Showing posts with label alimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alimony. Show all posts

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Marriage Sellers Should Start a Fund

Money Clipart Jpg | Clipart library - Free Clipart Images

There are many reasons people are on a marriage strike, whether they call it that or not.

One big reason is the enormous financial costs, limitations, and risks.

Marriage sellers, like Dennis Prager, Matt Walsh, and so many others, are extremely concerned about plummeting marriage rates. That means they should be motivated to actually do something other than lamenting reality.

Here’s one thing they can do.

They can reduce the financial negatives.

Create a fund. Pledge to cover at least the following:
  • The difference between the income the lower earning spouse brings to the marriage and the costs they bring to it
  • Marital counseling/therapy
  • Family law/divorce attorneys, from prenups to separation agreements and divorces
  • The lost income when a someone can’t take a promotion/job because their spouse discourages it
  • Any lost income as a result of the spouse wanting/causing someone to miss work
  • Replacement costs of assets lost in a divorce and reimbursement for relocation 
  • Any alimony/support
  • Reimbursement for paternity fraud costs 
This is just dealing with certain financial concerns. It doesn’t address loss of freedom, loss of sex when someone is expected not to have sex with others but is rejected by their spouse, and countless other reasons people are refusing to sign that terrible state contract.

Come on, marriage advocates! Put your money where your mouth is.

Offer this fund to someone reluctant to marry.

Wednesday, November 05, 2025

A Tale of Two Dear Abby Letters

Male Female Clip Art

Two recent letters to Dear Abby provide lessons for men, especially when taken together.
 
PUT-UPON MOM IN GEORGIA wrote:

My 50-year-old daughter divorced her husband 15 years ago because she thought she could do better.

Unless it would truly be better for her to be alone, you already know that was a stupid move. Did she talk with any other women around that age about how hard it is to find good men?

From what I could see, he was a good husband. She didn't work and lived a comfortable lifestyle with two small children.

How much in assets did that guy lose? How much money went to lawyers? How much alimony did he have to pay? How much time with his kids got taken away from him? How much child support did he have to pay?

Since the divorce, that lifestyle has gone steadily downhill.

Of course!

She can't hold a job because she always finds some way to be offended, and quits.

What must it have been like to live with her?

She had a house my husband and I paid the down payment on, but lost it by making the ownership joint with her abusive second husband.

So she exposed her kids to an abuser?

She no longer receives child support because her children are grown, so her finances are worse than ever. We bought her a car last year because she had no transportation.

All that money should have gone in to trying to get custody of the kids, or helping their first ex son-in-law so do. And isn't child support supposed to be for the children? Why did it stopping hurt her finances if she no longer had to support children? Hmmm...

My question is this: How much should we continue to financially support her?

NO MORE!

Yet again, guys, we see that you should avoid signing a terrible state contract with a woman.

In another letter, PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION wrote:

I'm a 32-year-old woman. My 20s were spent in a serious long-term relationship. It was a lot of firsts for me. After we split, I took a couple of years to sow my wild oats and find out who I am as an individual.

Guys, you want to meet up with women when they are doing that.

I'm now looking for something more than "friends with benefits."

"I've had my fun."

However, the last few men I've met and gone on dates with, as wholesome as they seemed on dating sites (which have been my main source of meeting men), were really just looking for hookups. I want to find a life partner.

What does "life partner" mean? Dose it involve someone doing free work for you? Paying your way through life?

Most men want hookups. Some are willing do more because they think they have to. But most men, especially if they know what they're doing can get hookups. That's the competition you're facing.

I have been chatting with a potentially great guy I met online, and we have a date scheduled. But I'm nervous that when we meet that he'll expect more than a date. I'm over that. Like I said, I want an actual relationship.

You're over that? So you don't like sex?

Can you give me some advice on what to do and say, or not, on a first or second date to help move it in the right direction without scaring the guy away?

That depends if you're going to hold out or not. If you're not going to hold out, don't bother with the speech. If you are going to hold out, be blunt about that, and tell him it's not an invitation for him to try to persuade you differently.

If he sticks around, consider he might be desperate, have little drive, be gay, or otherwise in little interest in grown women. Or, he might be very religious. Are you willing to be with a man who is very religious, and everything that entails?

Pay attention, men.

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 15









Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here and Part 8 here and Part 9 here and Part 10 here. and Part 11 here and Part 12 here and Part 13 here and Part 14 here.


Alimony is rare and/or limited now, and child custody is default 50/50 which means no child support.

A family law attorney publicly asserted this to me. Now why would someone with a financial incentive in people getting married say that?!?

Guess what? Don't enter into a terrible state contract and the risk of alimony is ZERO.

What matters is what the laws say. And the laws allow the higher earning spouse (usually the man), to get screwed over.

I'm glad if the terrible state contract is being enforced to the full extent less often these days, but nobody should ever sign a terrible contract on the chance that it wouldn't actually be enforced against them in a devastating way.

Guys, don't fall for "Trust me!" from someone who has a financial incentive in you making a stupid decision. Don't let misleading weasel words fool you. Don't enable the state to come further into your life and your finances. The terrible state contract isn't necessary.

You can get tagged for child support even if you didn't want children and even if the child was conceived by her having an affair!

Every time she wants to ask for more alimony, every time she wants to change the custody agreement, every time she wants more child support, you're going to have to pay legal costs, and maybe spend time in court.

Today, right now, there are seemingly endless lines of men who are coming out of family courts with terrible outcomes. They are losing their children, homes, possessions, and money.

The best way to win is to not play.

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

Gut Check Time for Men Legally Married to Men

Wedding Ring Clip Art | Clipart library - Free Clipart Images
Many same-sex marriages legally started in June 2015 or in the few years before.

In states like California, the spouse who earns more get tagged with ongoing support payments when the legal marriage ends. For every two days married, it's another day of payments. But at ten years of being legally married, you can be compelled to make payments for the rest of your life.

As of this writing, it is January 2022. [Bumped this up.]

California started giving contracts to to same-sex couples, uninterrupted, in June 2013. Some of you are rapidly approaching that ten-year mark, and some of you still have over three years until you get there.

Either way, if you're not absolutely certain that both you and your spouse want to keep this legal contract intact for the rest of your lives, you need to figure out what you're going to do.

Don't end up like so many heterosexual men, who are making never-ending payments to someone who hates their guts.

Or, use your proven lobbying power to change marriage and family law for the better.

UPDATE: How many of you have already bailed out? Don't let family law screw you over even more! Get out if you need to.


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

An Arrest Warrant For What?

There was an arrest warrant issued for Ric Flair for failing to pay spousal support or alimony - thousands of dollars per month.

If you don't know who Ric Flair is, read on.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of what is known as professional wrestling, it is not an easy profession. It is part of show biz, live theater-in-the-round, and that is where my mostly sporadic, casual interest has come in over the years. I've read a couple of Mick Foley's nonfiction autobiographical books and own the documentary "Beyond the Mat". Making it big in the industry not only takes skill and lots of hard work, but it takes luck and an ability to navigate the politics. Making it big can be lucrative, but it also means a lot of hard work, working day in and day out almost every day of the year, lots of traveling to get from one venue to the next, and a lot of pain from very real strains and injuries.

Ric Flair is someone who had a major back injury in (if I recall correctly) an airplane crash, but he managed to go on to have multiple of a top-notch career after that. Men and women like him have worked liked dogs. This guy is going to be living with serious aches and pains the rest of his life.

Like many other top professionals in his industry, his personal life has not been a smooth one. His latest wife he married in November 2009. About 34 months later (less than three years, Sept. 2012) it was over and Flair was headed for his fourth divorce.


Why is he supposed to pay a grown woman thousands of dollars each month because she was married to him for almost three years? Is that part of a prenup? If so, it is a lousy one. This isn't the 1920s. She has access to education and employment and banking so she can make and manage her own money. It isn't like he's had her at home for the last 20 years cranking out babies and raising them. His income today is based on scores of years of literally backbreaking work on his part, accumulating a professional legacy and achieving legendary status as a money-making draw for his employers. He's to pro wrestling what Kobe Bryant is to the NBA or what John Williams is to the world of Hollywood film scores. She played no part in that. Why is she entitled to his earnings?

I'm not saying he shouldn't live up to contracts or abide by court orders.

I'm saying there's a problem with premise that she is entitled to $4,000 a month to begin with.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Kobe Bryant: Another Poster Boy For the Marriage Strike

None of us really know what was going on in the marriage of Kobe and Vanessa Bryant. Let's get that out of the way up front. However, we can make some educated guesses and note some realities that we're sure about:

1. They got married young.

2. NBA basketball players, especially superstars, have women constantly offering them sex; that is only part of the hero worship and butt-kissing they get. They are on the road a lot of their careers.

3. Kobe Bryant admitted to infidelity; at least one woman accused him of assault/rape.

4. Everyone knew Kobe Bryant was going to make hundreds of millions of dollars between his pay for the NBA and endorsements.

5. There was no prenup. In California, generally... ten years of marriage or more generally means lifetime alimony and everything acquired during the marriage is "community property" and split 50/50.

6. They have kids, and I expect Kobe will have to pay "child support" on top of everything else he will be paying. I put child support in quotes because it will be many times the amount it takes to actually support a child.

7. Kobe Bryant fulfilled the "traditional" role of bring home income... very, very well.

8. Vanessa Bryant probably didn't have to do much cooking, cleaning, laundry, or many of the other things homemakers have traditionally done. Did they children ever not have a nanny around?

An elite few men will ever make anything like the money Kobe does, or be the best in their field. But as extreme of an example as it is, this situation is still an example of why some guys do, or should, avoid marriage, or at least have a prenup.

This is what Janis Carr and Sean Emery reported in the Orange County Register...
According to Orange County Superior Court records, a petition to dissolve the couple’s marriage was filed by Vanessa Bryant and response was filed by Kobe Bryant on the same day.

As is the case with the majority of divorce, she's the one who filed.
A report on TMZ.com said the Lakers guard, who was accused of sexually assaulting a Colorado woman in 2003, was unfaithful again.

It is a rare man who can resist the temptation thrown at an NBA superstar.
The Bryants have been married for 10 1/2 years, having wed April 18, 2001 in a small ceremony in Corona del Mar. They have two daughters, Natalia Diamante, 8, and Gianna Maria, 5.

The couple reportedly does not have a prenuptial agreement, which means Vanessa could be entitled to half of Bryant’s net worth, estimated at $360 million. He signed a three-year contract extension in last year worth nearly $90 million that will keep him with the Lakers through the 2013-14 season and he has endorsements with Nike, Turkish Airlines, Nubeo watches and Vitamin Water brand of drinks.

Call me cynical, but I'm highly suspicious of the timing. Why not a year ago? Could it be because if they split after nine and a half years, she would have stopped getting alimony less than five years down the line?

Whatever you think of professional basketball, it involves a lot of hard work and is high-pressure. This isn't a matter of a couple of people looking at a middle-class life in which the wife could have had a career that paid as much or more as the husband's, and they jointly agree that she would take care of the kids and he would take care of her. Vanessa not only wasn't out there sprinting back and forth all night, jumping, throwing, etc... and appearing in ads... but she couldn't possibly have done it. And yet she's going to get half... more than half, really... of what he was paid.

And before anyone comes back with "but he cheated - he deserves to pay"... How do we know she didn't cheat? How do we know what kind of wife she was? She may or may not have broken other vows. But none of it matters because California is a no-fault divorce state. It doesn't matter if Kobe was cheating with Shaq, or if he had been the perfect husband. His mistake was either getting married or not getting a prenup. Because if she truly is leaving him over infidelity, rather than the lure of autonomy over hundreds of millions of dollars, the odds were overwhelming that he was going to cheat. He should not have married, or he should have married someone who didn't expect monogamy.

Hopefully, for the kids, they will reconcile. If not, may they both focus on raising those kids instead of being tabloid fodder running around with different lovers. Kobe: stay away from the Kardashians.

Most people should get prenups, because even if you marry someone who is loyal, dedicated, and against divorce, everything can change with a brain injury (accident, tumor, some disease) that changes their personality. The laws of the state and the judges sitting in the courtrooms already have a prenup for all of us. Why let strangers decide?

Sunday, July 10, 2011

A Case of Alimony Fraud

Any government program is going to have abuses, fraud, waste, etc. That is one reason why I support the idea that the best government is tightly limited government. Government-decided alimony is no exception.

FURIOUS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST wrote in to Dear Abby:
My parents divorced 20 years ago. The court approved a mutual agreement that Dad would pay monthly alimony until Mom remarried or one of them died.

In states like California, this is standard if the marriage lasts ten years or more. It is ridiculous. There are very few cases in which this is warranted.
He has never missed a payment.

Sounds like a law-abiding man. You're not going to see his face on a billboard. You're not going to see his story on Lifetime.
I have recently discovered that Mom secretly married her live-in boyfriend 11 years ago, but has continued receiving the alimony without telling my father.

On the plus side, at least she didn't continue to shack up like some women do to take advantage of the insane alimony system. This is why the "until marriage" thing does not work in alimony.
Is she committing a crime for which she could be arrested? And is her husband guilty of any wrongdoing?

Well, see, there's the negative side. Your mother is a fraud. That's the nicest word I can use about her. Other men might use words that rhyme with itch and blunt, but not me. I'm not a lawyer; I have no idea if her husband can be held criminally responsible for aiding her fraud or "receipt of stolen property." She is likely a tax cheat as a result of this, and he could be as well.
I am extremely upset over this and want to do something to correct this injustice.

Good for you. Even more so if you are a female. I have no idea if you are.
It isn't fair.

Welcome to the battle of the sexes as far as the law goes.

Dear Abby responded:
Marriage certificates are public records, so get a copy of your mother's and mail it to your father. He needs to stop paying the alimony, and he can sue her in family court for any money she wasn't entitled to. His next move should be to consult an attorney and decide how he wants to handle this.

Exactly. Good advice.

I WONDER why feminists have not been vocal in attacking alimony policies - not all, just some - which presents women as unable to take care of themselves? It is a throwback to when women didn't have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and the academy. If a feminist truly cares about equality and women not being treated as property, shouldn't she be against lifetime alimony in most cases? I get the importance and purpose of alimony in cases when the agreement was for a husband to earn in the income and for the wife to maintain the home and raise the children; she'll need time to establish herself in the working world. (This should all be required prenuptial stipulations, IMO) But for life?

Isn't there some way this situation can be made better? Perhaps through a "divorce insurance" policy? I could see having a policy where if the spouses stay married until one of them dies, the policy pays the survivor, provided the survivor didn't kill the deceased. If they divorce, the policy pays the "alimony". I'm no insurance expert, so feel free to tell me I'm smoking crack.

I really do think that this is one of those things couples should have to state in writing before getting married what the agreement is going to be. A husband-to-be should be able to voluntarily agree, before marrying, to lifetime alimony, but I think it is a bad thing to have as default in most cases. Especially in states with no-fault divorce.

I'd be curious to know the circumstances of the marriage and divorce.

Monday, June 27, 2011

My Father's Wife is Killing Him

Although I can't name anyone off of the top of my head, there were probably men who were killed in the past because divorce either wasn't an option for a wife or a disastrous one. Likewise, while I condemn murder and I blame murderers for murder and I don't believe any woman deserves to be so much as assaulted for using marriage and divorce laws to her advantage, let alone legitimate protection... I do have to wonder if some women who have been murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands would not have been if the laws had been different, or there was a good pre-nup, or something along those lines.

My father has worked very, very hard. He grew up in the rural Midwest in a family of very modest means. Their home was a single room for part of his childhood. My father was not good with his hands, and his father, who did manual (but skilled) labor, told my father he'd never be able to support a family. At the urging of his teachers, my father applied to universities and for scholarships, and was able to go to a good university and graduate. He came out to California to teach.

My father met my mother, married her, and decided that if he was going to have a family, he needed to earn more than what he was making as a teacher. He went to graduate school and got a higher degree. He landed a job in that field, and proceeded to work his butt off. He stuck with the same employer, played the game, and got into management. He didn't stop until he made it all the way to the top.

He was well on his way to that top spot – he was in the last position he'd have before making there, when my parents divorced.

My father has always been an awesome father to me.

When I was in high school, my parents started to have problems. My father couldn't understand why my mother couldn't be like his female colleagues or the wives of his male colleagues and enjoy "social" events related to his job. My mother did not give him the respect at home a husband should have, while at the office he was admired, respected, and he usually got his way. My mother didn't understand the modern office, and that my father had to interact with women in ways professional men of the past didn't, because in the past women were either secretaries or not present in the office; not colleagues or bosses. My father was reluctant to take vacations that were completely personal, with no connection to his professional goals. My mother has always had some personality issues. Counselor after counselor and a great sex life (according to my mother) couldn't prevent the decline of their marriage.

When I left for college, my father moved into my room at home. It wasn't like my parents were staying together for my sake – I had younger siblings. My father later moved out of the house entirely, but stayed close, and then the divorce was final about three years after I had left.

It is a community property state, and my mother, although having retired to the workforce, earned significantly less than my father. So he has payments to make to her for life, as it is unlikely she will ever remarry. She claims she got screwed over. My father never discusses any of that stuff with me.

My father met another woman, who was willing to be by his side at all of the functions and parties he went to. They married around the same time my father finally made it to the top at the office. Several years later, my father was fed up with the board and took his retirement. He could still collect his retirement and work elsewhere, and that's exactly what he did, and my guess is that he makes significantly more in his new position, even though he isn't the CEO.

We don't discuss his finances, but apparently he's discussed them somewhat with one of my sisters, and it sounds like he's been rather foolish. My father apparently didn't know that his wife owed back taxes and back child support (yes, a woman owing child support). From what I understand, when they sold her house and bought another one, it was placed in her name. She works, but she's self-employed and I highly doubt she earns anywhere near what my father does. So the way I figure it, my father paid off her back taxes and child support and is paying for her home.

My siblings have never liked my father's wife, and I don't think they've been fair to her. This is not surprising, since the nexus of that side of the family is my mother and my eldest sister. I've had mostly a good relationship with my father’s wife, and have been willing to give her every benefit of the doubt. But my perception has been changing. There was another recent incident during which she publicly disrespected my father. And it makes me think back to how she acted for a full year after my wife and I married; events around the wedding did not go the way she would have wanted, so we couldn't all get together. After we let her vent at us for something we had nothing to do with, things seemed to be fine and we were willing to put it all behind us.

She had three children of her own. One has opted to make a life on the other side of the world. Another has opted to raise her family close to her father, who is in a different part of the country; a man we have reason to believe is evil. The only one who came back to the area killed himself. All three of her children liked my father. So my father hasn't been the problem, and apparently a man who does unspeakable things to his own children is preferred to my father's wife (but perhaps the daughter is sick?).

My father has been going to counseling and trying to patch things up with my siblings. He's aging as though he's under a lot of stress.

The marriage has lasted more than ten years, so if it ends my father will be paying a second woman for life and will have to find a new home. For all I know her expensive tastes have saddled them with debt and lousy credit.

If my father does want to leave his wife, he may not because of the financial issues.

My wife says that my mother is still in love with my father. My father has a rather bad memory of his marriage to my mother, so it's not like there would be hope of them getting back together.

A definite benefit for my father for going through another divorce would be better relations with my siblings. Heck, they'd probably throw him the biggest party he's ever seen and let him move in to one of their places.

I was taken off guard by how my father was disrespected. I should have said something, but I tend to do better when I've had time to mull it over. I will be better prepared if I ever see that again.

Guys, don't be stupid with your money. If you marry, marry a woman who has good financial habits, and get a good pre-nup that involves full disclosure. Do not pay for anything – a house, a car, anything – that isn't in your name.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Why, Paul? Why???

Poor Paul McCartney. He apparently had a long, happy marriage to Linda, and then she got sick and died. That had be a horrible thing to go through. Understandably, Paul got married again, probably expecting a long, happy marriage again.

But he ended up having to pay some ridiculous amount of money when the married ended. You'd think a guy who has had to pay out so much money would be "shy" on marrying again. Apparently not.

Oh well. It is his money to throw away if he wants to.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

When Divorce Lawyers Get Greedy

Another woman who has "grown accustomed" to the leisurely high life on someone else's earnings and is now getting a divorce and making news. Associated Press Writer Dave Collins has the story.

A 36-year-old Swedish countess divorcing a former CEO says she cannot live on $43 million.
She should have married Paul McCartney.

Marie Douglas-David, a former investment banker, says she has no income and needs her 67-year-old husband, George David, to pay her more than $53,000 a week — more than most U.S. households make in a year — to cover her expenses.
And why doesn't she have any income?

David and Douglas-David married in 2002, but the marriage was in trouble by 2004, court papers show.
So let's see... if you count 2002 until now, $43 million is over six million dollars per year. And those weren't even all good years. That's not generous enough? What exactly did she do during this marriage? Did she cook? Clean? Do any actual domestic management? Raise his kids? Help him with work? Do his shopping for him? Care for him while he was sick? Look out for his health? Pick out his wardrobe? Look good on his arm? Provide consortium?

He could have been better off using that money to hire an image consultant, publicist, personal shopper, personal assistants, a nutritionist, a personal trainer, doctors and counselors, accountants, maids, cooks, an event planner and host, interior designer, professional consultants, and spend all of what would be left over on escorts and a harem.

Amid a series of reconciliations, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement in October 2005 that would give her $43 million when they divorce.

Douglas-David wants the agreement invalidated. She accused her husband of coercing her to sign it by preying upon her fears of being divorced and childless.
Either women are adults who can make their own decisions, or they aren't. The more judges – or Congressmen – toss out contracts, the harder it will be to get anything done. She agreed to the contract.

And notice... they don't have children together, unless they made some after she signed the post-nup. None are mentioned in the article, so my guess is that they didn't have any together and she probably didn't do much around the house, either.

She's asking to be awarded about $100 million in cash and stock, plus $130,000 a month in alimony.
Get a job!!!

David is asking a judge to uphold the agreement and order Douglas-David to vacate their Park Avenue apartment but keep their properties in Sweden.
Gee, what a heartless bastard.

Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.
1. Sell some of your places.
2. Learn to drive.
3. Wear some things more than once (it’s okay – clothes can be cleaned).
4. Learn to eat at home.
5. Learn how to shop online.
6. Buy some books and a home entertainment center.

You can keep up the hair and skin treatments. They might help you snag another sucker.

At that rate, Douglas-David would burn through $43 million in less than 16 years.
So??? I don’t know what the laws are there, but in California, the alimony rule is essentially one day of pay for every two days of marriage (provided the marriage lasted less than 10 years). So she should only get enough to last for three and a half years anyway - if the laws are the same.

Anne Dranginis, an attorney for David and retired Connecticut Appellate Court judge, predicted that Douglas-David will get much less money in the divorce if she doesn't accept the terms of the postnuptial.
I hope so. She should be punished for challenging a generous contract to which she agreed.

In court papers, Douglas-David said she quit her job as an investment banker for Lazard Asset Management to travel and entertain with David, who still earns $1 million a year from United Technologies.
So she's capable of making her own money. Let her.

When a woman and a man mutually agree to marry and that she'll stop or cut back on working outside the home so that she can take care of their children, him, their home, and some of their personal affairs, and then that husband breaks his vows and decides to leave while she has upheld her vows – I have no problem with a judge ordering him to pay 1) significant alimony; and 2) child support, hopefully to the point where she'll be able to raise the kids until they are grown, keep the house, and move on with her life. In fact, I think women agreeing to take up those roles and thus be out of the workforce should insist on pre-nups that will provide for her needs.

But I do not support gold-digging.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Prostitution?

W. Tom Foster of Santa Ana, California, wrote in to the Orange County Register:
So we are paying multiple members of the law-enforcement community upward of $100,000 per year to cruise the Internet hunting down persons who wish to engage in sexual activity for money ["Prostitution fight hits Web," Local, Aug. 17].

Why hasn't Heather Mills, the ex-wife of Paul McCartney, been arrested? I guess charging $50 million for a few years of promised sexual activity doesn't count.

Don’t forget Phil Collins’ third wife. How many songs did she write or perform again? Why does she deserve all of that money? Oh, that’s right. She was clever enough to marry a man without an effective pre-nup.

I can understand why people don't want hookers walking Harbor Boulevard, but two people meeting over the Internet and making arrangements to go to a motel
doesn't seem all that bad to me – especially when we have gangs and illegal drug
users robbing people and desecrating our cities with spray paint.

Well, we can always come up with hierarchy of crime and say that we shouldn’t be committing resources to X, Y, or Z as long as there are murders being committed, But I do find myself leaning to and fro on the fence about prostitution. I defy anyone to present an objective difference between most present-day dating and prostitution. Why is chatting online and agreeing to have sex and that one person will give money to another any different from agreeing to have sex after one pays for dinner for another?

As long as our laws and courts say that sexual activity between consenting adults is a private matter and can’t be criminalized (uh, except if they are related, or work together, or any number of exceptions), then I find it hard to see why this activity should be illegal. Streetwalking is a different story. A public street is owned by the people and the people can collectively decide whether or not to allow that. When a road is private, it should up to the owner of the road.

Again, I believe sex is for marriage and that all sex outside of marriage is wrong. Whether or not it should be illegal is a different matter.

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Man Bites Dog! (Woman to Pay Penalty For Marrying)

Poor Anne Heche.

Actually, I guess I could say "poor Ellen DeGeneres" and "poor Coleman Laffoon", for the fact that both of them lived with Heche, who has demonstrated mental instability. That can't be fun. DeGeneres moved on to a much hotter woman. Laffoon, having married Heche, is getting some very nice parting gifts now that there is a divorce settlement.

Anne Heche's five-year marriage to Coleman Laffoon is officially over, but not without a pinch to her pocketbook.

A judge ruled that Heche must pay $275,000 to her ex-husband, along with monthly child-support payments of $3,700 for the care of their 6-year-old son, Homer, according to court documents released Friday.


Only $275,000 for five years of marriage? Something tells me that if the sexes were reversed, that would be a much higher number. Perhaps there was some sort of agreement that the judge interpreted? On the other hand, what's with the $3,700 per month in child support? It doesn't take that much money to raise a child. Something tells me this will benefit Laffoon more than the child. Can't he support himself? Can't most women in divorce cases support themselves?

Heche will also have to pay 75 percent of Homer's private-school tuition. The couple agreed to split the cost of any "agreed upon extracurricular activities" for their son.

I can picture Laffoon saying "Hey, the kid needs a trip to Europe" and Heche disagreeing that he even needs go to the movies. So she's covering most of the tuition, and still has to pay all of that money in "child support".

Heche, 39, and Laffoon, 34, were married Sept. 1, 2001. He filed for divorce on Feb. 2, citing irreconcilable differences.

If this was in California, I don't think there is much you can cite other than "irreconcilable differences". But my interpretation of that is "My wife is nuts. Yes, I knew that before marrying her, but I finally realized I can live comfortably on her money without putting up with her!"

Heche starred in TV's "Men in Trees." She and Laffoon, a cameraman, met while working on a documentary about Ellen DeGeneres — with whom Heche was
romantically linked for three years.

It is very telling that the father is getting custody.

To me, this is another example of showing that the alimony and child support realities in our system are unfair. It just so happens that in this case, the male is benefitting financially at the expense of the female - which is rare.

In other Hollywood news, Vin Diesel and model Paloma Jimenez just had a child out of wedlock, making them illegitimate parents and setting a horrible example. At least they didn't have it sucked into a sink.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Congratulations, Sir Paul McCartney

You’re now free to pick another woman to make famous, share your secrets with, and pay a ridiculous amount of money to when you break up.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Leveling the Playing Field: Pre-Nups and Alimony Reform

This entry is part of a series. The introduction is here. The first two suggestions are here. The second two suggestions are here.

5. Signed informed consent or customized pre-nuptial agreement as standard. I know there are people (mostly women) who say that pre-nups are unromantic and planning to fail. But we buy insurance for all sorts of things we hope don’t happen, and the fact is, the courts already have a pre-nup for you. You might as well be encouraged to come up with your own before a marriage license is issued. Like the first suggestion, if this was standard and automatic, one spouse could not accuse the other of being “insulting”. People who complain that a spouse who insists on a pre-nup is selfish or materialistic are themselves those things, or they would be happy to sign a personalized pre-nup and prove they aren’t marrying for money. For quickie weddings, there could be a simply form to sign that lists some of the major legal consequences of marrying without a personalized pre-nup, or that makes the marriage contingent on a post-nup agreement to be filed in the near future.

6. Alimony reform. Tied in with the previous suggestion – alimony should no longer be standard just because one spouse earns more than the other. We live in a day and age in which women have equal access to the workplace, property ownership, and investing. A woman demanding alimony should have to show a prior promise to a certain level of support (“We’re getting married now, I don’t want you to work…”) – hence one of the important reasons to have a customized pre-nup. Why should women who continue along the same career path as before they got married get any alimony in the event of a divorce, unless that was specified in the pre-nup? Notice that this would work both ways – Federline wouldn’t be able to mooch off of Spears. Also, in states like California, ten years or more of marriage mean lifetime alimony as long as the receiving spouse (usually a woman) doesn’t remarry. This discourages remarriage and is especially silly when the receiving spouse is living with someone who pays her bills.

I have at least one more suggestion, and of course, my suggestions for men, but those will be posted in a subsequent entry.