The UK Might Be Putting an End to Divorce Rape in Their Nation

Reddit View
July 20, 2016

It's sad how shocking this story is. From the Telegraph:

"Rich wives are increasing being told to go out and get a job rather than rely on maintenance from their ex-husband as judges lead what amounts to a clampdown on 'meal ticket' divorces, according to lawyers.

"Divorce lawyers say they have seen a marked increase in cases in which family courts agree maintenance only for a limited period rather than traditional indefinite settlements."

Perhaps things are starting to change? If they adopt this in the U.S. I'm going to go streaking in the streets.

Post Information
Title The UK Might Be Putting an End to Divorce Rape in Their Nation
Author antwonomous
Upvotes 695
Comments 178
Date 20 July 2016 10:02 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
divorce rapethe red pill

[–]MoneyStatusLooks 342 points342 points [recovered] | Copy

About time. The purpose of a divorce should be to make sure a child's interests are cared for, not to be a cash grab by a worthless whore.

[–]Hitleresque223 points224 points  (65 children) | Copy

Divorces should be simple, you go your way, I go mine. Women are equals now, if they need money they can get a job like any man has to. I won't be happy until the concept of alimony is gone entirely.

[–]jim234234red 9 points9 points [recovered] | Copy

Alimony has been dying in the US for some time now, at least for GenX and beyond. There are only a few states (CA, FL, IL) that haven't yet made reforms.

But it is irrelevant. As alimony went away, child support took its place as the woman's 'get out of jail free' card.

You can find the CS calculator on your state's gov. website.

If you are a guy making decent cash (probably in your 30s and beyond - I know it's hard for millennial guys these days) you will see just how bad things could be if you got some average-earning woman knocked up. Marriage is irrelevant.

Most of the calculators split the difference by income, but it seems like it is not important to the courts should the new mother-to-be decide to become a stay-at-home mom.

If the man were to try that, it's jail.

So your income minus 0 divided by 2 is half your income. BEFORE TAXES. And it's not deductible.

So expect to keep about 25% to 20% of your gross pay (more ya make, lower it goes due to lack of deductions) for one kid in most states.

The rest pays for Applebee's take out, Chad's car insurance, and rent in the nice area.

You'll, meanwhile, be sharing a room off CL, while making 6 figures and babysitting your kid on weekends while the mother hits the clubs.

[–]Hitleresque3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, I didn't bother mentioning child support but I know just how rigged it is. I have an aunt who's pulling 2k a month off her poor bastard of an ex. He makes good money but fuck, she never has to work another day in her life. Feeding 3 kids is no doubt expensive but it sure as fuck doesn't cost 2000 a month. Im positive that can cover all of her expenses for the month and to boot she's been leeching off her new hubby whom she also had a kid with. It's too bad because I'd love to raise a couple of kids some day, but just like marriage it's not worth the risk. The worst part about redpill is how bitter it goes down.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (9 children) | Copy

The concept of alimony makes sense in theory if the woman took off time from work or made tangible career sacrifices, but the way it's calculated (as a percentage of the man's pay) is fucking ridiculous. I'd be completely fine with alimony if we based it on lost pay and lost opportunity due to sacrifices made by a woman to manage the household and care for the children, and if it were equal between genders.

If a woman has made an actual sacrifice for the marriage (given up years of work to care for the children) she should be compensated in the form of lost savings. 10% of the lost earnings (based on her previous salary or minimum wage if she didn't have one) seems reasonable considering most Americans save/spend on assets about 10% of their pay (if I remember macro correctly). I can even bend and say they should be compensated for lost career advancement for up to half the time of the marriage (e.g. if she gave up 5 years of work, and she reasonably could've made an extra $10K/year through promotions if she worked those 5 years based on averages from her field, then the husband pays 10K/year for half the marriage length, capped at 10 years and 10% of the man's salary). Seems reasonable. He's topping off the pay she could've gotten but didn't because she let him focus on his career while taking one for the team. She gets enough time to get back on her feet in her career and advance to what is likely the position/pay-grade she'll keep for the remainder of her career, or what is reasonable given the marriage length.

So the guy pays a lump sum in the beginning only applicable to years she actually took off of work. He then pays her yearly for half the marriage length the amount of money she could reasonably be making above her current salary had she never taken off time. If she never took off work, they go their separate ways and she thanks him for significantly raising her standard of living for the length of the marriage.

Everyone ends up basically where they would've been had the marriage never happened, minus the sacrifices (that they both share now) due to time off to care for the dumb little shits they brought into the world.

Edit: I should clarify that these are my financial opinions based on what would actually seem reasonable based on concrete evidence, not my actual opinions. Do I think the story actually goes this way? No. Fuck no. Just as often the wife stays at home, fucks the neighbor, and shuttles her kids around in the mom-mobile in between salon appointments. However, we can't use this argument. We don't have any concrete evidence of the hilariously tiny amount of work that most stay-at-home moms usually do in comparison to their husbands.

[–]1neveragoodtime28 points29 points  (2 children) | Copy

You seem to forget that her sacrifice of "potential lost earnings" is more than balanced out by his "actual lost savings" in the marriage. Think of all the money he could have been putting into retirement if he didn't have to financially support his unemployed wife. When is she going to pay him back for all the money that went to her? In other words, he pays for her choice to stay at home by covering all of the household costs instead of half. But instead of focusing on that real and actual cost, we focus on some made up "potential loss of hypothetical income". Why does the government decide that she lost anything? Maybe she chose to stay home after being fired, maybe she works retail and was never going to move up any corporate latter and would have made minimum wage the rest of her life. In her case, taking half of his income and giving up her tiny income was a financially sound decision for her.

[–]juliusstreicher5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep; she's a live in fuck, who takes care of HER house and HER family, and cooks HER food, same as husband's. Why should he pay for her to live a separate life? He's already given her a life that she cannot afford. If she 'gives up' an opportunity, then 'gives up' the marriage, she shouldn't be paid. If I quit a great job to get a fantastic job, and then quit the fantastic job, should the boss still pay me?

[–]logicalthinker12 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's an excellent point. And if you really want to be honest, savings grow exponentially. So his lost savings are big in real numbers, but absolutely fucking gigantic in unrealized income from savings.

[–]wanderer7795 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I am a stickler for following laws and keeping agreements (I think I landed in the wrong century or maybe even on the wrong planet), so my argument against all of this is that marriage is for life. So we shouldn't even be arguing about divorces in the first place. After you blow the marriage up, then you have basically said that you don't believe in keeping agreements. It's already ridiculous enough that you didn't keep the vows, but now you want him to keep his by paying you money? And our society goes along with this BS.

Somehow we went from marriage as a lifelong commitment (which was actually working very well despite the smear campaign), to women leaving when they felt like it, to them demanding money after leaving, and now finally to men being demonized for not wanting to get involved with it.

[–]CryptoManbeard1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I don't mind alimony on an individual basis and I think it's a much more palatable concept when viewed as rehabilitative rather than punitive for life. A stay at home wife who didn't work because both parties wanted her to take care of the kids shouldn't be dumped out on the streets if her husband wants to fuck his secretary. There are also circumstances (I have a family member in those boat), where she stayed at home watching the kids and was a homemaker for 35 years. They got a divorce and she had no marketable skills or experience with 10 years left before retirement, I don't think it's odd to expect that she gets a reasonable amount of money until she retires.

At worst, a husband should have to pay for his wife to get training, get a job, and have some time to get back on her feet on her own.

If this was status quo I think most guys would understand. What we are getting is LIFETIME alimony for young people that have job experience and work. Basically they get their whole lives taken care of because they spit out a kid (in addition to child support).

[–]Natural_RP-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Sigh at you so hard. First and foremost the decision to stay at home is always hers. If a guy says that it's a red flag, end of story. But a man can't stop her from working so that is all on her.

Next a man has a natural right to as many women as he pleases (when they want him of course) when he pleases. This is the concept of alpha and as nature intended. You really need to take that red pill.

[–]CryptoManbeard0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

First off, you do realize that some men (I am one of them), actually WANTS the mother of their children to stay at home? My first marriage that was my intent, and I didn't want it any other way. That's how cave men operated for hundreds of thousands of years. Calling someone a beta because they want a traditional family is retarded.

You're confusing being an alpha with wanting an open, promiscuous relationship. They are mutually exclusive. The founder of TRP is married.

[–]Natural_RP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yep you WANT you wife to stay at home but you can't really force her can you? That would again have to be her decision and therefore she has to deal with the consequences of that decision, good or bad.

In my experience women that really want to stay at home "for the kids" are useless lazy parasites that can't wait to get access to your wallet while the veg out on the couch. But hey you have to deal with the consequences of who you choose as a wife. I can see you made a great choice the first time.

No one owns the redpill depsite what you may believe. It's a way of thinking and an online lockroom/sounding board of ideas.

That said an ALPHA does what is good for his life which means doing as he pleases. Alphas have a natural right to as many women as they please if you choose not to exercise that option that's okay, but it's still a natural right.

Never called you beta I said you need to swallow the pill. Alimony in any form is slavery and I like any rational being find slavery abhorrent.

[–]ronsoness12 points13 points  (10 children) | Copy

i think alimony has its uses... but only to be used similar to unemployment insurance. i don't believe in the bullshit "courts decide when alimony ends" and i don't believe it should be used to enrich or maintain an ex-spouses lifestyle. if she lived like a millionaire, no way should she continue to do so after divorcing a millionaire.

[–]Gadnuk_9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

Right, she already lived the lavish lifestyle on his dime, if anything she should have to pay him back. She consumed his resources and time then backed out of a lifelong commitment.

If a man marries a young woman, uses up her good reproductive years, then kicks her to the curb for an upgrade, sure throw some cash. But that circumstance is very rare and the exception not the rule. In this rare case, civil litigation could be utilized instead of a general rule of thumb that women automatically get cash rewards for infidelity and branch swinging.

Nothing disgusts me more than the thought of an ex spending MY money to buy things for the guy whose turn it is next.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't care what she does, I will not be paying her to do whatever it is due to the fact I am no longer fucking her, not responsible for her, and her debts should be hers, not mine. I had been divorced for five years and I was still getting bill collectors calling me about her shit incurred after it was final. She fucked my credit for ten years with that shit.

[–]surfjihad4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nothing disgusts me more than the thought of an ex spending MY money to buy things for the guy whose turn it is next.

That's the standard situation m8. Don't ever even think of marrying

[–]TriggeringEveryone1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

If a man marries a young woman, uses up her good reproductive years, then kicks her to the curb for an upgrade,

But that circumstance is very rare

It's common... except for the marriage part.

[–]Gadnuk_2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's a good point, but in that case it's her choice to waste her fertility and I have no sympathy. A gal can ride the carousel as long as she wants, there is no expectation for lifelong commitment until some schlub puts a ring on it

[–]cxj1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Agreed, but things like alimony should be decided upon in a civil contract enforced to the letter of what it says, not some judges opinion.

[–]ronsoness1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

that would be an interesting idea, like an add-on to a pre-nuptial to help plan for contingencies.

[–]juliusstreicher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And, madness. Why keep paying for the cow when it's giving milk to Farmer Brown instead of you?

[–]juliusstreicher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed, but things like alimony should be decided upon

Things like alimony should be abolished. It's money paid for...what, exactly?

[–]juliusstreicher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

i think alimony has its uses... but only to be used similar to unemployment insurance

The contract is terminated; what madman from the pit says that the terms of the contract should continue???

What if the wife divorces the husband-should she come and fuck him every month because he needs the sexual fulfillment?

[–]Natural_RP1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly. This is one of the main reasons not to get married. Eventually someone will start asking why virtually no men get married anymore. When the universal answer is "alimony" then it will be gotten rid of. The state needs stable family units (constant population increase) that over consume. Mini vans, huge house, crazy vacations to Disneyland etc.

Once alimony is gone women will actually have to try at marriage or lose their meal ticket. This will of course will cause many of them to actually be good wives.

[–]bluedrygrass6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

I'd say not even that, it should be optional if the male feels so. For example, if the child isn't his, or if he can't afford it. The female should have choosed better.

Also, aren't they always bragging about how they all "work and care for the house and childs"? So nothing would change, right?

[–]MoneyStatusLooks 11 points11 points [recovered] | Copy

I strongly believe you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to bring them up. Half of the problems the UK has is there is a fucktonne of state-sponsored kids, brought up on benefit money. There are fucking retards breeding like rabbits. The next Mozart isn't coming from a benefits family. After you have 4 worthless, waste of space kids, give it a rest, the world doesn't need anymore.

If the child isn't his, then there is no way he should be obligated to pay for it. Lying about paternity should have the same consequences as fraud, sadly it doesn't though.

[–]bluedrygrass0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

To be fair, it might be an exception, but Beethoven was born in even worse conditions than the ones you listed. Literally nobody could have predicted one of the biggest muscial geniuses would have born from a mother like that.

[–]ronsoness0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

in an ideal world, we would all be neutered at birth and only reactivated once we want to have kids. would solve a lot of issues with state sponsored kids or homeless/foster/orphan children, who are likely to grow up and be a strain on the state again through being on welfare or landing in prison.

[–]FoxIslander55 points56 points  (1 child) | Copy

...I'll be streaking in the streets the moment a cheating spouse isn't entitled to half of everything. Too late for me however.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon40 points41 points  (6 children) | Copy

My female judge told my ex to get a job. The tide is turning.

[–]LarryLove7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy

Still waiting for my female judge to tell my ex to get a fucking job. It's been over four years. Oh well, my alimony ends Sept 30th. Party in Vegas.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Did you get non-modifiable alimony? If it's modifiable there's a chance she can come back and go "I can't work, you need to pay more!"

[–]LarryLove3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

It's firm, she signed off on it. IDK how she's going to live on just child support, but it's not my problem.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm going to make a prediction despite knowing nothing about her.

She's going to scramble to find work. This will take time. She will constantly complain that she can't find work, and the Patriarchy(TM) is holding her back. You didn't give her enough time to look. Sexism! No one hires women for good jobs around here!

That's been my experience with my ex, so I'm projecting.

[–]LarryLove7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

You're right and I don't care. Her refusal to work was one of the many reasons we divorced. She had expensive spending habits and she said she'd get a job when our son entered kindergarten. Then she changed it to when he entered first grade. Then she said she needed retraining to enter to workforce. When we met she managed a spinal surgeons office and made over 75k USD. Needless to say, she made excuse after excuse not to work AND she kept a shitty home and couldn't cook to save her life. She kept telling me she was "busy" all day while the kids were in school. She never missed a Martha Stewart / Oprah / Judge Judy episode, however.

[–][deleted] 123 points123 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Toastlove41 points42 points  (18 children) | Copy

Thank fuck that's only in Nottingham though, because they've manged to get some uber feminist police chief and its one of her pet initiatives.

[–]recon_johnny32 points33 points  (9 children) | Copy

Get the fuck out.

What the holy hell....why do people stand for this bullshit? Fuck that piece of shit, and her 'pet initiatives'. Why doesn't she go solve crime instead of this nonsense.

[–]hhamama6635 points36 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why doesn't she go solve crime instead of this nonsense.

Because that involves actual work. You can't smash the patriarchy while doing actual work.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

Why do people stand for it? Virtually all women will support it. And then you've got apathetic, married men who think they've "made it" so don't care, and the hoards of white knight/SJW betas who think that being feminist will make women like them. That's a majority.

[–]Caucasian-African5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's the beauty and genius of the US Constitution. It acts as a fire-stop against the inevitable fascist tendencies of over-zealous politicians and the mob mentally.

[–]Toastlove0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Because that's difficult and their funding is low.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Because she is a vile cunt

[–]Caucasian-African0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

She's likely a manly skank who has latent fantasies of being cat-called.

[–]LuvBeer5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah well Theresa May's main platform since the beginning has been social justice and reducing inequality, guess what that means.

[–]McLarenX0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Much more important than muslim rape, clearly.

[–]aanarchist-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

wait there's actually a nottingham in england? i thought that was just a made up town where robin hood was based in. learn something new every day.

[–]Toastlove1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yes, there's also a Sherwood Forest. Robin Hood's character is likely based on a few real people as well.

[–]Freiling1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wait, England is a real place?

[–]bluedrygrass0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Robin Hood is based on a real character, you know

[–]evil_misogynist29 points30 points  (2 children) | Copy

Yeah isn't that insane. And of course the police chief is some fat bitch. Wonder how much wolf whistling comes her way? My guess is zero.

[–]Swallowed_the_pill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Pretty stupid that a police chief has enough power to get that through regardless of her views.

[–]logicalthinker10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

she secretly wishes it came her way.

[–]stemgang8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

There are so many legal advantages to being a female, and having a penis does not disqualify you in any way. Go for it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

What's amazing is they are calling it a "hate crime". Because those builders whistling at pretty women are obviously doing it because they hate them. It's unbelievable...

[–]logicalthinker10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

haha I tell you. I just hate it when a hot girl walks by. I hate hot women.

[–]Caucasian-African3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

I totally agree. It is so goofy.

I never have and never will cat-call a woman. It's among the cheesiest, most lame things men do, and I even concede that it's offensive.

That being said, "a hate crime"!? Are you kidding me? That is just insane! Maybe Europe should keep their women from being molested and blown up by terrorists instead of enacting fascist legislation against boorish, harmless male behavior.

[–]PrimaxAUS0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

So... don't wolf whistle? Honestly it never gets anyone anywhere AND it's widely considered shitty, so why would you?

[–]RavelsBolero0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Because we live in a free country. Is there something you don't understand about that? If you don't like it or understand it, that doesn't mean other people have to agree with you

[–]victor_knight19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

The deal included an annual allowance of £116,000 for handbags and £40,000 for fur coats.

Well, what's good for the economy is good for society. It's just too bad if one man doesn't like it. Fuck him. <sarcasm>

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy

The same country that made "hitting on women" illegal.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (4 children) | Copy

Maybe they should work on not having men who haven't been convicted of a fucking crime have to report to police 24 hours in advance of when they are going to have sex before we get too fucking excited here

[–]bestpractice11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thats a lot of cheeky Constables

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm curious if this is because of changes in law? What might be driving this change?

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women in Britian under the age of 35 are now earning more then men. Naturally once women start paying alimony so their husbands can bang sluts they see the negative side of alimony.

[–]victor_knight3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Maybe they want to encourage British people to start breeding more, now that the powers that be are no longer scared to the marrow of their bones about the planet dripping people into space from the "threat" of overpopulation that was highly popularized in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Alimony in my state, per the court webpage, is usually limited to 4 years. It specifically notes that is the time it takes someone to finish college. I didn't have to pay alimony after my divorce

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've long said that divorce settlements should be based on an estimation of lost potential earnings and sacrifices made for the sake of the family, and child support should be monitored by requiring the receiving parent to account for where the money was spent each month.

It's not that difficult a concept, and it would only be mildly difficult to set up. You'd think with the number of rich old men being taken to the cleaners this would be easy to push, but the fem-centered nature of our society has made that impossible.

If a woman was on track to become a cashier at a grocery store and then marries a contractor, gives up her job, and takes care of the kids for 5 years before filing for divorce, she should get 5 years of pay as a grocery store cashier plus whatever is required to keep the kids at a similar quality of life for the time she has them. If she works at an insurance company, takes no time off for the kids (aside from paid maternity leave), and just happens to be making 3x less than her husband in sales, she should get nothing aside whatever is required to keep the kids at a similar quality of life.

I just don't know where people got the idea that marrying someone entitles you to half their wealth. You didn't do half the work, you just sucked the dick of someone doing 100% of the work, and some of these women aren't even doing that.

[–]6of1halfdozenofother3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

They got the idea because marriage is, and has always been, a property contract.

It's got fuck all to do with love.

[–]KartagoPill30 points31 points  (31 children) | Copy

UK is one of the strongest CuckNation.

[–]CENTURIQN22 points23 points  (30 children) | Copy

I'd say it's amongst the top 5. Others up there would be Sweden, Germany, Canada and France.

[–]inspiron300013 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy


Female PM + 8 female ministers.
The current, ruling parties (Conservative, Popular Liberal and Christian Popular) are led by two woman and one massive beta.

The (non-ruling) Labour party has ruled that their leadership has to be divided equally between the sexes.
This party has run the country for most of the time since the 2. world war.

If you wonder what made Anders Behring Breivik go mental, he wanted to kill the former female PM (Gro Harlem Brundtland), you'll find that he was very much negatively influenced by feminism.

[–]EriGorman7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

Sweden is mainly just a mess right now. Highest taxes in the world which mainly go to fund "refugees" and "children". The swedes have had a massive right-wing rise though and the patience is running out.

Calling our country cucknation isn't wrong by any means, but we don't cater to the women nearly as much as most. Alimony is nearly non-existent if it even exists at all (major difference is needed and housewives isn't normal here). Child support is low and income %based post-taxes, and is very low due to papa state covering the largest support. We also don't have the BS laws making fathers unable to see their children.

Taxes are shit and our leaders are spineless narcissists, but at least we don't give the pussy free stuff

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Are you talking about the UK?

[–]Pantek512 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

France? At least here if you don't say a child is yours you're never going to pay a cent for him. But yeah on the other hand DNA tests are illegal here so I see where you're coming from

[–]CypherWolf211 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

75% supertax rate more than makes up for it.

[–]Pantek516 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

You mean the one that disappeared early 2015? Anyway most of the people who had to pay that tax got that rich thanks to all the help the government gave to their companies. I say that but I wasn't in favor of that tax anyway. Just saying.

I love TRP for the stuff about self improvement and women but that kind of blind alt right politics I often see here is kind of stupid. If you're really redpilled IMHO you'll see that all that political stuff is a fucking joke from one side to the other.

Edit : sorry Bro I got on a rant, the alt right part wasn't aimed at you

[–]CypherWolf211 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

No worries. I wasn't aware the tax was repealed - it's my fault for not checking. It's an interesting point you raise about cronyism though, and I am in agreement. There's no such thing as capitalism at gunpoint.

[–]Pantek510 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

And that's why I love TRP. Near anywhere else on reddit we'd be insulting each other at this point

[–]CypherWolf210 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There's very few places left where civilised evidence based discussion is no longer a "hate crime" it seems.

[–]Thaweed2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy

Can confirm, Merkel is ruining a once so great Germany.

[–]ROFLME -2 points-2 points [recovered] | Copy

[–]LordThunderbolt-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

There hasn't been a true Germany since 1945

[–]ROFLME 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Nazi Germany was pretty cucked

[–]LordThunderbolt-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

It was a joke. Fuck Nazi Germany.

[–]surfjihad3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I was divorce raped several years ago and I recently started seeing a woman who has to pay her ex husband alimony. This is in CA. I actually have a glimmer of hope that this horrible male wealth stripping system just might correct itself.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Common Law always leads to common sense results but sometimes it takes it's sweet merry time getting there.

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

My baby momma and I split up when she was 3 yrs old. BM went batshit crazy (found out years later she thought I was banging the babysitter...I wasn't) and tried to destroy me for months. I finally fixed all that and she ran off with our kid, of course. She tried asking for money a few times. I always said "What, you kidnapped my daughter and now you want ransom? I'll take her any time you want, full time, and I will certainly never ask you for money." She never asked again. My kid came to live with me full time at 13 and never went back to live at her mother's. They fought like cats and dogs. Alimony? Fuck off! Goddamn vaginas think they deserve it all because they have an extra hole. (rant over, for now)

[–]bluedrygrass5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

My kid came to live with me full time at 13 and never went back to live at her mother's. They fought like cats and dogs.

At least your daughter has some sense. Often that isn't the case, they stay with their crazy mother and get brainwashed to absolutely hate the air you breath.

[–]real-boethius4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

My kid came to live with me full time at 13

Actually this is pretty common.... the kids get sick of Mom, new/abusive boyfriends, passive aggressiveness, self-centeredness etc, and go and live with Dad.

Unfortunately for Dad, Mom already got the house and stuff because she had the kids initially.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Batshit crazy moms usually become intolerable once their little baby girls start getting hips and breasts, and thus more attention than saggy old mom. When the kid can no longer be useful for welfare benefits, they get tossed out on their asses.

Where they usually start using their hips and breasts to get by in life, because that's the only skill mom taught them, and the cycle continues.

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sad but true. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. My daughter is great.

[–]TheRedStoic1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Worth a post as a reminder.

Would be appreciated if you've the time and find it worth while.

[–]Reddthrown1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I hate to be the one raining on your parade, but that's just wishful thinking and is tainted by the position from which the UK is starting.

The UK is likely the worst place on earth to get a divorce:

  • Pre-nups are not binding and until recently were illegal;
  • All past and present assets are merged in marriage, including retirement funds (so she gets half your stuff/debts and you get half her stuff/debts - guess who usually has stuff and who usually has debt);
  • After divorce, the judge must allocate the future earnings of both parties to ensure that both Parties keep their existing lifestyle;
  • If that can't be achieved (and it can't, if only because there will be two houses), then the Party who keeps the kid has priority (so guess who ends up with most of the future earnings?).

In reality, that means that the wife usually gets half of the existing assets of the husband (including retirement accounts he can't access until 55), the whole house, and 40% of the husband's future income until either (i) kids turn 18 (that's option is almost always excluded); (ii) she remarries; or (iii) he dies.

The regime is so bad that the UK is now the "divorce capital of the world", the place where women go to divorce their wealthy husbands, even if they have no real connection to the UK.

[–]Jedi52410006 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy

Brexit aka leaving the union of the biggest cucks on Earth is the best thing to have happened to UK in modern times. I am excited to see how far the UK will go in uncucking themseves!

[–]postreformedpua4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

You know we have a female PM right now that wants to ban anything other than missionary sex...

[–]Jedi52410003 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy

What's it been like since Brexit? I am curious

[–]_redme2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

There hasn't been a Brexit and there probably never will be. The referendum isn't legally binding. Sounds fucked up but that's where we are at. The PM just stated yesterday that doing Brexit in 2016 is out of the question. As a result of said referendum however, the £ crashed and is slowly recovering, growth has stagnated but otherwise business as normal.

[–]NietzscheExplosion0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sounds like you have the only honest economy in Europe all of a sudden.

[–]Ecclesia_Andune1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy

Constant, unending fear mongering by the media about how the world hates us, the economy is going to implode and we're all going to die.

No but seriously it's constant fear mongering.

And benefits of brexit aren't really being discussed much because it's hard to talk about yourself as a pro brexit person because that makes you a racist/bigot/idiot. For example, i haven't said a word about it at work because literally every person in my office including the CEO was incredibly vocal about how Brexit was literally just and i quote 'the result of too many stupid people who can vote'

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Same here, the hysteria was astonishing. In fact, unemployment figures are better than for years with no sign of an issue as yet, FTSE 100 is within 2% of its peak earlier in the year, the world and its dog is knocking on our door asking for trade agreements (which can't be signed until we throw off the EU yoke, but can be negotiated in advance). IMF has lowered their growth forecast for the UK, but it is still higher than Germany, France and Italy. I figured there would be short-term economic pain, medium term about on par with what it would have been inside, and longer term far better for us when the Euro crashes. Looks like the short-term pain isn't as bad as I had thought. The pound has dropped against the dollar, of course, but that is very good for exports. Meanwhile, Spanish banks once again started saying they needed another bailout at the end of May, and Italian banks started saying the same in June; Greece is a powder keg waiting to go up in flames. The Euro continues in deep trouble. In spite of the tough talk by the idiot Juncker, the EU is not in a position to act tough on Brexit, and Merkel can see that. There will be a fairly amicable agreement, I think, since it is in everybody's best interest, and we should not give any ground on free movement, although we should spend the time on the rest of the world more than the EU, which is stagnant. With that done, I can foresee Denmark and the Netherlands leaving too and joining us, along with Norway and Iceland. The latter two have had to take far too much bullying from the EU for access to that market, but a better alternative can be set up, without the globalist agenda behind it.

The main issue was not economics, of course, but being able to separate ourselves from the suicidal state of the EU (not that we don't have a massive amount to do with our own population, it is astonishing how much feminism, cultural marxism and PC attitudes have become entrenched in the last 30 years). There will be violence and bloodshed on the continent in much greater degree than we are seeing now, with attacks on Paris, on Nice, and even in the last couple of days a guy attacking people with an axe on a German train and a French woman and her three young daughters being knifed at a ski resort by muslims. But with the unwillingness to stop the invasion and unwillingness to stand up for our culture without being called a 'wacist' it will hit the point of civil war. The Visigrad nations are seeing this, it seems, but we will see whether Hungary is able to hold true to their ban on immigration in the face of EU threats.

[–]Ecclesia_Andune0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

See this was almost the cloak and dagger thing that i found so funny about the Brexit vote.

I voted to leave for the reasons you laid out in your second paragraph. Namely, wanting to be as far away from Europe's experiment with cultural marxism, open borders and progressive left lunacy. However you cant really say these things openly as you just get called a 'racist/bigot' etc.

So because the libs had created a culture of fear where noone would speak out, and then spent the last 20 years in their Guardian reading echo chambers, they actually thought everyone thought the same way about foreign policy and europe as they did. So then they thought, well it CAN'T be to do with any of that, it must be an economic thing, but look how GOOD the EU is for us economically?

Wheras 52% of us see that Europes policies are fucking suicide. I'd sign up into a heartbeat to an economical union with europe, but not a cultural one

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I'd sign up into a heartbeat to an economical union with europe, but not a cultural one

A Common Market (but without enforced free movement), yes, me too. There are huge economic troubles in Europe because of the failed Euro experiment (which I foresaw when they announced it back in the late 90s), which means it isn't the golden economic egg that it previously was. The EU thinks we are so stupid that it can stab us in the back and nobody will notice. You might recall when Osborne came back from Brussels with a firm guarantee that we would not be called on to bail out a Euro nation. Less than a year later, when the bailout of Greece happened (more accurately stated as a bailout of the French and German investors, it did nothing for Greece), we found that 860 million sterling of our money was included. When challenged, Donald Tusk said that it was only a 'political agreement' not in a treaty, and therefore not legally binding. You would think they would at least pretend to be honest in the run up to the referendum, but they were so confident that we would be too scared to leave, they didn't bother hiding it, and didn't bother making any meaningful concessions on fixing the problems with the EU either.

But I see this coming century as being a bloody one, a clash of civilizations as Huntington said, and the EU is completely incapable of defending itself in that clash.

[–]Ecclesia_Andune1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Yeah things are certainly looking messy.

The thing people are sleeping on is that not only is Greece on the verge of falling apart again but Italy is in a REALLY bad state and the banks are sitting on so much debt.

If italy goes and greece goes again guess who's going to footing the bill? The thing i find crazy is that France is still in the EU. They're having WEEKLY terrorist attacks there now, their prime minister told them they need to learn to 'live' with terror. It's lunacy.

The thing with greece is tricky too, i understand that they got themselves into the mess they're in, but the rate that Germany is demanding the austerity to go ahead is crazy. They cant even afford to buy enough syringes in their hopsitals, it's awful.

Their threats about how the UK is going to be left out is predicated on their current position of strength. I think if we get out before things start going sour, and maybe a couple of other nations leave i think we'll be in a good place

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Full agreement, Greece and Italy will take the Euro down, and I think it shows how civilized the Greeks are that they haven't descended into total chaos and anarchy. They voted twice to reject the austerity measures that are crippling them, and still got hammered with it to satisfy their creditors. They should have left the Euro and defaulted. Russia and Argentina have both done it, and it wasn't the end of the world for them, but it would have meant primarily German and French investors lost money, so they are still on the hook. As you say, the Greeks got themselves into the mess when they went crazy with public spending after getting access to low interest rates on joining the Euro (which they should never have been allowed to do), but right now we are destroying people's lives. If you are unemployed for so many years in your youth you have no possibility of creating a good life for yourself and you only live once.

The Hungarian president has just said that terrorism follows along in the wake of immigration, which is just common sense, yet people are totally brainwashed and refuse to see it. I was speaking with someone about the latest couple of attacks (German train and French ski resort), and he immediately sought to make excuses. 'Do you know how many people were killed in the Iraq war?' So what? That was years ago, and the people in Nice or Paris were not in Iraq (nor were the attackers), and in Iraq and Afghanistan it is largely muslims killing muslims, as it is around the world. After getting rid of a vile dictator, they had a chance to rebuild a fair and democratic nation, but instead resorted to ongoing sectarian violence, truck bombs in markets, etc. After WWII that did not happen in places like Germany and Japan and Italy, why? Because of culture. That same culture is being imported into the West and nobody in public office is saying, 'no, this is incompatible, you can come when you change your culture'. Instead, when we have a full-scale invasion, the EU decides that they have to let people come in if they want, and instead will just enforce quotas to metastasise the problem. Madness. If the EU was robust in defence of its culture, I would have voted to stay in, strength in unity, but not strength in weakness.

We also need to stop talking about 'net immigration'. There really isn't a big problem if French guys live in the UK or Germany, or Poles live in the UK or Ireland, because their culture is compatible. But all around the world, we are seeing that islamic culture is incompatible with all others (chinese, russian, african, western, everything).

I recommend

[–]Ecclesia_Andune0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The point you make about net immigration vs culture difference is so important. My dad who is hyper liberal is quick to point out that immigrants put more money into the economy than put out, and are less likely to be on benefits than nationals.

He misses the point, it's not an economic thing, i don't have a problem with the poor. Hell, i was fucking poor as hell. But i have a problem with mass influx of a culture that is not in line with western values.

Defaulting for greece would have been risky as hell though because they need to be able to lend money. But you're right, the kind of money they spent on public spending when entering the EU was offered irresponsibly. It's still greece's fault, but we hold lending agencies responsible for lending to vulnerable people, and the same logic should apply to nations.

[–]1nzgs-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nothing changed, same old project fear in the media, and the shaming on social media of anyone who isn't a cuck socialist europhile.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Brexit and now this?ç

Uk is again turning into the great Empire it was.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Just hope this gravy train comes to a stop...for good!

Whores will have to find other ways to extract cash, or simply get a job!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


[–]RupsjeNooitgenoeg0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A step in the good direction, but a LOT more has to change on an international level before I could ever even consider marriage.

[–]Moneyley0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Perhaps things are starting to change? If they adopt this in the U.S. I'm going to go streaking in the streets

Unfortunately, the UK offsetted the gain youve described with this.

[–]1kick60 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Move to Texas. If she has a degree and /or employable alimony.

[–]hardtostarboard20160 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

with mores changed and women now equal, it's very good that the government is expecting more from them

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]bloodfoxtrue0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Has hell frozen over? Maybe there is hope after all

[–]JP1160 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I got divorced 2 years ago. US resident.

My ex-wife's lawyer to told her that she might not get any alimony because she is well educated and makes decent money (she could have been making more but she was working a job that gave her a lot of flexibility to take care of kids, house, etc.).

We agreed on alimony for a few years which I did mainly to be sure my kids could stay in the same house and not have to change schools.

Alimony, overall, is waning as courts recognize that women can and do earn. The days of the stay home mom who hasn't worked in 20 years and has no real skills is over and, accordingly, excessive, lifelong alimony.

[–]Natural_RP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

As a Canadian resident (I know I know) that makes a relatively high income I can say this isn't the case over here.

Guys can't retire or stop working obscene amounts of overtime because they judge or alter their current alimony payments. This country is insane.

Never marry, Never have children.

[–]OneInAZillion0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Is there some sort of psychological damage that occurs when a woman isn't allowed to maintain the same lifestyle as she had when she was married? Why is this even a concept at all?

From the article:

The deal included an annual allowance of £116,000 for handbags and £40,000 for fur coats.

..because if she had to live without those things it'd be such a travesty to her well being..

If a woman marries a rich man and gets to bathe in his lifestyle for x amount of time until they divorce, why is it that she now gets to keep living off his dime? If a woman makes the decision to leave a man, she damn well should also be leaving his financial support. If he gets rid of her, he should be able to have her completely out of her life. Who he fuck cares if she ends up working some shit job because she devoted her time to trying to attract the right man rather than attaining life skills to fend for herself?

I think a very telling thing about women is that most of the time in divorce settlements, women take as much as they possibly can from a man, and rarely reject a lucrative settlement in favor of a lesser one. The greed is off the wall for these bitches and the fact that courts still allow them to get away with it is the real travesty.

By the way, this woman was a Perelli model which means even if she didn't get a dime she'd still live pretty goddamn good anyway, but nah, she wants to take a chunk out of him on her way out..

75 million euros.. divorce settlements are a joke. Congrats on all your hard work to earn that money though babydoll.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Brexit was the start to something beautiful. Good luck and God speed

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It shouldn't even be maintenance for a short period of time - they were already being provided for during the marriage, why should they get a single cent more afterwards? If anyone pays anyone it should be the wife to the husband for the years of accommodation LOL.

Still good to see progress though.

[–]MagmaiKH0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's already law in the US.
In most states spousal support is limited to half the length of marriage with a 5 to 10 year vestment period.

[–]welington10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

An amazing testimony on a man who brought my husband back to me.. My name is Melissa Shears and I’m happily married to a lovely and caring husband, with two kids.A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband. So terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.He said that He never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn’t love me anymore.So he moved out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband. So i explained every thing to her, so she told me that the only way i can get my Husband back is to visit a spell caster, because it has really worked for her too even in winning her court cases. So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.{hamzamalisolutioncenter @ gmail . com }. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn’t call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of Dr Hamza. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { hamzamalisolutioncenter @ gmail . com }, if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back or winning divorce court cases. So thanks to Dr Hamza for bringing back my husband,and brought great joy to my family once again. { hamzamalisolutioncenter @ gmail . com } Thanks…

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


"Divorce lawyers say they have seen a marked increase in cases in which family courts agree maintenance only for a limited period rather than traditional indefinite settlements."


Child Support Laws are a very recent invention and only were installed in the United States in 1950.

The English Law system had long banned any type of child support.

So this is returning to tradition.

Like Brexit it represents "waking up".

I hope they are successful in repairing this horrible male Slavery problem and can be an example to others who desire the adherence to Natural Laws above Blue Pill laws.


You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter