And thats why she should DEFINITELY not get anything. No kids, no career sacrifice, nothing. She shouldnt be entitled to a dime. She should get some of the estate because theyre married but she shouldnt be able to touch a cent past that. Alimony is the most dated bullchit concept in the entire legal system.

Women are responsible for 80% of spending in the United States.

They want a system where they can maximize a transfer of wealth from men to divorced women. Some divorced women can get 80%-95% of a guy's wealth through 50:50 splitting, alimony and child support.

I mean look at Brendan Fraser --> guy was worth almost $50 million but some estimates put him down to $15 million now and he's paying $1 million / year on Alimony.

Meanwhile his ex-wife is probably buying new mansions every year and ultra-luxury clothing and creating jobs for 10,000s of Italians / French and retail middle-men.

As a general comment to start:This is a truism - of course people pursue happiness and of course they would be happier without someone in their lives who makes them miserable. But whether or not that can realistically apply to the case represented in this thread is another question. As a quick example, Michelle's case strikes a cord with me - anyone being beaten and abused in their marriage deserves a rapid opportunity to get out of it, and it's that simple, and then asset distribution comes into play as well. There are valid reasons to get divorced, but if a divorce requires GBP 25 million plus 1/3rd of someone else's earnings for a few years after that, I'd find that a bit hard to believe that this is about "moving on" and not trying to "get revenge".
And this gray area is what makes it so messy. If two people are happily married and someone simply wakes up and says "well, I'm not feeling it any more, toodles" after 25 years together and both partners earned an equal amount, and then a divorce happens - I can imagine that the partner who still loved the other one would be devastated. But if you're not in love with someone any more you can get divorced. And asset distribution here should be fairly easy.

But imagine this case: two people are married and one is happily married whereas the other one is not, and behaves (cold, or cheats, or is gloomy, etc) that way. The one who is not happily married sticks it out for 20 years and doesnotcontribute a fairly equal economic amount, and let's make this interesting - no kids, and 'takes care of the house', then sues during asset distribution for half. I don't care what the law says, but if there is demonstrable negligence in a marriage to the marriage that negligent person should be penalized for that in asset distribution proceedings.

I think it's a joke how some people feel so entitled simply in virtue of 'being married' to someone else even if they gave diddly squat. A friend of mine was married to a woman for 15 years. When they were first together she loved his high profile job, and didn't work. They traveled the world together and had one kid. Yet a lot of his wealth comes from his property investments and wealth generation during his 15 year marriage to her. Over time, she became more and more conservative - she'd argue with him in public saying that he's excessive simply for buying an R8 as a treat to himself. She surprised him with divorce papers about 2 years ago. This example is still fresh in my mind - for years before that I could see a kind of 'hate' on her face towards him, as if she resented his economic success and confidence. And, guess what - in their divorce she sued for half, because under their marriage law it's called something like 'community of acquisition' which means she's entitled to half. So she got half of his investment properties and they are still sorting out the cash side of things. All this from someone who claimed to hate consumerism. She is now working for fun as a tour guide in Spain with what I'd estimate as around EUR 4.3 million or so in equity. Although they had a kid together and although she stayed at home, that kind of payout is absurd to me - absolutely absurd.

I'm in the happily married crew but I am really lucky. Most of my male friends aren't married and are in the same situation - they earn a lot, travel quite a bit, early 40s, good property investments and cash generation, and yet they are not finding themselves 'lucky' in their experiences. I hate seeing men I know become increasingly desperate as they get older, and I end up having to be that kind of friend that perhaps interferes a bit too much in examining their prospects.

The long and short of it is, people deserve the chance to be happy in marriage, but I do not like seeing people get absolutely f'd over in divorce proceedings by partners who never really gave much to a marriage in the first place. Although I focused a lot on money, let's be real: the people I'm talking about earn more than enough to have cleaning services come etc, so cooking a meal or two a day at home and getting paid millions for doing that for 15 years is a f'n joke.

lol

It's a game of poker and unfortunately for her she blinked

I'm not totall anti marriage but you listed nothing that you can't do outside of a marriage lol

abso-fukken-lutely

UK and Canada, great places for marriages

CUCK CITY sons

Re-read the post. He HID most of his things and gifted large assets.




This wasn't a play to avoid losing money all together, this was move to mitigate losses. Essentially, lose 50%+ of your assets and leave it up the judge to honor a prenup and not exercise bias.... or make a preemptive move where you lose 20-30% shifting and hiding assets and be able to sleep at night?









Think objectively mate.

Lose 50%+ and future assets to a judge who may or may not be biased? Or roll the dice and lose 20-30% shifting and moving assets around?




My post isn't "red pill" b/s, its shows that you can mitigate losses (as my buddy did) if your smart and can handle risk.









But, your free to make up your own mind. Carry on..

Back in their day there was no welfare state, and none of these feminist family courts that gives the woman everything. If a woman divorced a man she was left to her own devices; the government + her ex's money wasn't there to provide for her. Which is why divorce was so low back then. When females gained the right to vote they immediately voted in a massive safety net and feminism laws. The rate of divorce is directly correlated to the rise of he welfare state and feminism. Now single moms can live off mens tax dollars and alimony payments while claiming they're strong independent women and sluting it up every night while doing a terrible job of raising their children.

Do you not have to pay taxes or anything giving houses and such back and forth to people you know? Is it really that easy to avoid by just giving away your stuff? Seems like something her lawyers could easily go after him for considering how blatantly obvious what he did was.