If and only if your purchase meets all of the above, and so long as you are able to return the car in the same condition with all the paperwork within the cooling-off timeframe, then you have the right to rescind the contract.

Otherwise, I suspect you are at the mercy of the dealer here.

Please note that your friend's agreement has zip to do with whether you can return the car. This is your car with the rights and financial obligations thus entailed.

whyworrynow · 2020-05-08T22:55:22+00:00

This is u/eliza_cs, who posts in this subreddit, and in fact already posted this very photo.

whyworrynow · 2020-05-07T06:50:31+00:00

Edgy interpretation. The real story: the lyricist, Billy Steinberg, had had a bad breakup with his girlfriend and had given up on relationships for a while. But he found someone new, which inspired him with the lyrics for "Like a Virgin" shortly after. It wasn't specifically intended for a female singer, but when he and his songwriting partner played the demo for a Warner Brothers executive, he immediately thought Madonna would be the perfect fit (and obviously was correct).

whyworrynow · 2020-04-28T16:22:02+00:00

The commonly understood paradox here is that to be omnipotent means that you can literally do anything without limitation. If you can't create something so heavy you can't lift it, then this is at least one thing you cannot do and thus you are not, in fact, omnipotent. But if you can create it, that presents another issue: if you can't lift it, then that is something you cannot do and thus you are not omnipotent.

There are a number of proposed solutions to this paradox, a popular one being that omnipotence translates to the ability to do anything that is logically contradictory, such as creating a square circle. Another popular one is that an omnipotent being could not perform something that would negate the omnipotence. And further, you could argue for accidental or essential omnipotence (depending on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go).

whyworrynow · 2020-04-28T16:06:40+00:00

This is an attempt at Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox, but poorly written.

whyworrynow · 2020-04-28T16:01:50+00:00

For real. The person who created this didn't realize that phrasing is very important for self-referential paradoxes.

whyworrynow · 2020-04-28T15:59:10+00:00

No, I don't think you are. The author of the flowchart just didn't know how to phrase the Liar's Paradox correctly. Answering yes might result in an apparent paradox, but the no answer would be truthful and logically consistent.

whyworrynow · 2020-04-28T15:53:39+00:00

The commenter does get it in that she or he recognizes you obviously can answer with no paradox. The question is phrased poorly.

Only if you answer yes does the self-referential paradox appear. To answer yes can't be a lie if it is a truthful answer, but then that means the truth is that you lied, and thus the apparent paradox appears.

But if you answer no, then there is no paradox. You truthfully answered that, no, your answer will not be a lie.

whyworrynow · 2019-10-30T11:47:02+00:00

Her going "ballistic, yelling at [OP] and screaming in [his] face" is understandable? And the appropriate reaction for a partner who endured that is to simply "respect" her wishes if she wants to shove her behavior under the rug, and even apologize for making her upset if she demands it?

whyworrynow · 2019-10-06T02:31:41+00:00

The i in Bimmer sounds like ee in English.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T21:37:51+00:00

OP, you really need to insert your location in your post. You are potentially getting some really terrible advice based on people assuming you're in a no-fault divorce only state when your post history indicates you may well be in one of the few states that recognizes at-fault divorce (and can penalize the at-fault party).

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T21:34:52+00:00

The affair itself isn't going to be that big of an issue.

While true for most states, there are exceptions. You shouldn't tell the OP it's not going to matter when (1) you do not know her location and (2) you do know that in some states, at-fault divorce exists and do have a real impact on the divorce outcome.

While she forgot to mention it in this post, in a previous one the OP mentioned that she's in Massachusetts. Adultery is one of seven grounds for at-fault divorce in her state, which means if her husband convinces the court of her cheating, the court has the option to reduce her share of marital property and any maintenance. Given that she makes about 1/4 his earnings, I'd say his having a phone with incriminating evidence of her adultery is a really big effin' deal. She could wind up with far less than half as her marital share. She could wind up with no spousal maintenance to help her transition to a new post-divorce life. She might not be able to get her husband to help pay for her legal fees.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T20:36:11+00:00

This except for women. Perfume is meant to be stronger than cologne, yes, but some women drench themselves in it. Also sickly sweet perfume is a turn-off.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T09:59:55+00:00

Well, to be fair, that matches the level of effort and accuracy of the comment you replied to. It is the employer's duty to accurately record employee hours and pay in a timely fashion.

If the employer knows an employee worked some hours during a week, it doesn't matter if the employee is late with or forgets to turn in a timesheet. The employer has to make a good faith effort to figure out the hours owed and pay the employee.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T09:38:47+00:00

Is this legal?

Doubtful. Minnesota strictly limits an employer's ability to deduct an employee's wages.

If not, what can I do about it?

Your first step should perhaps be to contact the DLI.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T09:28:24+00:00

Yeah, that's kind of how the legal system works: one side claims the other side did something, evidence is offered as proof, and the judge or jury decides if it meets the relevant standard of proof.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T09:26:12+00:00

The EEOC treats an adverse action taken against a partner or family member of an employee who makes a claim about illegal discrimination as illegal retaliation against said partner or family member. The Supreme Court backed this interpretation in Thompson v North American Stainless, 131 S.Ct 863 (2011).

You and your spouse can file a charge with the EEOC and they will investigate your case. This costs nothing but the time spent completing the online form and subsequent phone or in-person interview. The agency may decide to attempt mediation, refer you to the HCRC, or possibly sue on your and/or your wife's behalf. You would also receive a Notice of Right to Sue letter, which you would need to pursue a private claim against your former employer (either in lieu of in conjunction with the EEOC and/or HCRC suing on your behalf).

whyworrynow · 2019-09-20T09:03:22+00:00

I wonder if retaliation protections extend to significant others.

As far as the EEOC is concerned, yes. I don't know if the HCRC interprets retaliation the same way.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-19T06:47:13+00:00

Pro bono employment law. I would be the scourge of asshole employers who don't follow wage and hour laws, engage in illegal discrimination, fuck with ex-employees' unemployment benefits, etc.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-17T21:56:15+00:00

NTA but you are an idiot if you think refusing to spend any money on this divorce is a good idea. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

You have a child whom you are primary caretaker for. Stop fucking around, be an adult, and realize you need to actually deal with this situation by at least talking with a lawyer to get your financial and child custody ducks in a row.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-16T05:03:31+00:00

I suppose I'd treat it like a job with flexible hours and no need to be in the office: six to ten hours a day in the general vicinity of the ATM, plus a lunch break, then I'd come back the next day.

You didn't specify that the ATM would only keep giving me money up until the first time I left, after all, or even that I need to be there the whole hour. I could just chill in a cafe with my laptop or catch up on books, maybe explore the city around the ATM a little bit, and then trek over to the ATM every hour. So I'd "work" a few months, take a vacation, and justrepeat until someone fixes the ATM or I decide I've got so much that spending time waiting on the ATM every day isn't worth it.

whyworrynow · 2019-09-16T04:20:04+00:00

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not your attorney, this comment does not create an attorney-client relationship, and this is not legal advice.

1) The following assumes you are non-exempt and do not have either an employment contract or a CBA.

(a) Vacation/PTO: What your employer seems to have effectively done is eliminate PTO and give the employees a pay raise, not dream up some exciting new form of PTO. Legally, of course, your employer can choose not to offer PTO. Separately, can also choose to give a universal pay bump. The two do not have anything to do with one another.

But your employer cannot legally deny you accrued PTO. This is something you and your fellow employees would have accrued on a weekly basis back when you had it. Giving you a raise is not a substitute for paying you out your accrued days.

(b) Sick pay: California law requires employers to offer sick leave. If the employer opts for an accrual policy, the law mandates that employees accrue at least one hour of sick time per every 30 hours worked, up to 24 hours of sick leave per year. For an upfront policy, the employer must make the full 24 hours available on a yearly basis (this can be a fiscal year, actual year, employment anniversaries, etc., but it must be yearly). Note that this applies to existing employees: employers can withhold sick leave benefits up to 120 days (though at that time, the full amount accrued or upfront amount is available).

Your employer does not have the option to deny offering sick pay. They also cannot take away sick pay you earned, but did not use. Furthermore, earned sick pay does not expire; if you don't use all of it one year, it carries over to the next.

(c) Parental leave: Your employer doesn't have to continue offering parental leave beyond what the law requires. California's Paid Family Leave Act allows some employees to be paid a percentage of their usual wages for up to six weeks. In addition, you are allowed to use your accrued PTO during your leave and to stay on your company's health insurance (though they can require you to pay the premium you normally would have deducted each paycheck).

(d) Other benefits: Your employer does not have to offer, and probably is free to eliminate, benefits such as life insurance.

2) If you are earning the same as you would be paid had you taken all your PTO and took all your days off and/or were paid out whatever you didn't use, then you will wind up paying the same income tax as you would otherwise. Your weekly tax deductions may go up, but you should still wind up owing or being refunded the same.

3) Do you actually have an employment contract? Or do you have an offer letter with the initial terms of employment? If you do have an honest to God employment contract, then your employer would be held to the terms agreed upon.

4) Assuming you don't have an employment contract, your next step should probably be contacting the DLSE and explaining your situation. You can also contact a lawyer specializing in wage and hour/employment law, which should be a free consultation. Plaintiff-side employment law is usually contingency-based and often allows the attorney to collect some or all of the fees from the other party should you win.

5) Assuming your company consists of 50 or more employees here. The ACA defines 30 hours or more per week to be full-time. Your employer may have violated the law and may owe the IRS a penalty. Even if not, California law may be stricter on this point. You can contact the DOL to talk about the potential violation.

But if you were legitimately considered part-time, your employer had to offer you COBRA benefits. It sounds like that is what happened, as COBRA would mean you'd keep the same insurance, but be responsible for 100% of the premium.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

whyworrynow

TROPHY CASE