TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

      • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead

      • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Man successfully sued for $50k for "breach of promise to marry"

realniggasstandup
December 7, 2013
146 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Man successfully sued for $50k for "breach of promise to marry"
Author

realniggasstandup
Upvotes 146
Comments 62
Date December 7, 2013 4:16 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1sblsp/man_successfully_sued_for_50k_for_breach_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/man-successfully-sued-for-50k-for-breach-of.232192
https://theredarchive.com/post/232192
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by realniggasstandup

Putin on Clinton: ‘It’s better not to argue with women’

251 upvotes
June 4, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

University offers female students extra credit for not shaving their armpits

208 upvotes
July 4, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

TIL a psychologist in Denmark was suspended by his university for publishing a study that showed men have higher IQ than women, and was later vindicated by the scientific community

189 upvotes
October 22, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Anti-fat shaming crusaders take aim at Michelle Obama, call "The Biggest Loser" an "abusive show," and fat women's inability "to marry, or to marry a higher-earning spouse compared to their similarly qualified thinner peers" discrimination

176 upvotes
December 19, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Ho gets dumped by boyfriend of ~1 year for having too many previous sex partners; hamster seeks comfort from hamsters

170 upvotes
August 26, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Women are fine with sexism as long as it benefits them, scientists reveal

143 upvotes
October 22, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Top feminist group is actually founded and led by a man; he handpicked the "prettiest" girls because he acknowledges sex sells

142 upvotes
September 4, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Australia's new boss: "I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons"

141 upvotes
September 17, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]regtopolous 44 points45 points46 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Right. So women can totes say no to sex any time.

I can respect that.

But apparently men can't say no to marriage at any time.

It sickens me to see that essentially "Marriage Rape" is legal.

TRP is realizing, this is what the status quo and TBP thinks is fair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pvdUtPPlLM

[–]realniggasstandup[S] 54 points55 points56 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Anti marriage movement needs to become anti engagement. Bitches can sue if you don't deliver the commitment.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]drrrrrr 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She made a bad investment. If I choose to buy 100k shares of your "next big thing startup" that is going to conquer Silicon Valley, and you promise me it will, and it crashes and I'm out 100k, then you do not owe me shit. I made a bad decision and a severe error of judgment. Maybe you were a sleazy bastard, but I choose to invest my money in that. You should not be required to subsidize my losses if it turns out that our adventure is a flop.

This women invested her time horribly, yes. It sucks - by all means, it is not good what has happened. But she chose to invest her time that way and it is her fault for doing so - just like if a man spent 10 years on a woman and she was fucking someone else. She got 10 years of getting to stay at home and be provided for - she made that choice to trade her career for that.

[–]ekjohnson9 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Promises to enter legal contracts can be binding in some cases, especially if both parties act in a manner that shows acknowledgement of the contract.

[–]Swifthand5 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

she quit her job and raised their kids for ten years.

Did she raise his kids for 10 years before suing him?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Retsaot35 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get what you're saying, but he did support her for 10 years. She got to live off of his income for 10 years while she stayed home raising children. That's not a bad deal.

I'm kind of uncomfortable with the whole notion of 'missed opportunity'. Even if they had married, I don't think it makes sense to award a woman who willfully leaves the workforce to raise children on the basis of income that she could have earned if she hadn't. The only reason a woman is entitled to some portion of her husband's wealth in the event of divorce is because marriage is, in itself, an arrangement whereby resources are shared in common. A woman isn't entitled to some amount of money because she stayed home instead of working... she's entitled to it because it was technically her property to begin with.

I thought maybe this had something to do with her providing for him and the kids on the assumption that they were going to get married, at which point they would be sharing money in common anyway. In that case, I think the reward would make sense. In this case, she made the decision to stop working, she was provided for, and they were not legally bound to be sharing things in common.

I agree that most people on here are getting angry for the wrong reasons... but it's definitely a controversial ruling. You're basically extending the opportunity for women to claim alimony-like benefits beyond the legal realm of marriage. That's kinda slippery.

[–]Swifthand2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I feel like the payment should have been an up front voluntary agreement between the two. "I'm gonna raise your children, you stay for 10 years and pay 50k. Deal?", "Deal"

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MartialWay 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How come this is not enforced when women promise to stay with you forever in marriage?

Your proposal is permanent, but their commitment is not?

[–]MartialWay 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'll translate this from Feminine Imperative to English -

He admitted to the court he was already cheating on this woman when he asked her to marry him, so she alleged that he was never really serious about marrying her in the first place and the original court agreed.

What does him having sex with other women have to do with anything? It's not relevant in No-Fault divorce, why would it be relevant in a case where he wasn't even commited by marriage yet?

When he proposed, he told her that he wanted her to quit her job to stay home and raise their kids. She agreed and did it for ten years, and then he told her that he wasn't actually going to marry her.

She baby-raped him and extorted all this out of him. What does a man generally do when he decides to have a child? He gets married THEN he has the child. Anytime you hear about situations like this, there is about a 99% chance she baby-raped him in an effort to secure a "shotgun wedding" via the holding his kids hostage and the power of the state.

Also, like a woman can decide to end a marriage at will, a man can decide someone is not marriage material at any time too. Maybe he saw something in her character that led him to believe that she might file a suit for divorce or some other expensive legal measure. Turns out he was 100% correct, and maybe got off cheap.

He sacrificed himself by living with this manipulative scumbag for 10 years, to shepherd his kids through their most vulnerable years, now that he has escaped, she wants more.

She (and the courts) are not willing to accept that men are human beings not beasts of burden and ATM machines.

If you want to commitment of a good man, you should have to EARN IT, not keep on trying to compel it by state thuggery.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Live life a little, you'll start to read the subtext better. Very few stalkers (of either gender) are good people, whether their chosen weapon is the power of the state or simply physically lashing out an escaping partner.

Some women have kids, but others simply take hostages. This is pretty obviously the latter.

[–]salami_inferno 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So she quit her job to raise some kids without marrying the guy? That was a shitty decision on her part. Why is he still forced to pay her when they weren't married and it was her choice?

[–]ekjohnson9 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not an issue if marriage. It's contract law. They're not punishing the dude for not marrying her, they're punishing him for breach on contract, essentially.

[–]ItsYourHandInMine 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If a girl ever tries to push for a proposal, I immediately next her.

[–]icallmyselfmonster 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I have had been proposed to 4 times. Had a few, "I want to carry your children". And none of my relationships were over a year. Proposals are the worst, as you are the arsehole that immediately has to cut things off for your own safety.

[–]ItsYourHandInMine 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Arsehole eh, I've found a fellow Brit on TRP. Are you one of those lads doing well in their thirties, who get a lot of attention from women?

[–]icallmyselfmonster 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Irish, I am in my 30's I look 27 and I am fitter than I was then.

I do get some attention, unfortunately "the crazy" gives me more attention than the level headed ones.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would never accept a proposal from a woman for many reasons.

[–]Cypher211 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So I guess it's now engagement not even once?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]drrtyfrrnr 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It only works when a woman is the plaintiff and the man is the defendant.

[–]pcadrian19 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck is this real?

Kelley's appeal was based on a Georgia Supreme Court precedent stating an unmarried couple living together in a sexual union are part of a "meretricious relationship."

Who is making these stupid rules?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]alpha_beat 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

you are not that wrong.

A man’s promise to marry another is treated as a legally binding contract. When a breach is committed to such promise, an action will lie for damages. An action for breach of a promise to marry is predicated upon the proposition that a defendant has breached an existing valid contract to marry. - See more at: http://breachofpromise.uslegal.com

...

Like any other contract, the primary elements for the creation of a marriage contract are offer and acceptance. When a promisor makes an offer, a promisee can give assent expressly or impliedly. - See more at: http://breachofpromise.uslegal.com/#sthash.WBwVflOJ.dpuf

in this case, he had given her an engagement ring, had a child and they lived 10 years together.

so gents, dont even put a fucking ring on that finger.

[–]_whistler 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And yet I doubt the ruling would have been the same had a man cancelled his engagement to a cheating woman.

[–]drrtyfrrnr 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You betcha it would have been exactly the same. The same happens in divorce courts every day, every hour.

[–]n21190319 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In a marriage contract, one party’s promise is adequate consideration for the other party’s promise. - See more at: http://breachofpromise.uslegal.com/#sthash.WBwVflOJ.vYSu5ELR.dpuf

What the fuck? A promise is adequate consideration now? This is laughable.When people claim that the legal system is stacked against men, it is easy to write it off as a conspiracy. But then you see shit like promise=consideration, and realize that this law effects only men.

[–]icallmyselfmonster 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am sorry, but early Americans are out and out wackadoos, from the puritans to Josphe Smith to Thomas Edison(which I mistakenly looked up to, when I was a kid in Ireland). To all the Protestant and Evangelical branches of crazy. To get yourselves into such a sue happy state.

I seriously cant see this happening in Europe, the only other possible place would be India.

EDIT, I retract all that, we are that kind of stupid too. Common Law marriage can be upheld here too. But usually for different reasons.

[–]we_r_legun1993 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some judge(s) is/are getting his/their dick(s) sucked. Anyone who knows anything about laws understands that judges can do whatever the fuck they want with no form of checks or balances.

[–]KewgdIt 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's some Charles Dickens shit.

See: Bardell v. Pickwick in The Pickwick Papers

[–]∞ Mod | TRP Vanguardbsutansalt 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There was a good comment in the MR thread on this subject:

In general I don't have that much problem with these kinds of rulings... with caveats to follow.

The legal principle of "Breach of Promise" is explained here: (http://breachofpromise.uslegal.com/).

It actually goes either way, although it's been used more often by jilted brides than jilted grooms. The idea behind it is that a person forewent other marriage opportunities because of the broken engagement, suffered heartbreak and embarrassment, and I suppose may have lost money on wedding preparations (even more so if the dowry had already changed hands: BoP has been around a long time and is only valid in a few jurisdictions anymore).

<snip>

Caveat 2: People whose spouses initiate divorce without good reason should be entitled to the same level of compensation - and for the same reasons. Since the vast majority of frivolous divorces are initiated by women, forcing a fleeing spouse to compensate the victim of the breached promise (to stay married) would cause the rate of frivolous divorces to drop to nearly zero. (emphasis mine)

Can you just imagine if wives initiating frivolous divorce had to cough up $50K to their husbands for doing so?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]icallmyselfmonster 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This touched the kid bollix.

You know who touches the kids the most, the women, physical violence. There was an article a while back indicating that women do a lot more physical discipline. And when a man came from a similar environment growing up, he learned that he shouldn't use physically discipline. But if I woman came from the same environment she wouldn't learn and reciprocate/

[–]MartialWay 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In fact, the overwhelming number of custodial child homicides are committed by women.

[–]trudatness 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

In most cases women don't have to prove abuse - all they have to do is say they are afraid. No substantiation is necessary.

It's enough to award women full possession of the marital home and custody of the kids without due process.

It's nothing more than a paperwork formality.

Technically speaking, it's a restraining order. The overwhelming majority of restraining orders granted in divorce cases have nothing to do with any potential for domestic violence. It's all about money.

So yeah. All a woman has to do is say "I'm scared" and any and all legal strategy you may have had goes right out the window. It's all about damage control then. It's not a matter of if you are going to get fucked - it's how hard.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]trudatness 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to say...

"You marry the wrong woman... You're going to have a bad time."

Come to find out that more of the responsibility of the failure of marriage falls on us men...

Yes, much of the fault lies in the judgments in the women we chose to marry, most definitely, but also in our own blind beta weaknesses to a very large degree.

Our manhood will always be measured in terms of strength - physical, mental & emotional. It's when we allow ourselves to become weak, like passive reeds in the wind, do we become the easy mark for these predatory females.

While I don't believe one can 100% insulate himself from the risks inherent in marriage, it is definitely possible to mitigate those risks with pride and self-discipline.

A woman's nature is to challenge, even the "good" ones do it.

If you allow yourself to be dominated and become passive in a marriage, your wife will eventually convert you into a revenue stream and move on to pursue alpha cock. The state will facilitate the transaction. There will be 100 different contrived legal rationales that will lock you into being the source of your ex-wife's marriage pension.

Especially today... Paradoxically, even though women are more financially independent than ever, they are arguably more prone today to marry for money than in several generations. Why? Because all the risk taken in marriage belongs to the man. Women can marry without any worry about divorce. They can make mistakes. They are assured a financial boon.

This forces us men to have to either really sharpen our game and mitigate the risks, or just not participate in the institution at all.

[–]ANALGAPE 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seven year long engagement? Wow I bet the bitch was getting annoying.

"When are we having the wedding?"

[–]alt30313 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

For $50,000 the dude could have had hookers, steak and a house cleaner.

Seven year long engagement.. Guess the only positive is she lost 7 of her prime SMV years.

[–]JustThrewUp 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

At least he didn't marry her, It would've cost quite a lot more.

[–]alt30313 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bitch will still get him for child support. She won the lottery 3x. 2x form him and 1x off the other chump.

[–]1kulrajiskulraj 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Still had a kid.

[–]Rhodos 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy smoldering shit! C'mon, Ashton, you can come out now... we know we've got punk'd, right? Riiiiiight????!!!

On a serious note, this will happen way more often now. The welfare state is fucking broke, so watch out. These fuckers will make us foot the bill no matter what.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]alt30313 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The reason its news is its unusual. He's not being sued for his half of the nonrefundable expenses for a planned wedding. She got a punitive judgment as a result of GA law. Then again it would have been worse if they lived in a common law marriage state.

[–]n21190319 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is the response that makes the most legal sense. In order to recover damages of that amount, it must be reliance damages. What most likely happened was that she recovered under to principal of promissory estoppel, which means that she relied on his promise, to her detriment. Of course, this principal is an "equitable" one, and is not really traditional contractual breach. You can not get punitive damages for something like that btw. Overall, my official legal position is that this is bullshit. A promise to marry is gratuitous at best, as there is no benefit conferred to either party at the time of the promise. I disagree with this jurisprudence.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That actually sounds.. somewhat reasonable.

[–]pryoslice 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wonder if that's largely payment for money and effort her family spent planning the wedding.

[–]alt30313 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No its for fraud and breach of promise to marry. I could understand if he got sued for his half of the marriage expenses (nonrefundable deposits) but this shit is ridiculous.

[–]iseeyou1312 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He still got off very cheaply.

[–]YumYum_Bottle_of_Rum 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking idiot argued the wrong thing. Should have argued that to continue with the engagement would have been the equivalent of servitude. Since you know, we can't have slavery and shit.

[–]Comicus[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That really sucks for him, but it's gonna suck for her later on when her $50k runs out and she realizes that she's made herself permanently undateable. One would merely have to google her name (which everyone does these days when they're seeing someone new) to find this article, and no self respecting man would dare spend time with a woman who thinks it's OK to do this kind of shit to men who don't meet her expectations. Yes, she won the lottery, but she's also been outed for good.

She will never get married, and she'll likely never have another boyfriend or fiancee either. Ever.

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As PT Barnum always said "There aonther one born every minute".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was on law and order : svu once.

Bitches are stranger than fiction!

[–]stomptttt 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Come on guys. This is straight out of r/mensrights. Please, please keep shit like this out of this sub.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in the ruling."

[–]destraht 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya I'd fucking plan a year in advance for a wedding like I'd keep a corpse around for a year for a funeral. What you do when your sure is you knock her up and then you move that wedding along real quick. She'll be in such a hurry to not lose her honor that she'll be happy as shit with the $3-4k that you spend on the rushed wedding.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter